”“1 ~. 3.»;‘m‘r1‘l'r1‘ ' ' ‘1' "a? 5:5; 1): :‘I+“:'L ‘s ’12“; “.al.) ' P’fi‘v (2-5“? ’- 5 I '0“ .I-‘ ~ “5 V‘ ' . _ ‘dfi‘zfiig ‘3‘ ‘7). 8 ‘ m“ ‘ 5 ”:IIIL' h, In? 4:1.“ ‘.|l‘).' . "r; b . 1“ $ ‘ \t‘l. ‘n u " : “$3.41; 0‘ {‘gfiiu‘f‘m§fiz u 'f\. am an. :1 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A RAT IONALE FOR A DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE presented by Roderic R. Grubb has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph oD a degree in Education 5W Major professor Date may 1 n 1978 0-7 639 © 1978 RODERI C ROCKWELL GRUBB , ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A RATIONALE FOR A DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE By Roderic R. Grubb A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Administration and Higher Education 1978 K” 4" 7 “it- ) '4 ’- w ABSTRACT A RATIONALE FOR A DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE by Roderic R. Grubb Problem The problem is that the chairperson in today's community college simply does not have enough time to get the job done. One possible solution to this predicament is a departmental administra- tive manager--an individual to whom the chairperson delegates specific responsibilities and authority to handle day-to-day opera- tions (e.g., scheduling, budgeting, facilities) of the department. Purpose The researcher's purposes in the study were threefold: (l) to determine if a need for an administrative manager exists; (2) to identify and describe the chairperson functions which could be accomplished by an administrative manager and (3) to delineate the educational and/or experiential requirements for an administra- tive manager. Methodology After an initial literature review and pilot study were completed, questionnaires were sent to 25 deans and 55 chairpersons Roderic R. Grubb at four Michigan community colleges. Eighteen deans (72 percent) and thirty (55 percent) chairpersons responded. Eight (three deans and five chairpersons) of the respondents were interviewed at some length. Findings l. Identification data showed that the responding deans had an average length of service of 7.8 years and 83 percent had been previously employed at their institutions. The chairpersons had an average length of service of 7.4 years, 6.6 years of college educa- tion (nine had doctorates) and 25 of the 30 chairpersons had been previously employed at their institutions, usually as a faculty member. The 2l chairpersons who held faculty status taught an average of 6.9 contact hours per week. 2. The chairpersons' greatest problem was insufficient time to properly accomplish their tasks. 3. Chairpersons felt that 85 percent of their functions could be accomplished by an administrative manager. 4. Sixty percent of the chairpersons felt they were inade- quately supported with staff personnel 5. A department of 23,000 to 25,000 term credit hours per year would be necessary to justify an administrative manager position. 6. Chairpersons who presently have administrative assistants could consider redesignating the position as an administrative manager. 7. The chairperson's willingness to delegate authority in selected areas isthe most subjective consideration when establishing an administrative manager position. Roderic R. Grubb 8. The educational requirements for an administrative manager should include college level courses in administration, personnel, management, education, analysis and financial management. 9. Experiential requirements include such areas as state budgeting and funding, Competency Based Education (CBE), grant proposals, efficiency related skills, and educational law as it relates to collective bargaining, affirmative action and substantive due process. Conclusions There were four major conclusions in the study. T. Chairpersons of large community college departments have a need for an administrative manager. 2. The administrative manager should have full responsibility and formally delegated authority to act in those areas selected by the chairperson. Final review and approval must remain with the chairperson. 3. An administrative manager simultaneously assigned to two or more departments is a possible consideration. 4. Initially hiring a person as an administrative or staff assistant is a suitable means of determining his or her capabilities for the administrative manager position. To All Managers Who Build, Not Only Programs, But People. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author owes a debt of gratitude to many people who have been instrumental in the completion of this dissertation. Among them are: Dr. Samuel Moore, an intellectually brilliant scholar, who was my impetus, editor, chastiser, cheerleader, judge and confessor, but most importantly he was my teacher and friend; Dr. Richard Featherstone, a warm, sensitive man, who provided gentle understanding and guidance throughout; Dr. J. G. Moore, Dr. Harry Pachon, Dr. John Schweitzer and Dr. Howard Hickey, each of whom contributed advice and professional expertise whenever called upon; Dr. David Machtel, who allowed an idea to become a working reality; Mrs. Lee Rowe, Lansing Community College Professional Resource Center, for her assistance in conducting ERIC searches and for much of the source material in this study; Mom and Dad, who have always given generously of their love, sustenance and assurances; And lastly, my wife, Jo Elaine, for her constant support and encouragement, not only in this project but in all endeavors, and my daughters Linda and Lisa for their understanding. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDICES . Chapter I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study . Background for the Study Exploratory Questions . Significance of the Study Potential Generalizability of. the Study. Definition of Terms . Organization of the Study REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Four-year College Chairperson Research . Two-year College Chairperson Research Summary . . . METHODOLOGY . Design . The Population Sample Procedures . . Format of the Questionnaires Rationale for Questions . Dean Survey Chairperson Survey. Analysis of Data Summary ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . Dean's Questionnaire Analysis . Chairperson's Questionnaire Analysis Summaries of Interviews . iv Page vi vii Chapter Page V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEORETICAL REFLECTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS . . . . l22 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l23 Conclusions . . . . . . . . l3l Recommendations for Further. Research . . . . . l32 Reflections and Theoretical Considerations . . . . T32 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l35 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l44 Table 15. l6. T7. 18. 19. 20. LIST OF TABLES Response to Dean/Chairperson Survey for Selected Michigan Community Colleges . Length of Service as Dean Dean's Previous Position . Method Used in Selecting Chairperson (Dean) Deans' Factors for Chairperson Selection Deans' Perceptions of Significant Use of Chairperson's Time . . . . Dean Assessment of Chairperson Support Personnel . Chairperson Educational Attainment Length of Service as Chairperson Chairperson's Previous Position Contact Hours Taught per Week by Chairperson Department Size by Term Credit Hours . Chairpersons' Factors for Chairperson Selection Chairpersons' Perceptions of Significant Use of Chairperson's Time . . . . . . Comparison of Chairpersons' and Deans' of Significant Use of Chairperson's Time Perceptions . . . Chairpersons' Willingness to Delegate Responsibilities . Chairpersons' Willingness to Delegate Authority Administrative Support to the Chairperson Chairperson's Needs Assessment . Chairperson's Problems and Obstacles . vi Page 67 68 69 7O 72 74 77 7B 79 80 80 BI 83 85 90 94 97 98 100 104 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Cover Letter from President Gannon . . . . . . . 145 B. Cover Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 C. Chairperson Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . l49 0. Dean Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l58 E. Interview Schedule for Selected Deans and Chairpersons. T63 F. State of Michigan Public Act 97, August 4, 1977 . . . l68 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM Statement of the Problem Simply stated, the problem is that the departmental chair- person in today's community college or university is often over- loaded to the point that many of the educational tasks of the department are either half completed or left untouched. Can a departmental administrative manager alleviate the predicament of the chairperson? If the answer is "yes," by what means? If the reply is “no," for what reasons? Purpose of the Study The author's purpose in this study is threefold: (l) determine if a need for an administrator to act as a departmental manager exists; (2) identify and describe the salient functions of the chairperson which might be more suitably handled by an adminis- trative manager; and (3) delineate the educational and/or experi- ential requirements for an administrative manager for: l. those persons entering at some level of post-secondary education, and 2. those persons presently serving in a similar administra- tive capacity (e.g., staff assistant or assistant to the chairperson). Background for the Study The chairperson can be described as having a difficult and ambiguous role. There is general agreement in the available litera- ture that the chairperson must operate both as a leader and as an administrator. Some have concluded that the chairperson is simply expected to be all things to all people with whom one comes in con- tact. The former editor-at-large of Change magazine, James Brann, states: The departmental chairperson is caught between students who want a relevant education and sense they are being short- changed, faculty who believe he should provide them with ever-increasing salaries, decreasing work-loads and such benefits as secretaries, space, books, and travel funds and above him is a dean and central administration who want every penny pinched and accounted for and who produce a myriad of rules and regulations which limit the chairman's flexibility and options.1 Depending on the viewpoint, the chairperson is described as an administrator, a leader, a teacher, an administrator-teacher, "the foreman in higher education--the person who sees that the work 2 gets done," “the fulcrum or lever operated from both ends: an academic administrator, manager, coordinator, but at the same time, 3 "the man-in-the-middle and at the same a sort of head teacher," time the man on the firing line,"4 or "an unusually knowledgeable doer with an abundance of energy."5 Less complimentary descriptions include such terms as "housekeeper," "hatchet-man," and one self- pitying chairperson described himself (while observing his faculty having time to teach and publish as he took on the "odious and unrewarding" management tasks) as an "Oriental bodhisattva"--an enlightened one who postpones his entry into heaven in order to help others reach enlightenment.6 At the onset, then, it would appear that the chairperson often undertakes a monumental task. Further research concerning the role and responsibilities of a community college chairperson reveals just how numerous are the responsibilities. John Lombardi7 reviewed research studies on the duties a chairperson performs or should perform and observed that the lists were seldom from specific job descriptions but derived from collective bargaining agreements, questionnaires, faculty handbooks and other documents. One such attempt detailed 85 items8 while the duty state- ment of a chairperson at Harrisburg (PA) Community College contains 69 discrete items under four broad headings.9 One of the more widely accepted inventories is the questionnaire prepared by Anthony10 which contains Sl selections under five titles. Duties of the Department Chairman A. General Administration: l. Coordinating departmental programs with the objectives of the college 2. Preparing teaching schedules 3. Conducting departmental functions 4. Coordinating departmental functions 5. Acting as liaison between the faculty and the administration 6. Allocating faculty office space 7. Selecting and evaluating instructional equipment and supplies 8. Supervising the care and storage of equipment 9. Preparing the departmental budget l0. Developing college publications relating to departmental programs ll. Developing examination schedules l2. Selecting and supervising secretarial and clerical staff l3. Planning for improved facilities. B. Curriculum & Instruction: 1. Developing appropriate curricula 2. Developing program objectives 3. Developing course outlines 4. Conducting programs of educational research 5. Selecting and evaluating texts and teaching materials 6. Evaluating the effectiveness of the educational programs 7. Evaluating instructional aids and resources 8. Encouraging curricula [sic] and instructional experimentation 9. Developing articulation guidelines with senior institutions l0. Developing articulation guidelines with high schools C. Teacher Improvement: 1. Identifying prospective faculty needs 2. Recruiting and interviewing prospective faculty members . 3. Recommending faculty for appointment 4. Orienting new faculty to the college program 5. Supervising and guiding faculty 6. Evaluating faculty members 7. Recommending faculty for promotion and tenure 8. Promoting faculty relations and morale 9. Assisting faculty with teaching problems 10. Encouraging professional growth of staff ll. Visiting classes and observing teaching practices 0. Student Relations: l. Establishing criteria and policies for student standards 2. Evaluating previous training of students 3. Selecting and classifying students according to ability 4. Enforcing student regulations 5. Placing students in employment 6. Counseling and advising students on programs 7. Conducting follow-up studies of students 8. Orienting new students to the program 9. Promoting student morale l0. Organizing and directing co-curricular activities E. Community Relations: Developing program advisory committees Organizing cooperative work experience programs Making public appearances before service clubs, etc. Providing advisory services to the community Working with community groups to develop specific programs Arranging for student and faculty visits to community institutions 7. Serving on community improvement committees. 05 0'14:de According to Lombardi, an excellent case can be made to show that a chairperson "has a relationship to the department comparable to that of the president to the college."H The departmental unit is a microcosm of the college even though it is a "college" with a specialized function. The parallel between the president and the chairperson extends beyond responsibilities to the selection of a person to fill the position. Numerous studies and articles on the selection of chair- persons (Doyle, 1953; Woodburne, l958; Cromdall, l96l; Bowler, l962; Richardson, 1967; Englund, 1967; Mobley, l97l; Freligh, l973; and Ehrle, l975) point out that the chairperson, regardless whether selected by central administration, the faculty, or any combination of the two, is generally chosen on the basis of academic excellence and demonstrated leadership. Unfortunately, the newly hired leader- scholar is often drowned in a sea of unfamiliar administrative tasks. In l953, Doyle pointed out that chairpersons spend 50 percent of their time teaching and performing administrative duties.12 Twenty-one years later, in a dissertation designed as an orientation package for new community college chairpersons, Harding includes the observation that seventy-five percent of 64 chairmen representing 52 departments considered the budget and class scheduling as their most 13 In a needs assessment survey of l4 complicated responsibilities. l098 community college chairpersons conducted in l977, half of the chairpersons indicated a medium to high rate of need in such administrative areas as budgeting (58 percent), Planning-Programming- Budgeting Systems (60 percent), educational law (65 percent), Management Information Systems (51 percent), strategies for change (64 percent), goal setting (59 percent), grant and proposal writing (6l percent) and long range planning (65 percent). Sixty-four percent reported that they work over 45 hours per week and 55 percent spend more than an hour a night at home on departmental work. The researcher's first major assumption in this study was that chairpersons and especially those operating in the ever-changing flexible environment of the community college, must fulfill the departmental leadership role with its attending functions of teaching, short and long range planning, curriculum development and evaluation, faculty and staff hiring and motivation, goal setting and community involvement. The second assumption was that the day-to-day operation of the department in accordance with institutional and departmental policy and guidelines might better be handled by a person thoroughly trained in administrative practices. Both must be knowledgeable in their activities. Moore, in his article "Leaders Are Leavers," summarizes the thesis in this manner: Obviously the good administrator must be as much a gnostic as the good leader. However the domains of the wisdom vary. The administrator, in dealing with the here and now of the institution, must be astute at effecting the best collage of data suggesting priority and direction. The descrip- tive data developed by the administrator provide the reference points for the leader as he attempts to predict trends and visualize what the future holds. The leader uses data as might an historiographer--his real world is the future. There are obvious points of overlap in concerns and operational methods of the leader and the administrator; for example, each of them uses the tools of logic and probability. Yet these men must of necessity be quite different. If each is to be effective at his tasks, each must be differently motivated. To suggest that they might be the same man (a schi20phrenic of sorts with a 200 percent load) in today's complex institution of higher learning is to predict a makeshift accommodation in which the man and the institution will both be forced to undergo great suffering.15 Based on the available literature16 the average departmental chairperson is often lacking in training, experience and motivation for the role as an administrator. This information should not be particularly surprising because the chairperson is generally a reputable scholar or expert in a particular professional field and not experienced in administration. There is even some evidence17 which indicates that formaltraining for administration is the surest way get to become an effective departmental chairperson because the faculty (in all but managerial or administratively oriented depart- ments such as Business) will not accept him as the leader because he is not and never was "one of them." Moore points out another reason why departments do not favor administrators as chairpersons. "Placing an administrator at the top of the hierarchical order implies that the first priority is with the status quo and that only after this has been coped with can the luxury be afforded of planning for the future."18 In summary, then, the departmental chairperson has a leader- ship role and an administrative role. Seldom, especially in large departments (see Definition of Terms), does one person have the formal training, motivation or the time to successfully fulfill both roles. The problem then becomes one of determining specific functions in which the chairperson is most effective (and for which he or she usually was hired) and those which could be efficiently handled by a departmental manager in a support role. To expand on this proposition some exploratory questions are in order. Exploratory Questions As is indicated in the title, the author of this research study was solution oriented. This is not to suggest that an adminis- trative manager is the only solution or even the best solution to the administrative problems faced by many community college chairpersons. Especially for smaller departments, a knowledgeable department secretary or a thorough orientation program, such as the one designed by Harding in l972,19 may well be an answer. The first step then was to determine whether there was a need for such a manager. One indi- cation might be the fact that one or more staff assistants were presently assigned to the department. If a need existed, then those duties which departmental chairpersons viewed as important, but of a routine operational nature, were delineated. When these duties were determined, then the key matter of training, education and experience became the focal point of further investigation. In order to meet these requirements, the author proposed the following exploratory questions to guide the research. l. What is the basis of selection of the chairperson? Caretaker? Innovator? Leader? Administrator? 2. What is the departmental size in terms of credit hours, faculty and staff? 3. Which chairperson's functions might be satisfactorily handled by a person thoroughly educated and trained in management and administration? 4. What specific educational training would such an adminis- trative person require? 5. What in-service education and training would an in- place staff assistant need? Significance of the Study The concept of a departmental manager is a relatively new idea for educational institutions. As opposed to other supporting positions such as "staff assistant" or "assistant to the chair- person," the administrative manager not only has the eventual responsibility to but the authority from the chairperson to make decisions, direct and take other actions in those areas so delegated. A manager must have authority because his major responsibility is to manage. ”Authority goes hand in hand with responsibility; there can never be one without the other if effective action is to result."20 This does not mean that the chairperson relinquishes all control in these specified functions, only that the administrative manager acts for the chairperson and has the authority in advance, to do so. .'. ..._.__m.r.__._.—..~— - — .- - TO The military profession, which has long differentiated between command and staff, uses administrative positions as an opera- tions function. Most medical schools have similarly established non- medical professional administrators to run the day-to-day operations and free the medical professional to fulfill the role for which he or she was educated. This concept is carried over into the "real world" of hospitals. As related to an educational department, the position is displayed as follows: Departmental Chairperson [Administrative Manager] I Program Directors/Faculty/Staff/Support Personnel rather than the more common:21 Departmental Chairperson [Administrative Manager] Program Directors/Faculty/Staff/Support Personnel The significance here is that many chairpersons might be adverse to delegating authority to someone who just "happens to know the workings of the department," but might be less likely to be apprehensive about a person who had been thoroughly trained in ll specific functions. In short, a professional tends to trust another professional more than an amateur.22 In addition to showing that an administrative manager can alleviate many problems for the in-place chairperson, the author expected to find that selected faculty members or other persons will be more willing to accept open chairpersonships if they know that they will not have extensive administrative responsibilities. One faculty member expressed it in this manner, "The first degradation" of a creative scholar "is to become a department chairman" and "his ultimate degradation is to become a dean."23 In a recent study which profiled departmental chairpersons,24 over half of the community college chairpersons were indefinite about how long they plan to stay in the job and among those who did have plans, the majority (63 percent) plan on no more than a four year stay. The major reason given for this indefinite or short-range future is "paperwork" and overtime necessitated by the administrative load. There is a paucity of literature and research regarding the departmental chairman and his role.25 This scarcity of information becomes a near famine when considering departmental assistance for the chairperson. Most of the material consists of reflections of current or former chairpersons or pleas by observers (Freligh, 1973)26 to give more than lip service to the importance of the chair- 27 person's position. Pierce, in l970, suggested that many chair- persons felt that lack of time and support services are major l2 obstacles to role fulfillment. At present, however, there appears to be an almost complete lack of solutions to this problem. While the significance of this researcher's study is to provide additional data regarding the community college chairperson's position and one possible answer to a perplexing predicament, the over-riding importance might be to develop quality instruction, maintain communication and significantly advance the mission of the department and the institution. Potential Generalizability of the Study Data for this study were gathered from a population group composed of four of the largest of Michigan's public, state supported community colleges. The primary data are the opinions of persons associated only with these community colleges. Therefore, it is not claimed that this research represents information obtained from a broad cross section of community colleges. Nevertheless, the data and conclusions may be relevant to other community colleges and to four-year institutions. The problem of overloading the departmental chairperson is not unique to any particular geographical area or institution. Lastly, chairpersons of non-academically oriented departments may wish to make use of the principle,if not the particulars. Definition of Terms The following terms are important to the researcher's intended meaning in the study and the following definitions were adapted: 13 Administrative Manager. The first administrative functionary below the level of the departmental chairperson in the operational line (see p. 14). The chairperson delegates responsibility and authority in selected administrative areas to this person. Specific functions are determined by the chairperson but would usually include such day-to-day operations as class and classroom scheduling, budget- ing, facilities, student problems, using various information systems and preparing taxonomy reports (see Taxonomy, page 14). Dean. The administrative head of a division. Department. The smallest academic subdivision within the community college through which instruction is given in a branch of knowledge, learning or study. Most departments are members of a division. Throughout this study the term lg:ge_departments will be used. This modifier specifically refers to departments which have annual enrollments of over 20,000 term credit hours or 5000 student headcount or l290 full time equated students. Departmental Chairperson-—or, Chairperson. The chief administrative officer of a department. "Chairperson" will include titles such as "chairman," "head," "assistant dean," "academic director," "division director," or other titles used for the chief administrative officer of a department. When an individual is not designated by his or her institution as "chairperson" or sources in the literature use designations other than “chairperson,“ the appropriate title was used. 14 Division. Two or more departments combined under an administrative head, a dean. Operational Line. That portion of an organizational pyramid depicting persons in positions who have responsibilities and authority to those in inferior positions. On an organization chart, this relationship is generally shown by a vertical solid line connecting superior to inferior positions. Staff Assistant. An administrative support person directly responsible to the chairperson who serves in a staff or advisory position (see Staff Line, below) as opposed to the operational line. Responsibilities of the position will vary with the chairperson and are usually on an "as needed" basis while authority is of an assumed or temporary nature. "Staff assistant" will include such titles as "assistant to chairperson," "administrative assistant" and "depart- mental assistant." Staff Line. That portion of an organizational pyramid depicting persons in positions who have responsibilities to those in superior positions, but little or no direct responsibility or authority to those in inferior positions. On an organizational chart this relationship is generally shown by a vertical solid line connecting the superior to the staff position only. Taxonomy. As used in the State of Michigan, a taxonomy is a listing of each course offered by a community college and the State supported funding level (none, general education, vocational- 15 technical and health) approved by the State legislature. Since a single community college may offer several hundred courses and the funding level for each may be appealed, the taxonomy can become a complicated process. State of Michigan Public Act Number 97 of l977 provides details (see Appendix F). Organization of the Study The dissertation has been organized in five chapters. In Chapter I, the author provides the purpose of the research and back- ground of the problem, discusses its significance and methodology and defines terms important to the meaning of the study. Chapter II is a review of the professional and research literature relating to chairperson administration in four-year and two-year post-secondary institutions. Chapter III is an examination of the procedures and methodology used in the research. Chapter IV is an analysis of the data and presentation of findings. Chapter V is a summary of find- ings, conclusions and recommendations for education and training of administrative managers at various stages of professional growth. In this chapter, the author also provides recommendations for further research. CHAPTER I: FOOTNOTES 1James Brann and Thomas A. Emmet, eds., The Academic Depart- ment or Division Chairman: A Complex Role (Detroit: Balamp Publishing, 1972), p. 6. 2 3David Underwood, "The Chairman as Academic Planner," in The Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex Role (Detroit: Balamp Publishing,7l972), p. l56. 4Stanley J. Ahmann, "The Emerging Role of the Departmental Chairman: Be an Administrative Activist," paper read at WICHE Departmental Chairman Program, Colorado State University, April ll, I969, p. l0. (Mimeographed.) 5w. Priest, "The Division Chairman in the Multi-Campus Community College," in Role of the Department/Division Chairperson in the Community College, edl John R. Grable (HuntsvilTe, Texas: Sam Houston State University, 1973), p. l8. 6Frank B. Dilley, "The Department Chairman as Academic Planner," in The Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex Role (Detroit: BaTamp Publishing, 1972), p. 28. 7John Lombardi, The Duties and Responsibilities of the Department/Division Chairman in Communitinolleges, Topical Paper No. 39 (Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for JunTOr College Information, l974), pp. 2-5. 8David I. Satlow, "Profile of a Successful Department Head," Business Education World 48 (April, I963): l4-16. 9 _ 10John Anthony, "Study on Departmental Chairmen in Public Conmunity Colleges'I (Glen Ellyn, Illinois: College of Dupage, l972). (Mimeographed.) nLombardi, Duties and Responsibilities of Community_College Chairmen, p. 5. Ibid., p. 5. Brann and Emmet, A Complex Role. pp. l73-l78. l6 17 12Edward A. Doyle, The Status and Functions of the Depart- mental Chairman: A Study of the Status and Function of the Depart- mental Chairman in Thirty-three Selected Colleges under Private Aus ices (washington, D.C.z Catholic university of AmeFica, 1953), p. 24. 13Louis Thomas Harding, "An Administrative Instructional Package for New Departmental Chairmen in Community Colleges" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1972), p. 118. 14American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, "The Departmental Chairperson: A Neglected Species," paper discussed at AACJC meeting in Denver, Colorado, April 20, 1977, pp. 3-4. 15Samuel A. Moore II, "Leaders Are Leavers," The Journal of General Education, 20 (January 1969): 293. 16 Brann and Emmet, A Complex Role, pp. 5-6. 17Moore, "Leaders Are Leavers," p. 292. 18Ibid.. p. 294. 19Harding, "Administrative Instructional Package." 20Rohrer, Hibler and Replogle (staff office), Managers for Tomorrow (New York: The New American Library, 1965), p.7T42T 2IHarold Koontz and Cyril O'Donnell, Principles of Management: An Analysis of Managerial Functions (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968), pp. 299-301. 22Andrew J. Dubrin, Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior (New York: Pergamon Press, 19747, pp. 450-452. 23Robert B. MacLeod, "Confession of an Ex-chairman," American Association of University Professors Bulletin, 40 (Autumn, 1954): 427. 24American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, "The Department/Division Chairman: A Neglected Species," paper discussed at AACJC meeting in Denver, Colorado, April 20, 1977, pp. 6-7. (Mimeographed.) 25Terry H. Smith Wallace, "The Division/Department Chair- person in the Community College: An Annotated Bibliography" (Fayetteville, Arkansas: The University of Arkansas, 1976), p. iii. (Mimeographed.) 18 26Edith A. Freligh, "An Investigation of the Qualifications, Methods of Selection, and Terms of Office of Department and Division Chairmen in Selected Public Two Year Colleges in the United States" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1973). 27H. B. Pierce, "The Role of the Science Division Heads in Regionally Accredited Junior Colleges in the United States" (Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Mississippi, 1970). CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE As indicated in Chapter I, the departmental chairperson occupies a pivotal role in the administrative processes of post- secondary institutions. The chairperson stands on the sensitive ground between an educational system that is under constant pressure for efficient management and a learning environment consisting of persons searching for meaning and truth who desire great flexibility and freedom. Unfortunately much of the literature concerning this position appears to be lacking in theory.1 On the other hand, organizational doctrines have formally existed during much of this century and in the last decade have been linked to academic institu- tions. The writings of such organizational theorists as Fayol, Weber, Urwick, Barnard and Simon2 are joined to the post-secondary literature by researchers like Stroup (1966), Parsons and Platt (1973), Blau (1973) and Cohen and March (1974)3 according to Anderson.4 The point here is that these researchers have illuminated colleges and univer- sities as complex organizations. If a college is basically bureau- cratic, issues will be resolved in one form, but if collegial and oligarcical structures predominate, problems will be handled in quite different ways.5 19 20 While the structure of the institution may be dictated by the college, the heart of the institution is still the department. The department is the "refuge and support of the professor (which) provides his working space: an office, a classroom or seminar or a well equipped laboratory. The department also sanctions his course or seminar, and may provide financial support for his research and 6 In addition, departments are generally his doctoral candidates." the smallest academic units to have budgets and spend between 70 and 80 percent of the total college funds.7 From the students' viewpoint, the department is the smallest unit to offer a concentrated course of study and serves as the critical link between the student and the college or university--"a gatekeeper" for academic programs and evaluations through which the student must pass in order to obtain college or university approval.8 At the head of the department is the chairperson. In general, his or her role has received relatively little attention in the total administrative literature of higher education, especially if one excludes doctoral dissertations which are not generally available in the literature.9 It appears that the subject of departmental chair- persons has slowly surfaced within the past few years and coincides with the growth of community colleges during the late 1960's.10 It is still true that much of the literature concerning community college chairpersons is derived from research concerning four-year colleges and universities and it is with these institutions that the literature review will begin. 21 Four-year College Chairperson Research The role and power of the departmental chairperson first received systematic and extensive investigation in the work done by Doylen in 1953. In his examination of 33 small private colleges, Doyle concluded that chairpersons were selected on the basis of (1) previous teaching experience, (2) teaching ability, and (3) administrative talent and that the chairpersons spent little time in supervising professors.12 Specifically, the breakdown of the chair- person's workload was (1) 50 percent teaching and performing admin- istrative duties, (2) 30 percent working in guidance functions and sponsoring student activities, and (3) 20 percent attending confer- ences and faculty and other meetings.13 Five years later, Woodburne wrote that the chairperson, besides being the key to the department's primary mission of teaching and research, is the basic administrative component of college policy formation. He stated, "Probably 80% of all administrative decisions take place at the departmental level rather than at higher levels of responsibility and policy formulation."14 During this same 15 studied power and the interpersonal relation- time period, McKenna ship between the departmental chairperson and the professors and, among other findings, indicated that chairpersons in larger institu- tions preferred less power for planning, organizing and directing than those in smaller institutions. Writing in 1960, Corson, in comments based largely on Doyle's study, related that chairpersons do have "a decisive influence on budgeting, staffing, planning, reporting (and) that 69 percent of the 22 departmental chairmen participated in budget formulation and in the selection, promotion and retention of staff members."16 He further stated that the departmental head "remains basically a teacher in function and loyalty"17 and questioned to what degree departmental chairpersons discharge their administrative responsibilities. Corson wrote: To what degree is institutional leadership limited by the lack of commitment on the part of chairmen to the institu- tion's administrative officers, i.e., the dean and the president? If a chairman's part-time service prevents his effective discharge of administrative tasks, would it be feasible to merge, at least for administrative purposes, two or more related departments? 0r might it be desirable, in large departments in large universities, to provide the chairmen with an administrative officer-~not a man trained in the particular discipline, but one who is experienced in administration--to handle all administrative tasks?l8 Two years later, in 1962, Dodds19 examined the chairperson's role and indicated that the chairperson is the chief long-term planner for the department and the one responsible for setting standards and correcting deficiencies. Burns20 noted that faculty members, with the increasing knowledge specialization, tend to tie themselves more closely with disciplines and, hence, with academic departments. Departments and their budgets were becoming so large that enormous power resides in them and, consequently, in the chair- persons. All too often this power was used to resist innovation and change. Millett2] saw the chairperson as a diSpute settler and peacemaker within the department and the primary link and goodwill ambassador to other departments and the college. A year later, Haas and Collen22 suggested that as departments get larger more procedures become formalized--the first being hiring 23 and evaluation practices. Rarner,23 in an in-depth analysis at The Ohio State University, interviewed 41 key University personnel including faculty, chairpersons, deans, the president and cabinet officers concerning the role of the departmental chairpersons. In addition to profiling some of the "best" chairpersons, Ramer compiled a list of criticisms of the chairpersons. In Ramer's opinion many of the comments--not giving enough attention to departmental planning and long-range development, not communicating between deans and faculty, lack of contact with students, not providing supervision or assistance in professional development--were made because the chair- persons did not understand their roles and put forth little effort in finding out what their roles should be. In 1967, Davidson24 conducted a study of the ten colleges of the State University of New York. He concluded that the chairpersons role had become increasingly administrative (77 percent of total time) rather than instructional. Englund25 recommended selection of chairpersons be more formalized and exhaustive and that complete individualized orientation programs be tailored for new chairpersons. In addition, Englund suggested that in-service programs for chair- persons be expanded and that increased human and material resources be committed to orientation and in-service programs. Hill and French,26 reporting on perceived power by chairpersons, found that the faculty felt that the chairperson's power was less than either faculty or administrative groups but that perceived power varied greatly between chairpersons. Where faculty reported relatively greater power for a chairperson, the satisfaction and the productivity 24 of the faculty were also relatively higher. Heimler27 detailed 16 specific chairperson functions (including such items as writing student recommendations for employment and graduate school and reviewing and approving student petitions) and noted that chair- persons spend only one-fifth of their time managing their departments and that little research had been done concening the chairperson's place in management and administration. A year later, McKeachie described the chairperson as "a teacher who shapes the educational environment of his faculty."28 The chairperson is, first and foremost, a scholar and should combine teaching and research to transfer reasonableness to the academic 29 Like Heimler, affairs in order to be an effective chairperson. McKeachie felt that new departmental chairpersons were ill-prepared and inadequately supported and that there was a need for extensive research of the chairperson's role.3O Barzun, in his anecdotal book on the American university (Columbia University) reflects that "a chairmanship is usually accepted with genuine reluctance; it is the epitome of a thankless task; no emoluments and no glory go with it."31 The chairman has had to enlist the aid of an associate chairman, to stay at home and deal with daily problems. They "may be re-elected indefinitely, but soon cry mercy and are let off."32 Barzun goes on to state that the strong connecting rod of continuity is the administrative assistant (usually a woman) who knows all the routines between the university and the department and can prepare the reports, forestall and fulfill information requests and act as intermediary between the department and the services of the university. He 25 concluded his remarks on this subject by writing: Unfortunately, chairmen do not always know how to pick this all-important aide. Ability, devotion, and initiative are well-distributed among administrative assistants but . . . the ambidextrous nature of the position makes it a diffi- cult one to hold and to fill [because] it is not a stepping stone to anything higher than itself.33 The following year Schroeder34 arrived at Davidson's earlier conclusion that the chairperson's role was becoming more administrative and that the trend would continue. He also showed that 68 percent of the interviewed deans and 62 percent of the chairpersons felt that chairpersons should have administrative training. Likewise, Matthews,35 stated that chairpersons in large universities (as well as in community colleges) are teachers whose time is increasingly being taken by administrative matters. With the beginning of a new decade in 1970, the first major comprehensive study of departments was written by Dressel, Johnson and Marcus.36 Entitled The Confidence Crisis: An Analysis of University Departments and supported by an ESSO Foundation grant, the researchers employed consultants and a research staff to gather information about departments from 15 large universities (some of the participants were the University of Arizona, Louisiana State Univer- sity, University of Notre Dame, Pennsylvania State University and University of Southern California, Los Angeles). The researchers spent four or five days on each campus and attempted to compare the same departments in each university. They viewed departments as com- plex social organizations and particular attention was paid to "communication and decision making patterns in departments rather 26 than focusing on the chairmen."37 In addition to specific depart- mental information (organization, records, priorities) the consultants gathered information on (1) the quality of the department, (2) the chairperson and his/her style of operation, and (3) the character of the relationships between the department and the rest of the university.38 Concerning the chairpersons, the authors concluded that regardless of style of operation, "a department would suffer from 39 These researchers a chairman who exercised little leadership.“ offered a detailed analysis of faculty reactions and concerns, examples of management techniques used by various departments and a look at what the authors felt is the future of departments. Judging by the number of articles and books on departments written since 1970 which use The Confidence Crisis as a source document, it is one of the most cited studies to date. During this same year, Novick4O pointed out that because of the increasing complexity of university administration, many admini- strative decisions which were formally made at higher levels were now being made at the departmental level. In questionnaire responses, university administrators, the chairpersons themselves and the faculty all rated administrative ability and previous administrative experience as highly important chairperson selection criteria. The faculty rated teaching ability and research equally as high, but the other two categories rated these last two criteria much lower. 4' edited a book in 1972 in which was com- Brann and Emmet piled many of the writings, talks and speeches of authors, who participated in a series of institutional seminars sponsored by the 27 Higher Education Executive Associates during the years 1968-1970. Many of the writings (McKeachie, Mahoney and Heimler, for example) appear elsewhere, but the book does provide many insights to the chairperson's role. Although concentrating on the university chair- person, a generous amount of space is devoted to the community college chairperson. In one article entitled "The Department Chair- man as Academic Planner," Dilley42 promoted the role of the chair- person as an academic leader upon whom the "mantle of leadership has 43 but who all too often has "neither the vision of leader- 44 descended" ship nor its tools." Dilley savl the chairperson's role as having shifted from "a subject matter specialist to [a] new status as developer of departmental programs and co-partners with other departments in shaping the educational missions of the college and university."45 Ahmann46 felt that the chairperson is "entrusted with an all encompassing responsibility for displaying educational leadership."47 Mahoney48 carried the thesis one step further when he stated: The chairmen are a ring of faculty power. Knowing what they are about, they are the conscience of a school. They are also its blood, its bones, its vitality. Informed, united with their departmental faculties, they are inseparable. Uninformed, fearful and "systems men," they are tools.49 Wyrick50 reported that professors and other faculty were much more satisfied with strong rather than weak leadership in the depart- ment. Dressel,5] in the sequel to The Confidence Crisis, focused on increased control over university resources. One point stressed in this book was that ineffective management by departments has denied 28 human concerns--personal and intellectual welfare--of departmental members.52 Due to this ineffective management, universities are justified in imposing departmental constraints as long as the students are well served.53 Montgomery,54 writing in 1974, investigated the role of the department chairperson by analysing the responses to a 74-item questionnaire which had been completed by 1,198 chairpersons repre- senting 32 state universities. The chairmen responded that they spent approximately half their time teaching, advising students and researching (expressing frustration at the lack of time for research- ing) and the remainder of their time in a leadership role (selecting and motivating faculty and program development) and an administrative one (maintaining records, budgeting and managing the staff). Montgomery recommended more autonomy and resources for the chair- person, a greater amount of administrative assistance and more technical management knowledge regarding the administrative role. Engel,55 in an article light in tone ("the chairman of an academic department must not, except at a convention 2,000 miles from home, say that he leads"56), wrote seriously about the leadership role of the chairperson. He suggested that leadership is what being a depart- mental chairperson is all about and since the chairperson often lacks support from the deans and the administration he must become adept at persuasive communication and interpersonal relationships. In 1975, Waltzer,57 Chairperson of the Political Science Department of Miami University (Ohio) had a report originally pre- pared for the University vice-president published as an "occasional 29 paper." The paper in part, profiles the department chairperson and reports that out of 93 responses to a question concerning the major chairperson dissatisfaction, 45 listed "administrative overload," 31 listed poor relations with higher administration levels, while only 17 listed poor internal relations in the department.58 In addition, when asked the question, "What would lead you to resign abruptly in mid-term?" over one-third (26 out of 72) responded "Administrative relations."59 In the year 1976, two excellent departmental research reports were produced, both sponsored by the Association for Institutional Research and published in the quarterly New Directions for Institu- 6O tional Research. The first, "Examining Departmental Management," is a collection of essays written by practitioners in post-secondary educational administration who are also theorists in the field. The purpose of the issue is to provide "essential knowledge of the under- lying bases of departmental diversity and . . . help to explain why [departments] respond to contemporary issues the way they do."61 G. Lester Anderson discusses internal structures, operations and decision making processes in disciplinary departments, professional school departments and centers and institutes. Marvin W. Peterson reviews the literature on academic departments and chairpersons and includes an excellent reference section with the essay. John C. Smart and Charles F. Elton test the validity of Biglan's model of academic departments. F. Craig Johnson discusses how institutional research can provide the types of information needed by chairpersons. Gerald W. McLaughlin and James R. Montgomery reveal the factors which 3O enhance job satisfaction for chairpersons. Concluding the issue is an article by Walter C. Hobbs on the legal implications of affirmative action, collective bargaining and due process. This particular issue, in the author's opinion, probably represents the most current and complete information on four-year university/college departments presently available. 62 The second report, "Allocating Resources Among Departments," is the third work (The Confidence Crisis and Return to Responsibility being the first two) co-authored by Dressel and concerns budgets and the organization of power within colleges and universities so that they may better serve the needs of society. The authors deal with several distinct patterns of budgeting and then review efforts to combine departments for the purpose of budgetary review and modification. Finally, annual review and evaluation procedures are presented. Much of what is presented may not be gladly accepted by departments, but may well be realistic in times of decreased enrollments and tightening budgets. writing in 1977, Aatish63 concluded that the "department chairpersons role . . . in large universities is increasingly becoming administrative. He does some teaching and a little research."64 McHenry and Associates65 discussed departments as they now exist, some of their uses and abuses, and concluded that their shortcomings are many. The authors then presented alternatives to departments which were presently being utilized at the University of Wisconsin--Green Bay, University of California--Santa Cruz, Hampshire College and Evergreen State. The authors suggest that sweeping 31 reform of the departmental system may not be needed as long as small changes can be made to open the door for broader reform.66 The literature review from four-year colleges and universities would seem to indicate that the chairperson's position has evolved from a primarily academic one to a primarily administrative one. This appears to have been accomplished over the protests and active opposition of the majority of the chairpersons themselves. The administrative role of the chairperson seems to have usurped the leadership role in many cases. Two-year College Chairperson Research Research literature on community college departments, except for a few scattered instances, has begun to take form only during the last ten years. As Richardson stated in 1967, "if there is a dearth of information available on the departmental chairman in the four-year institution, the situation becomes a famine when we examine 67 The famine of 1967 has been the literature of the junior college." replaced with at least a moderate supply of significant studies by 1978. However, as with the four-year college and university studies, nearly half exists only in dissertation form and remains to be published more extensively. 68 in 1964. His pur- One of the earlier studies was by Gates pose was to profile technical education administrators and to identify and analyze the scope of their role and programs. As might be expected, they were predominantly administrators, most holding the title of director or dean, not teachers, and the majority did not 32 hold any academic rank. Their primary purpose was to supervise faculty and to participate in cooperative ventures with business and the community. The profile of the typical chairperson drawn from this study was a white, middle-aged male who was a former faculty member with a Master's degree and had been appointed to the post by central administration. Generally speaking, he lacked physical support (in terms of money and support personnel) from his super- visors and his training for the position was non-existent or minimal. 69 found that the chairpersons in Two years later, Burnette nine Florida junior colleges held only limited authority, responsi- bility and administrative power. The primary reasoning was that the junior colleges were bureaucratic rather than collegial in organiza- tion. In 1967, Garrison70 highlighted many of the issues and prob- lems which are still important today. He suggested that the chair- person's position is the key one in the smooth functioning of the college because the chairperson must maintain and raise faculty 71 standards, especially in larger institutions. The major problem which chairpersons faced was a lack of orientation and training for 72 the role. Richardson compared the functions of chairpersons in two-year and four-year colleges, highlighted the unique character- istics of the two-year colleges and stressed the increasing importance of the chairperson in the community college administrative picture]3 Writing in 1969, several authors made important contributions 74 to the community college chairperson literature. O'Grady studied the roles of chairpersons in selected small and large two-year 33 colleges and noted significant differences in terms of role status qualifications, budget, understanding of administration and academic duties. He found the smaller the college the more restricted the position. Chairpersons in smaller community colleges spent more time teaching and advising students while those in larger colleges had more release time for administrative duties. The chairpersons in large two-year colleges prepared their own budgets and had more con- trol over the administration of their departments than those in smaller departments.75 O'Grady's dissertation later was the basis for an article in the Junior College Journal.76 Bloomerly77 made a study of eight New York community colleges and, among other findings, discovered that although the chairpersons carried heavy teaching loads they were classified as administrators. The departmental faculty had major influence in those areas closely related to teach- ing (i.e., curriculum) but the chairpersons had control over personnel matters and working conditions. Bloomerly's dissertation also formed 78 79 the basis for a later Junior College Journal article. Matthews concentrated on chairpersons in Arizona two-year colleges. He showed that the chairperson is likely to have less conflict when he is seen as part of the faculty rather than as part of the administra- tion; however, faculty members felt that more consideration should be given to the department in terms of administration. In addition, faculty members wanted more of a voice in the selection of chair- persons.80 A national chairperson leadership conference took place at Colorado State University in 1969. Ahmann,8] a community college 34 administrator, spoke to the conference and enumerated the following points: 1. The chairperson may consider himself a faculty member or academic administrator.82 2. The chairperson may consider himself a convenor and coordinator or an educational leader.83 3. The chairperson must be the leader of the department.84 4. Ideal leadership in the department is subtle.85 Another national chairperson leadership conference, attended by 33 chairpersons representing 24 two-year colleges, was held in 1970.86 One of the major conference topics was the evolving role of the chair- person as an educational leader and his relationships with faculty, administration and students. The conference concluded that the chairperson will develOp into a liaison officer and "humanizing agent" between administrators, faculty and students; chairpersonships can be important training for positions of further responsibility.87 Koehnline and Blocker88 reported as Garrison did in 1967, that the chairperson's role is a key one in the functioning of the entire institution. They also suggested community colleges be organized into academic divisions instead of the traditional departments. Smith89 reported the results of a study to determine what faculty members, chairpersons and upper level administrators at 12 community colleges expect of chairpersons. It was found chairpersons were in basic disagreement with faculty members and not upper echelon administrators over the chairperson's role definition and over the nature of the chairperson's actual behavior. Smith also pointed out that there were important differences in the chairperson's role in 35 different departments in the came college. Because chairpersons should spend more time in managerial functions, there was a need for chairperson orientation and professional development programs. Smith's dissertation later appeared as an article in Junior College Journal.90 Pierceg] noted that "division" grouping of subject areas was GPOWlOQ and replacing the traditional department grouping in some areas. In an extended survey of personal data and background, Pierce confirmed Gates' earlier findings about the typical chairperson being a white, middle aged male, a former instructor with a Master's degree who had been appointed rather than elected to the position. The 999193 College Journal published an article based on Pierce's dissertation 92 the following year. 93 edited a book As was previously mentioned, Brann and Emmet in 1972 which contained many of the writings and speeches made during the period 1968-1970. Included in the book are four articles written by and for community college administrators. Koehnline and Blocker's article, "The Division Chairman in the Community College," reappeared here (see footnote 88). Underwood94 discussed the primary functions of the chairperson whom he sees as a person who (1) plans, (2) organizes, (3) evaluates, (4) communicates, and (5) controls the job, not the people.95 Morgan96 offered a short but clearly written synopsis of the community college movement, the differences between "junior" and "senior" colleges and why it is important that these differences be maintained. The remainder of the article deals with the problems of the chief academic officer, usually called the Dean of Instruction, as he attempts to maintain a balance between 36 traditional academic instruction, the career oriented or enrichment programs and the college administration. The last of the four article597 is not an article at all but simply a list of chairperson responsibilities at a typical community college. The list is five pages long and contains 69 discrete items under four broad headings. "Neither the length nor the specificity of the list is unusual for 98 Combs99 studied the role leadership of public two-year colleges." chairpersons in Florida community colleges and discovered that the pppppl_role is seen by both chairpersons and faculty in a similar manner. The actual role is not perceived as the jgepl role. One of Combs' major recommendations was "to determine the possible advantages of providing two-year college chairmen with an administrative assist- ant to carry out routine administrative tasks in large departments".'00 10] surveyed faculty, chair- Also writing in 1972, Ravetch persons and deans on what they judged to be effective or ineffective in the chairperson's attitude and behavior and discovered major disagreements among the groups on the fundamental aspects of the position. The deans saw the chairpersons as primarily educational leaders while the instructors saw the chairpersons as office managers. The chairpersons saw themselves as managers and liaison between instructors and administrators. All agreed, however, that the chair- person should be given expanded control, especially in the areas of hiring, evaluation and budget control. Ravetch also suggested a functional handbook for chairpersons. As if in response to this 102 recommendation, Harding, a community college chairperson himself, developed an orientation package for new departmental chairpersons. 37 103 The package was designed for practical use and specific instruc- tions on budgeting techniques, selection and evaluation of faculty, promotion and dismissal of faculty, teaching responsibilities, revision and development of courses and miscellaneous duties (meet- ings, in-service workshops, student advising and the departmental 10 ) 4 office were presented. During his preliminary research, Harding found that 75 percent of the chairpersons surveyed believed that the budget and class scheduling were their most complicated jobs.105 Lombardi"06 reviewed the status of the community college chairperson and the efforts of administrators to substitute for the department/ divisional model. He suggested that the trend is not toward new models, but departments might give way to a divisional form of organization. The major work published in 1972 concerning the two-year 107 college was Governance for the Two-Year College_ by Richardson, Blocker and Bender. It is a scholarly book which attempts to combine management theory (Barnard, Simon and others), social doctrine (Merton, Weber, Getzels) and human behavior (Maslow) with the ‘ influences and pressures on community college governance. Part III of the book deals directly with the administrative organization of 108 which the two-year college and presents a "participative model" stresses cooperation rather than confrontation as the ideal model. Chapter 8 deals, in part, with the problems that the chairperson faces during a rise in collective bargaining. 38 Where relationships are not carefully specified or where an institution is undergoing a period of stress such as in the case of organizing for collective bargaining, [chairpersons] may be forced to renounce their normal ambivalence and make a clear choice between administration and faculty. This is seldom a happg experience either for the institution or the individual. 9 The authors also discussed, among other things, the strengths and weaknesses of various divisional organizations and their effect on the chairperson. Freligh,no reporting in 1973, made several significant dis- coveries. After first agreeing with Garrison (1967) and Koehline and Blocker (1970) that the chairperson's position of leadership is a pivotal one in the college administrative structure, she found that administrative support of the chairperson (i.e., with time, money or secretarial help) had not matched the administrators stated high regard for the position; that qualifications and selection methods for the position were neither clearly defined nor consistently practiced, even on the same campus; that multi-campus and single- campus chairpersonships differed significantly; and that faculty, chairpersons and administrators were all frustrated with the 1]] showed that the indefinable role of the chairperson. Powers chairperson's perception of his actual leadership behavior differed significantly from the faculty perception of the same behavior. Not surprisingly, he also showed a positive relationship of morale to 112 sought to determine, leadership satisfaction of the faculty. Turner analyze and describe the administrative role of the chairperson. He found that chairpersons and deans greatly conflicted over their perceptions of the chairpersons' actual and ideal roles. Further, he 39 reported that chairpersons were ill—prepared for their duties and most were not fully aware of their administrative responsibilities. This problem could only become worse in the face of collective bargaining. GrableH3 edited a report on a conference concerning the role and scope of the chairperson's responsibilities in the community college. The conference was attended by over 150 junior college representatives who listened to the following presentations: (1) "Role of the Department Chairman in Improving Community College Instruction," by John Lombardi; (2) "Role of the Department Chairman in Staff Development," by John E. Roueche; (3) "The Division Chairman in the Multi-Campus Community College," by Bill Priest; (4) "The Role of the Department Chairman in Collective Bargaining," by Richard D. Strahan; (5) "The Department Chairman Looks at Develop- mental Studies," by Ruby Herd; and (6) "The Chairman in the Midst of a Revolution," by John Lombardi. Lombardi 4 also wrote the first of a series of three t0pical papers on the role of the chairperson sponsored by the National Institute of Education. He reviewed the evolution of the department/division and administrative efforts to Subordinate, change or abolish the structure. He discussed the ‘il1creased participation by part-time faculty and para-professionals “it1 the departmental affairs. Lombardi, however, predicted that "for 1:11e next five to ten years departments or divisions will continue to tDEB the most common organizational structure in the community c:Ollege."n5 40 116 in his second Continuing his research in 1974, Lombardi, topical paper, discussed the duties and responsibilities of the chairperson in the two-year college. In this paper, Lombardi analyzed the duties of the chairperson and made observations on the evolving role "from a quasi-administrative officer to a ministerial function- u1 7 y. 1 ar He pointed out that: While duty statements indicate that a chairman has responsi- bility for a wide variety of activities in administration, curriculum and instruction, teacher improvement, student personnel, finance and community relations, investigators report that he performs only a limited number of the first three and a few in the last three.”8 Lombardi blamed central administrators for the erosion of the department chairperson's responsibilities. "They [administrators] fail to match the duties assigned with the necessary authority; the pivotal role he plays in the organization with status as an administrator."119 Lastly, Lombardi described the effect of collective bargaining on the chairperson's influence. Agreements minutely described workloads and class sizes and relegated his duties to those ”performed in coopera- tion with the faculty" and "subject to the approval of the executive dean."120 In the final paper of this series, also written in 1974, Lombardiu] again confirmed (see Gates, 1964; Pierce, 1970) that the <:!1airpersons were still predominantly white, male, middle-aged, 1Fkarmer instructors with Master's degrees, although women predominated ‘iln secretarial sciences, nursing, home economics and women's physical ‘£3<1ucation. Non-whites were as scarce as women among chairpersons EiTthough state and federal pressure for affirmative action was slowly 41 122 changing the imbalance. Only ten percent had previous administra- tive experience and rarely had an existing chairperson had formal 123 Lombardi found that training or preparation for the position. the chairperson's position was still indeterminate--in some colleges the chairperson was given considerable administrative authority and in others authority was severely restricted. The divided instructor- administrator status contributed to the indeterminateness of the 124 role. Despite these drawbacks the position continued to draw faculty members who look at it as the first step in an administrative career.]25 '26 like O'Grady in 1969, found Also writing in 1974, Sanchez, that the smaller the two-year college, the more restricted was the chairperson's position. Moreover, the majority of chairpersons inter- viewed by Sanchez indicated that they did not possess authority com- ]27 also found mensurate with their assigned responsibilities. Stull (see Ravetch, 1972; Freligh, 1973) that the chairperson's role was often misunderstood by deans, faculty and the chairpersons them- selves and could easily be a source of conflict. However, Stull also found that the chairpersons were reasonably satisfied when asked about fifteen elements of their job descriptions. In 1976, wanace'28 updated his 1975 annotated bibliography <>r1the community college division/department chairperson. The ta'ibliography focuses on the role of the chairperson, the overriding FDIroblems facing the chairperson and the chairpersons future status. ATthough the bibliography covers the last eleven years the bulk of 'T‘iss references have appeared in the last seven years. In addition, 42 Wallace has included a 14 page statement which outlined the trends in the literature. As Hammons states in the "Foreward" to the bibliography, the bibliography will be of use "both to community colleges . . . interested in enhancing their chairpersons and to students and scholars who wish to conduct research in this area."129 130 Hammons and Smith also co-authored a comprehensive assessment of community college staff needs in the northeastern United States. One of their major conclusions was that definite administrative staff 13] Some of the findings: needs were identified. 1. Administrative ability to plan and direct received the highest priority. 2. Two-thirds of the respondents required in-service training in management-by-objectives and/or the ability to collect and use research data in decision making. 3. Over 50 percent of those replying needed improvement in the use of PPBES (Planning, Programming, Budgeting, Evaluating Systems), participative management and time management. 4. Between 45 and 50 percent of the respondents desired more administrative competency in control of conflict, delegation of authority and responsibility and human relations. 5. The ability to cope with collective bargaining is a skill whose demand is increasing. '32 again presented a needs In 1977 Hammons and Wallace Tassessment. They had conducted the first nationwide survey (1098 (:hairpersons at 233 public community colleges) to determine chair- laerson staff development needs. Among their findings was that the \Iast majority of chairpersons had received little or no prior train- ‘irig for their positions and only nominal in-service training. Their 43 recommendations included extensive training for chairpersons in managerial skills, personnel needs and administrative matters. Summary In general, the departmental chairperson has received relatively little attention in the total administrative literature in higher education. Many of the studies are of a local or state- wide nature. The "typical" community college chairperson has often been profiled as to age, sex, race and educational status. It is known that the chairperson normally teaches from one to three courses and often lacks support in terms of time, money and administrative assistance. His or her preparation for the departmental leadership role usually far exceeds administrative experience and training. The chairperson's assigned duties vary widely from department to department, college to college, region to region. In conjunction with this variation goes a variation in authority. Chairpersons who exercise major authority appear to be the exception rather than the rule. Their major problems appear to be administrative inefficiencies, enough time to do the job, budget constraints and a lack of adequate role definition. The chairperson's role perception is usually mis- ‘interpreted and misunderstood by his or her faculty, supervisors and 1:he chairperson himself. Part of the inherent ambivalence arises 1’rom the fact that the chairperson is both instructor and adminis- 1trator, faculty and supervisor, servant and master. These conflicts czould spell trouble for the chairperson, the department and the <:<>llege. The advent of collective bargaining may more clearly define 44 the role of the chairperson but at a price of some erosion of the chairperson's authority. The department chairperson does much to determine the general climate of the department by the emphasis he or she places on instruction, curriculum development, administration and leadership. CHAPTER II: FOOTNOTES 'dohn c. Smart and Charles F. Elton, "Administrative Roles of Departmental Chairmen," New Directions for Institutional Research 3 (Summer 1976): 39. 2Henri Fayol, General and Industrial Management (London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, 1949); Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations, trans. and ed. by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1947); Lyndall F. Urwick, The Elements of Administration (New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1934); Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962); and Herbert A.Simon, Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision Making Processes in Administrative Organization, 2nd ed: (New York: Macmillan Co., 1965). 3Herbert Stroup, Bureaucracy in Higher Education (New York: Free Press, 1966); Talcott Parsons and GeraldiMZ Platt, The American University (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973); Peter M. Blau, The Orgenization of Academic Work (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973); and Michael 0. Cohen and James G. March, eds., Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974). 4G. Lester Anderson, "Organizational Diversity," Neg_ .Directions for Institutional Research 3 (Summer 1976): 2. 5 Ibid. 6Paul L. Dressel, F. Craig Johnson and Phillip M. Marcus, The Confidence Crisis: An Analysis of University Departments (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970), p. 61 7Richard L. Featherstone, Notes taken during an Education 982 course, "The Department, the Chairperson and the Professor," at Michigan State University. The course was conducted from January 1976 to March 1976. 8 9John C. Smart and James R. Montgomery, eds., "Examining Departmental Management," New Directions for Institutional Research .3 (Summer 1976): vii. Ibid. 45 46 10Louis Thomas Harding. "An Administrative Instructional Package for New Departmental Chairmen in Community Colleges" (Ph.D. pippertation, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 9 , p. 13. 1]Edward A. Doyle, The Status and Functions of the Depart- mental Chairman: A Study of the Status and Function of the Depart- mental Chairman in Thirty-three Selected Colleges Under Private Auspices (Washington, D.C.: Cathdlic UniverSity of America, 1953). 'Zioid.. pp. 22-23. '3Ibid., p. 44. 14 Lloyd S. Woodburne, Principles of College and University Administration (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958), p. 77. 15D. L. McKenna, “A Study of Power and Interpersonal Rela- tionships in the Administration of Higher Education" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1958). 16John J. Corson, Governance of Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960), p. 88. '7Ioid., p. 89. 18fluid. 19 Harold W. Dodds, The Academic President--Educator or Care- taker? (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962), p. 131. 20Gerald P. Burns, Administrators in Higher Education: Their Functions and Coordination (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), pp. 58-59. 21J. D. Millett, The Academic Community(New York: McGraw- Hill, 1962), pp. 15-25. 22Eugene Haas and Linda Collen, "Administrative Practices in IJniversity Departments," Administrative Science Quarterly 8 (1963): 56-59. 23Hal R. Ramer, "Perceptions of University Departments and c>f the Role of Their Chairmen. A Study of Some Attitudes and Opinions (Sf'Selected Professors and Department Chairmen, Deans and Central leministrators of The Ohio State University" (Ph.D. dissertation, '1‘he Ohio State University, 1963). 24Robert C. Davidson, "The Administrative Role of Department (Zliairmen in Public Four Year Colleges" (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia LJriiversity, 1967). 47 25Thomas H. Englund, "The Selection, Orientation, and In- Service Education of Department Chairmen in Selected Schools and Colleges of Education" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967 . 26Winston W. Hill and Wendell L. French, "Perceptions of Power of Departmental Chairmen by Professors," Administrative Science Quarterly 11 (1967): 559-564. 27Charles H. Heimler, "The College Departmental Chairman," The Educational Record 48 (Spring 1967); 159, 28Wilbert J. McKeachie, "Memo to New Department Chairmen," The Educational Record 49 (Spring 1968): 222. 29Ibid. 30Ioid.. p. 221. 31Jacques Barzun, The American University: How It Runs, Where It Is Going (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), p. 103. 32Ibid. 33Ibid. 34 Glen B. Schroeder, "Leadership Behavior of Department Chairmen in Selected State Institutions of Higher Education" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico, 1969). 35John E. Matthews, "The Role of the Department Chairman in Arizona Community Colleges" (Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 1969). 36Paul L. Dressel, F. Craig Johnson and Phillip M. Marcus, _Ihe Confidence Crisis: An Analysis of University Departments (San Francisco: Jbssey-Bass, 1970). 37Ibid., p. xi. 38Ibid., p. 15. 39Ibid., p. 28. 40Jebiel Novick, "The Role of Department Chairmen in LJniversity Governance in Large Mid-Western Universities as Perceived Ely Faculty, Chairmen and Administrators" (Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1970). 48 41James Brann and Thomas A. Emmet, eds., The Academic Depart- ment or Division Chairman: A Complex Role (Detroit: TBalamp Publishing, 1972). 42Frank B. Dilley, "The Department Chairman as Academic Planner," in The Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex Role, ed. James Brann andIThomas A. Emmet TDetroit: Balamp Publishing, 1972), pp. 28-36. 43Ibid., p. 29. 44Ibid. 45Ibid., p. 32. 46 J. Stanley Ahmann, "The Emerging Role of the Departmental Chairman: Be an Administrative Activist!" in The Academic Depart- ment or Division Chairman: A Complex Role, ed. James Brann and Thomas A. Emmet (Detroit: Balamp Publishing, 1972), pp. 186-197. 47 Ibid., p. 195. 48John Mahoney, “Chairman as Messmaker," in The Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex Role, ed. James Brann and Thomas A. EmmetilDetroit: Balamp Publishing, 1972), pp. 180-185. 49 Ibid., p. 182. 50Floyd I. Wyrick, "The Effect of Departmental Leadership on Faculty Satisfaction and Departmental Effectiveness in a Big Ten University" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1972). 51Paul L. Dressel and William H. Faricy, Return to Resppnsibility (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971 . 52 Ibid., p. 47. 53Ibid., p. 188. 54James R. Montgomery et a1., The Role Analysis of Departmental _§hairmen at State Universities (Office of’lnstitutifinal Research, Virginia Pdlytechnic Institute and State University, 1974). 55Bernard F. Engel, "50 You Want to Be Department Chairman?" :[he Chronicle of Higher Education (May 6, 1974): 20. 56 57Herbert Waltzer, The Job of Academic Chairman: Experiences 311d Recommendations from Miami University, an Occasional Paper (Fwashington, D.C.: iThe'American Council on Education, 1975). Ibid. 49 58Ibid., p. 10. 59Ibid. 60John C. Smart and James R. Montgomery, eds., "Examining Departmental Management," New Directions for Institutional Research 3 (Summer 1976). 61 62Paul Dressel and Lou Anna Kimsey Simon, "Allocating Resources Among Departments," New Directions for Institutional Research 3 (Autumn 1976). 63Swaran Aatish, "The Role of Deans and Chairpersons in Graduate Education in Selected Colleges at Michigan State University" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977). 64 Ibid., p. vii. Ibid., p. 113. 65Dean E. McHenry and Associates, Academic Departments: Problems, Variations and Alternatives (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, l977). 66Ibid., p. 224. 67Richard C. Richardson, Jr., "Departmental Leadership in the Two Year College," Current Issues in Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, NEA, 1967). 68Claude L. Gates, Jr., "A Study of Administrators of Technical Education Programs in the Public Junior Colleges of the United States" (Ed.D. dissertation, Florida State University, 1964). 69Jimmy H. Burnette, "An Analysis of the Internal Organiza- tion Structures of Selected Public Junior Colleges in Florida" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1966). 70Roger H. Garrison, Junior College Faculty: Issues and Problems (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior C611eges, 1967). 71 72 Ibid., PP. 49-51. Ibid., p. 49. 73 74James P. O'Grady, Jr., "The Role of the Departmental (Shairman in Selected Missouri and Illinois Two-Year Colleges" (Ph.D. (dissertation, St. Louis University, 1969). Richardson, "Leadership in Two Year Colleges," pp. 244-248. 50 75161d.. pp. 145-149. 76James P. O'Grady, Jr., "Role of the Departmental Chairman: Missouri and Illinois Two—Year Colleges," Junior College Journal 42 (February 1971): 32-34. 77Peter Bloomerly, "The Public Two-Year College Department: A Study of the Role of the Department and the Departmental Chairman in Academic Governance" (Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1969). 78Peter Bloomerly, "Junior College Departments and Academic Governance,” Junior College Journal 42 (February 1971): 32-34. 79John I. Matthews, "The Role of the Department Chairman in Arizona Community Colleges” (Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 1969). 80 Ibid., pp. 166-167. 81J. Stanley Ahmann, "The Emerging Role of the Departmental Chairman: Be an Administrative Activist!" in The Academic Depart- ment or Division Chairman, ed. James Brann and Thomas A. Emmet, Jr. (Detroit: Balamp Publishers, 1972), pp. 186-197. 82 Ibid., p. 188. 83Ibid. 84Ibid., p. 194. 85Ibid., p. 196. 86Richard W. Brightman, "Evaluating the Divisional Chairmen Leadership Conference of 1970," Costa Mesa: Coast Community College District, 1971. (Mimeographed.) 87Ioid., p. 16. 88wi11iam A. Koehnline and Clyde E. Blocker, "The Division Chairman in the Community College," Junior College Journal 40 (February 1970): 9-12. 89Albert B. Smith, "Role Expectations for and the Observations (3f Community College Department Chairmen: An Organizational Study of gbnsensus and Conformity" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 970 . 90Albert B. Smith, "Departmental Chairmen: Neither Fish Nor Ffowl," Junior College Journal 42 (March 1972): 40-43. 51 91Harold B. Pierce, "The Role of Science Division Heads in Regionally Accredited Junior Colleges in the United States" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1970). 92Harold B. Pierce, "Look at the Science Division Head," Junior College Journal 42 (November 1971): 28-31. 93Brann and Emmet, eds., The Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex Role, 1969. 94David Underwood, "The Chairman as Academic Planner," in The Academic Department or Division Chairman, ed. James Brann and Thomas A. Emmet, Jr. (Detroit: Balamp Publishers, 1972), pp. 153- 161. 95Ibid., pp. 156-160. 96Don A. Morgan, "Instructional Deans and Chairmen in the Community College: A New Identity Crisis on an Old Theme," in The Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex Role, ed. James Brann and Thomas A. Emmet, Jr.’(Detroit: Balamp Publishers, 1972), pp. 162-172. 97Harrisburg (Pa.) Area Community College Handbook, "Duties of a Division Chairman at Harrisburg (Pa.) Area Community College," in The Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex Role, ed. James Brann and Thomas A. Emmet, Jr. (Detroit: BElampiPublishers, 1972), pp. 173-178. 98 Ibid., p. 173. 99Arthur M. Combs, "The Leadership Role of Department Chair- men as Perceived by Chairmen and Faculty with Whom They Work in Selected Florida Junior Colleges" (Ph.D. dissertation, Miami University, 1972). 100Ibid., abstract, p. 2. 10'Herbert w. Ravetch, "Responsibilities, Activities, and .Attitudes of Selected Southern California Community College Department/ Division Chairmen" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1972) . 102Louis T. Harding, "An Administrative Instructional Package Designed for New Departmental Chairmen in Community Colleges" (Ph.D. ciissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1972). 103 104 Ibid., p. 48. Ibid., pp. 51-115. 1“ 52 'Osipid., p. 118. 106John Lombardi, "Prospects for Middle Management," Change (Community College Supplement) 4 (October 1972): 32a-32d. '07Richard 6. Richardson, Jr., Clyde E. Blocker and Louis Bender, Governance for the Two-Year College (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972). 108 Ibid., p. 191. 'Ogioid., pp. 176-177. noEdith A. Freligh, "An Investigation of the Qualifications, Methods of Selection, and Terms of Office of Department and Division Chairmen in Selected Public Two-Year Colleges in the United States" (Ed.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1973). HIDavid 0. Powers, ”The Relationships Between Faculty Morale and Perceived Leader Behavior of Department Chairmen at a Florida Metropolitan Community College" (Ed.D. dissertation, University of Miami, 1973). 112Keith S. Turner, "The Administrative Role of the Depart- ment Chairman in Florida Public Community Colleges” (Ph.D. disserta- tion, Florida State University, 1973). 113John R. Grable, ed., Role of the Department/Division Chairman in the Community College. A Report of a Conference at Sam Houston State Universiiy Community Junior Graduate Prpgram, Jply 31- Au ust l, 1972 (Huntsville, Texas: Sam Houston State University, pr1 114John Lombardi, The Department/Division Structure in the Community College (Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information, 1973. Topical Paper No. 38). 115Ibid., p. 18. 116John Lombardi, The Duties and Responsibilities of Depart- ment/Division Chairmen in Community Colleges (Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information, 1972. Tapical Paper No. 39). "7Ibid., p. 1. "816id., p. 6. 119 Ibid., p. 13. 53 120Ibid., p. 15. 12lJohn Lombardi, The Department/Division Chairman: Characteristics and Role in the Community College (Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Informaiion, 1974. Topical Paper No. 40). 122 Ibid., pp. 1-2. 123Ibid., p. 4. '2416id., p. 18. 125Ibid. 126 Augusto V. Sanchez, "Present and Preferred Administrative Responsibilities of Community-Junior College Division Chairmen in the Southern Association: A Comparitive Analysis" (Ed.D. disserta- tion, East Texas State University, 1974). 127William A. Stull, "An Exploratory Study of the Role of Division Chairmen in the Virginia Community College System" (Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1974 . 128Terry H. Smith Wallace, "The Division/Department Chair- person in the Community College: An Annotated Bibliography" (Fayetteville, Arkansas: The University of Arkansas, 1976). (Mimeographed.) 'Zgioid., p. ii. 130James O. Hammons and Terry H. Smith Wallace, An Assess- ment of Community College Staff Development Needs in the Northeastern United States (University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1976 . '3'Ibid.. pp. 37-38. 132James O. Hammons and Terry H. Smith Wallace, Staff Development Needs of Public Community College Department D1vision Chairpersons (University Park? Pennsylvania State University, Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1977). CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This researcher was concerned with determining if community college chairpersons and their deans felt that chairpersons were devoting a disproportionate amount of time to purely administrative functions. If this were found to be the case, what functions could be suitably accomplished by an administrative manager and what education/training might the manager need? Described in this chapter are the design of the study, the population sample, the specific procedures used, the format of the questionnaires, a rationale for specific questions, the analysis of data and a summary of the chapter. [£51911 Because this study was designed primarily to elicit opinions and to link these opinions to a logic and not to an analysis of statistical data, the design is a cross-sectional survey using a detailed questionnaire followed by a limited number of interviews with selected respondents to the questionnaires. Standardized information was collected from a sample drawn from a predetermined population. As stated in Chapter I, the results are only potentially generalizable. The information was gathered at one point in time . . . . 1 and 15, therefore, a "t1me bound assoc1at1on." 54 55 The "flow plan"2 for the outline of the design was as follows: DESIGN FLOW PLAN Objectives of the Design Determined (See Chapter 1, Purpose) + Population to be Sampled, Defined (Michigan Community College Chairpersons and Deans) 1 Sample Drawn (Four Departmentalized Michigan Community Colleges) 1 Construction of Mailed Survey Questionnaires (See Appendices C and D) .1. Data Assembled and Analyzed (See Chapters III and IV) 4 Construction of Interview Schedule (See Appendix E) 1 Data Analyzed and Conclusions Drawn (See Chapters IV and V) The Population Sample The population selected for this study was Michigan community college chairpersons and their deans. Ideally, faculty members who had experience with a chairperson/administrative manager form of departmental organization also would have been included, but to the researcher's knowledge only one department--his own--had such eXperience and any result would reflect researcher bias. 56 The population sample was selected on the basis of (l) the community colleges in Michigan which used a departmental organization (many of the community colleges use a divisional structure without departmental chairpersons) and, (2) total enrollments in the com- munity college (the researcher felt that some of the community colleges were not of sufficient size to afford both an administrative manager and a chairperson). Five of Michigan's 29 community colleges were selected. Because of the possible sensitivity of some of the requested responses, the community colleges will not be identified (see Letter to Chairpersons and Deans, Appendix B) for reasons of confidentiality. The questionnaires were mailed to 30 deans and 70 chairpersons. When some of the initial responses were returned, it became apparent that one of the selected community colleges, because of the terms of a recent faculty union negotiated contract, had departmental chairpersons who were virtually without administrative duties and functioned as "head teachers" only. Although some of the respondents attempted to complete the questionnaires as if they had administrative duties, it was felt that these responses did not fully align with the researcher's purpose and were not used in the final analysis. The number of usable questionnaires was thus reduced to 25 deans and 55 chairpersons. Of this number 18 deans (72 percent) and 30 chairpersons (55 percent) responded. The results were somewhat disappointing considering that Kerlinger states that "every effort should be made to obtain returns of at least 80 to 90 [Jercent or more," but even he laments that returns of "less than 40 1:0 50 percent are common."3 On the other hand, Nunnally (quoting 57 statistics from Webb, Cambell, Schwartz and Sechrest, 1966) found that "10 percent returns are typical."4 The majority of the chairpersons were male (four were female) with Master's Degrees although nine (30 percent) had doctoral-level degrees. The average service as a dean was 7.8 years and as a chair- person was 7.4 years. Procedures This investigation began with a brief literature review which revealed that an administrative manager organizational structure in higher education was rare. The researcher also discovered the results of two questionnaires which provided useful information for the background of this study. Both questionnaires were distributed by the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges (AACJC) and the results discussed at their annual meeting in April 1977. One was a needs assessment survey of 1098 chairpersons5 and the other a problem/obstacles survey of 200 chairpersons.6 Using these two questionnaires (see Appendix C, Questions H and I) the researcher conducted a short series of pilot interviews with selected chair- persons and a dean at the researcher's community college. From the results of these interviews, the initial question- naires and a much more thorough literature review (see Chapter III), detailed questionnaires for the selected deans and chairpersons were constructed (see Appendices C and D). The researcher's guidance committee approved the questions for mailing on November 21, 1977. 58 On December 16, 1978, the questionnaires were mailed to the chairpersons and deans of the four selected Michigan community colleges. Each mailing also included a cover letter from the presi- dent of Lansing Community College, Phillip J. Gannon (see Appendix A) and a letter from the researcher explaining the position of adminis- trative manager and that the information supplied would remain con- fidential and not be identified with any community college or department (see Appendix B). The questionnaires took approximately ten to fifteen minutes to complete. A self-addressed, stamped envelope was enclosed for convenience. Because many of the community colleges were on term breaks over the Christmas holidays, a follow-up telephone call was not made until January 12, 1978 to insure the questionnaires had arrived. A second follow-up telephone call was made to non- respondents on February 2, 1978. The results of the returns are contained previously in this chapter (see The Population Sample) and in Table 1, Chapter IV. On March 7, 17, 20 and 21, 1978, individual interviews were conducted with respondents demonstrating a strong preference for or against the administrative manager concept. Interviews of approxi- mately one hour duration were conducted with three deans and eight chairpersons. The researcher's intent in the interviews was to determine the exact reasons for the respondent's preference so that the gross data could be refined. In order to insure that the inter- views were conducted on an equal basis, an interview schedule was developed (see Appendix E) and used as a guide. Although the format 59 was semi-structured, the questions were open-ended and questions were alternated to allow the respondees flexibility and time for clarifi- cation.7 The Procedures "flow plan" was as follows: Brief Literature Search Pilot Interviews Thorough Litérature Search Questionnair: Construction Questionnaire Mailing Telephone Fgllow-up (2) Interview Survey SEhedule Construction Inteiviews Data Assembled andIAnalyzed (Chapter IV) Format of the Questionnaires Two questionnaires were developed, one for the chairpersons and one for the deans (see Appendices C and 0). Questions C and D are the same on both questionnaires and Question G on the chair- person's questionnaire is the same as Question E on the dean's questionnaire. Each questionnaire begins with face sheet (identifi- cation) information and then restricted or closed form questions which require check responses or rank ordering are used.8 "Other" category options were provided on most questions in order to allow respondents to indicate other categories which the 9 researcher had not anticipated. The reason that restricted or 60 closed form questions were used was to provide greater uniformity of stimulus and thus greater reliability. 10 In addition, this type of question is easy to fill out, takes little time, is relatively objective and keeps the respondent on the subject. 11 In general, the questionnaires were designed to elicit the following kinds of information: 1. From the deans: a. b. Method used in selecting chairpersons. Primary reasons the chairpersons were selected. Major responsibilities of the chairpersons and job description, if available. Adequacy of direct support personnel for the chairperson. 2. From the chairpersons: a. Size of department in terms of credit hours produced or students attending. Four or five problems/obstacles which prevent chairperson from being more effective. Adequacy of support staff. Willingness to delegate authority to an administrative professional, if available. Functions, of a routine nature, which might be handled by an administrative professional. Suggested education and training for such an administrative professional. Rationale for Questions The following are the reasons for inclusion of the questions in each survey: 61 Deans Survey Question A: Personal Data.--To identify the respondent and to gain some knowledge of his or her experience level. The "previous position" was requested to discover if deans are promoted from within the college or hired from outside sources. Question B: Method Used in Selecting Chairpersons.--To determine if selection procedures confirm information previously pro- vided by earlier studies (Doyle, 1953; Richardson, 1967; Englund, 1967; Harding, 1972) and discussed in Chapter II. Harding's study in 1972, for example, pointed out that 77.1 percent of the community college chairpersons contacted were appointed by central administration while only 22.9 percent were elected.12 Question C: Reasons for Chairperson Selection.--To determine what, if any, differences might occur between deans and chairpersons in their perceptions of why a chairperson is selected. This question appears on both questionnaires as Question C. Material for this question was primarily gathered from Harding's study.13 Question 0: Cheigperson Responsibilities.--To determine what differences might occur between deans and chairpersons in their per- ceptions of the chairperson's responsibilities. The question appears as Question 0 on both surveys. Much of the material for this 14 question was gathered from Anthony's study, a portion of which is included in Chapter I of this dissertation. 62 Question E: Administrative Support to the Chairperson.-—To attempt to discover on the average what kinds of administrative sup- port the deans have made available to the chairpersons. Specifically, the researcher was interested in administrative or staff assistance support, but the other types of support might have some bearing on administrative efficiency. Question F (willingness to be interviewed) and Question G (additional comments) are self-explanatory questions. Chairperson's Survey Question A: Personal Data.--To identify the respondent and to gather information concerning his or her past experience. Other information requested was to determine if certain findings of pre- vious studies (Gates, 1964; Pierce, 1970; Lombardi, The Department/ Division Chairman: Characteristics and Role in the Community College, 1974) would be confirmed. Question B: Departmental Data.--To determine, as closely as possible, the exact size, in terms of credit hours or students, of the department. From personal experience, the researcher has found large differences in departmental size in Michigan community colleges, not only from college to college but among departments on the same campus. Question C: Initial Reasons for Your Having Been Selected as Chairperson.--To determine what, if any, differences might occur between chairpersons and deans in their perceptions of why the 63 chairperson was selected. This question appears on both the dean's survey and the chairperson's survey. For information concerning the construction of this question, see the Dean's Survey, Question C. Question 0: Chairperson Responsibilities.--To determine what differences might occur between the chairpersons and the deans in their perceptions of the chairperson's responsibilities. This question appears as Question 0 on both surveys. For information concerning the construction of this question, see the Dean's Survey, Question 0. Question E: Delegating Responsibilities.--To have the chair- persons list the specific responsibilities which in their opinion could be delegated to a responsible person to perform. By ppp_ indicating certain responsibilities to be delegated, the chairpersons will also show what are the responsibilities which they should accomplish personally. Question F: Delegating Authority.--To determine what areas, if any, that a chairperson would be willing to delegate authority to accomplish the previously mentioned responsibilities. This is per- haps the key question in the survey, because without authority, the concept of the administrative manager type of organization would revert to a staff assistant concept (see Chapter I). Question G: Administrative Support to the Chairperson.--In essence, this is the same question as Question E on the Dean's Survey; however, there are two differences: (1) the names of the staff or 64 administrative assistants are asked for (G.1.a.) so that the researcher could contact them, and (2) the chairpersons are asked if, in their opinion, they are adequately supported with staff (6.6.). The answer to this last question could also help determine the need for an administrative manager. Qpestion H: Needs Assessment.--This question is a virtual reprint of the survey mentioned in the full statement of the question. The purpose is to partially confirm or repudiate the results of the larger survey, but, more importantly, to provide general categories in which an administrative manager would need education or training. _Question I: Problems/Obstacles.--This question is also a reprint of the survey mentioned in the full statement of the question; however, the problems/obstacles were purposely rearranged so thay did not fall in the same order as the original survey results. The purpose was to confirm or bring into question the results of the larger survey and to determine if, by looking at the identified prob- lem areas, an administrative manager could be a part of a solution. Questions J (willingness to be interviewed) and K (additional comments) are self-explanatory. Analysis of Data As indicated previously, this is an appraisal study of certain aspects of the community college chairperson's role, especially as they pertain to administrative functions. The study is largely based on Opinions of selected individuals and the researcher's conclusions 65 rely on their judgment. Therefore, the information derived from the surveys was pooled into the areas where the questionnaires were sub- divided and the interview questions were analyzed on the basis of contents and classified in categories. The data were analyzed in terms of percentage, rank order or frequencies. Since this study is descriptive and nonstatistical, the analysis is based on the assumption that these terms (percentage, rank order and frequency) are satisfactory forms of reporting responses concerning opinions and judgments. Tables were developed to supplement the descriptive data and information. Summary The research methodology used to conduct this study on the administrative manager has been presented in this chapter. The overall design of the study and accompanying "flow charts" were pre- sented. The general population and selected sample population were discussed and the specific procedural steps listed. A short rationale for the inclusion of each of the questions in the surveys was reported. A brief review of the analysis of data was presented and will be expanded in the next chapter. CHAPTER III: FOOTNOTES 1Walter R. Borg and Meridith D. Gall, Educational Research: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (New York: David McKay, 1973), pp. 189-191. 2Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, 2nd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973), pp. 414-417. 3 Ibid., p. 414. 4Jum C. Nunnaly, Jr., Introduction to Measurement (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), p. 501. 5American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, "The Department/Division Chairperson: A Neglected Species" (Paper dis- cussed at AACJC meeting, Denver, Colorado, April 20, 1977), pp. 6-7. (Mimeographed.) 6Ibid., p. 5. 7Ker1inger, pp. 481-484. 8John w. Best, Research in Education (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1959), p. 144. 9 Ibid. 10 11 12Louis T. Harding, "An Administrative Instructional Package Designed for New Departmental Chairmen in Community Colleges" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1972). 13 14John Anthony, "Study on Departmental Chairmen in Public Community Colleges" (Glen Ellyn, Illinois: College of Dupage, l972). (Mimeographed.) Kerlinger, p. 487. Best, p. 144. Ibid., pp. 150-151. 66 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This research study was originally intended to include five of Michigan's 29 community colleges. The researcher sent question- naires to 30 deans and 70 chairpersons at these five community colleges but because the responses from one of the colleges did not fully align with the researcher's purpose, the number of potentially usable responses was reduced to 25 deans and 55 chairpersons (see Chapter III, The Population Sample). Seventy-two percent (18) of the deans and 55 percent (30) of the chairpersons responded. TABLE 1.--Response to Dean/Chairperson Survey for Selected Michigan Community Colleges. Number Number Group Sent Received Percentage Deans 25 18 72.0 Chairpersons 55 30 54.5 The analyzed data have been arranged in the same order and sequence as in the questionnaires, separately for deans and chair- persons. The analysis is presented in percentage or, where necessary, rank order. Occasionally, direct citations which appeared on the 67 68 questionnaires are quoted, but to protect confidentiality are not referenced. A summary of interviews with selected deans and chair- persons follows the analysis of questionnaires. Dean's Questionnaire Analysis Question A, Personal Data Number of Years as Dean (Item A.4).--The length of service as a dean at his (all responding deans were male) institution varied from one year to slightly over 12 years. The average length of service for all 18 deans was 7.8 years. TABLE 2.--Length of Service as Dean. Number of Number of Years Deans Percentage O- 1.99 2 11.1 2- 3.99 . 1 5.5 4- 5.99 l 5.5 6- 7.99 3 16.7 8- 9.99 3 16.7 lO-ll.99 6 33.4 12-14 2 11.1 N = 18. Previous Position (Item A.5).--The majority of deans had previously been employed at their institutions before being appointed 69 or elected to their positions as deans. Only three of the 18 deans had been previously employed outside of their present institutions. Of these three, one had been in the aerospace industry, one had been a faculty member at a Florida community college and the remaining dean had worked for the State of Michigan Board of Education. TABLE 3.--Dean's Previous Position. Number of Position Deans Percentage Assistant Dean 2 11.1 Director 3 16.7 Department Chairperson 4 22.3 Administrative Assistant, Dean 2 11.1 Faculty (Internal) 4 22.3 Faculty (External) 1 5.5 Industry 1 5.5 State Employee 1 5.5 N = 18. Question B, Method Used in SelectingyChairpersons All chairpersons--the titles varied from chairperson to chairman to associate dean--were appointed by the dean/central administration, elected by their faculties or elected by faculties and approved by dean/central administration. The degree to which a 70 community college was unionized and operating with a detailed faculty agreement was directly related to the chairperson selection process. Those community colleges with detailed agreements elected chair- persons and those with less restrictive agreements appointed them. The percentage of elected chairpersons was higher than in previous studies (Doyle, 1953; Richardson, 1967; Englund, 1967; Harding, 1972). TABLE 4.--Method Used in Selecting Chairperson (Dean). Number of Method Chairpersons Percentage Appointed, Dean/Administration 9 50.0 Elected, Institutional Committee 0 0.0 Elected, Faculty 6 33.3 Elected, Approved by Dean 3 16.7 Other 0 0.0 N = 18. Qpestion C, Dean's Factors in Chairperson Séleciion The researcher used a simple power loading formula to rank order the deans' opinions concerning the major factors of importance in selecting a chairperson. An inverse system of weightings on a ten-point scale (first was worth 10 points . . . tenth was worth one point) was used and since not all respondents used selection 10 ("Other") or rank order number 10, these two areas were additionally weighted so as to be comparable.1 71 The deans favored "Leadership abilities” by a substantial margin as their first choice; however, their next three choices-- "Ability to work well with others," "Other" and "Administrative abilities/training"--were so closely selected that they were in a virtual tie. The "Other" category was interesting, since five of the deans selected this as their first choice. "Other" selections included a dean who felt that "Politics within each department at the given moment of selection" was the most important factor. Others felt that "Management abilities" and "Philosophy compatible with general mission of community colleges" were most important. One dean lamented that "No one else in the department (was) interested" while another joined him by commenting, "Who in the department can be con- vinced to take the position." In Table 5 the deans' rank order selections are compared with the chairpersons.’ Agreement between the deans and chairpersons (see Table 13 for more information on the chairpersons' selections) was generally uniform. The ”Other" factor was the major difference, with nine of 18 deans using this factor (five as their first choice) while only two of 30 chairpersons used "Other" (none as the first selection). Qpestion D, Chairperson Responsibiliiies (Deans) The deans were asked to check those responsibilities which require a significant portion of the chairperson's time. The term "significant" was purposely not defined. Some deans, as evidenced by percentage figures in the margins of the returned questionnaires, had 72 TABLE 5.--Deans' Factors for Chairperson Selection. Deans' Rank Chairpersons' Factors Order Rank Order —l —J Leadership abilities Ability to work well with others Other* Administrative abilities/training Professional experience Desire for chairperson position 0101-wa Lengthy service at institution Lengthy teaching experience Advanced degree(s) OKOQNOSU'l-wa —I ‘- \DCDV Community recognition N = 18 for deans and N = 30 for chairpersons. *Weighted due to fewer responses. specific figures in mind; however, most deans simply checked responses. The only responsibility which all 18 deans agreed took a significant amount of time was budget preparation. At least two- thirds of the deans selected teaching and classroom schedule prepara- tion, departmental program coordination, administrative and depart- mental meeting attendance, facility supervision, instructor recruiting, selection and orientation, teaching problem assistance, faculty evaluation, student advisement and departmental program development. Half or more of the deans also felt that classroom instruction, 73 curricula and program objectives development, high school and four- year college articulation, clerical staff supervision, taxonomy report preparation, equipment care and facility planning were significant factors. The "Other" category was used sparingly by the deans. Spe- cifically, by section, "Other" included the following responsibilities: 1. Instruction and Curriculum a. Master agreement (faculty union) coordination b. Providing support for instruction 2. General Administration--preparing reports 3. Faculty Improvement a. Labor contracts b. Faculty grievances 4. Student Relations a. Student grade complaints and appeals b. Registration advising 5. Community Relations--not used The complete results of the chairperson responsibilities which the deans felt took a significant amount of time are included in Table 6. Later in this chapter, the chairpersons' perceptions appear as Table 14 and the two results are compared in Table 15. Question E, Administrative Suppprt to thé'Chairperson The deans indicated what kinds and numbers of support personnel were available on the average to the chairpersons. A11 chairpersons had a secretary and clerk, at least on a shared basis, and the great 74 TABLE 6.--Deans' Perceptions of Significant Use of Chairperson's Time. Number of Responsibility Deans Percentage Selecting 1. Instruction and Curriculum: a. Classroom instruction 11 61.1 6. Developing curricula 11 61.1 c. Developing course outlines 3 16.7 d. Evaluating instructional aids 5 27.8 e. Developing program objectives 10 55.6 f. Selecting texts and teaching aids 1 5.6 g. Articulation with high schools or four-year colleges and universities 10 55.6 h. Conducting educational research 1 5.6 i. Other 7 38.9 2. General Administration: a. Preparing departmental budget 18 100.0 b. Preparing teaching schedules 16 88.9 c. Preparing classroom schedules 13 72.2 d. Coordinating departmental programs 13 72.2 e. Preparing examination schedules 1 5.6 f. Attending administrative meetings 14 77.8 9. Conducting departmental meetings 15 83.3 h. Interviewing, selecting and supervising departmental clerical staff 11 61.1 i. Allocating office space 4 22.2 j. Supervising facilities 14 77.8 75 TABLE 6.--Continued. Number of Responsibility Deans Percentage Selecting 2. General Administration (cont.) k. Preparing taxonomy reports 9 50.0 1. Developing advertising for departmental programs 5 27.8 m. Insuring equipment is properly cared for and stored 11 61.1 n. Planning for improved facilities 10 55.6 o. Other 2 11.1 3. Faculty Improvement: a. Recruiting, interviewing and selecting new instructors 15 83.3 b. Orienting new faculty members 12 66.7 c. Conducting in-service workshops and meetings 3 16.7 d. Assisting faculty with teaching problems 15 83.3 e. Visiting and observing instructors in classrooms 8 44.4 f. Preparing faculty evaluations 12 66.7 g. Discussing evaluations with faculty members 7 38.9 h. Recommending faculty for tenure and promotion 6 33.3 i. Other 2 11.1 76 TABLE 6.--Continued. Number of Responsibility Deans Percentage Selecting 4. Student Relations: a. Evaluating previous education of students 6 33.3 b. Advising students on programs 15 83.3 c. Meeting with student organizations and groups 1 5.6 d. Orienting students in departmental programs 5 27.8 e. Enforcing student regulations 3 16.7 f. Placing students in employment 2 11.1 9. Conducting follow-up studies on students 4 22.2 h. Other 3 16.7 5. Community Relations: a. Developing and meeting with advisory committees for departmental programs 15 83.3 b. Making public appearances 5 27.8 c. Serving in community groups 5 27.8 d. Arranging for work experience programs 7 38.9 e. Arranging for community groups to visit the department 4 22.2 f. Arranging for faculty and students to visit community institutions 5 27.8 9. Other 0 0.0 18. 2 ll 77 majority (88.9 percent) had a full-time secretary. The majority of chairpersons had an administrative or staff assistant and part-time student aides. "Other" support personnel included administrative or laboratory technicians. TABLE 7.--Dean Assessment of Chairperson Support Personnel. Number of Personnel Type Deans Percentage Administrative/Staff Assistant 14 77.8 Full-Time (9) (50.0) Part-Time (50 percent) (5) (27.8) Secretary 18 100.0 Full-Time (16) (88.9) Part-Time (50 percent) (2) (11.1) Clerk 18 100.0 Fu11-Time (10) (55.6) Part-Time (50 percent) (8) (44.4) Student Aide(s) 16 88.9 Full-Time (O) (0.0) Part-Time (25+ percent) (16) (88.9) Other 6 33.3 Full-Time (2) (11.1) Part-Time (25+ percent) (4) (22.2) N = 18. Question F, Willingness to be InterViewed The deans were very willing to be interviewed. Sixteen (88.9 percent) of the 18 deans agreed, in advance, to an interview. Actual interviews were more difficult to arrange due to conflicting schedules. 78 Chairperson's Questionnaire Analysis Qpestion A, Personal Data Highest Degree (Item A.4).--Chairperson educational attain- ment was higher than in previous studies (Gates, 1964; Pierce, 1970; Lombardi, The Department/Division Chairman: Characteristics and Role in the Community College, 1974). Thirty percent of the 30 responding chairpersons had doctoral-level degrees (eight hold the Doctor of Philosophy and one has a Doctor of Education). One had an Education Specialist Degree and 10 of the 17 chairpersons with Masters Degrees indicated they were candidates for higher level degrees. The average chairperson has 6.6 years of formal college- 1eve1 education. TABLE 8.--Chairperson Educational Attainment. Educational Level Number Percentage Associate Degree 0 0.0 Bachelor Degree 2 6.7 Bachelor's plus one year 1 3.3 Master Degree 12 40.0 Master's plus one year 5 16.7 Educational Specialist 1 3.3 Doctor of Education 1 3.3 Doctor of Philosophy 8 26.7 N = 30. 79 Number of Years as Chairperson at Present Institution (Item A.6).--The length of service as a chairperson (none of the respondents had been chairpersons previously) varied from one month to 17 years. The majority of "senior" chairpersons had served for 11 to 12 years. The average length of service for all 30 chair- persons was 7.4 years. TABLE 9.--Length of Service as Chairperson. Number of Number of Years Chairpersons Percentage O- 1.99 3 10.0 2- 3.99 2 6.7 4- 5.99 7 23.3 6- 7.99 5 16.7 8- 9.99 6 20.0 10-11.99 6 20.0 12-17 1 3.3 N = 30. Previous Position (Item A.7).--The great majority of chair- persons (83.3 percent) had been faculty or staff members at their institutions prior to becoming deans. Of the five chairpersons who were not formerly faculty or staff members, two had been directors at other community colleges, two had been faculty members at four- year universities and one had been a high school counselor. 80 TABLE lO.--Chairperson's Previous Position. . . Number of Pos1t1on Chairpersons Percentage Faculty (Internal) 23 76.6 Staff (Internal) 2 6.7 Faculty (External) 2 6.7 Staff (External) 3 10.0 N = 30 Faculty Status (Item A.8).--Twenty-one (70 percent) of the chairpersons presently hold faculty status and half of the remaining nine chairpersons teach classes "occasionally." The 21 chairpersons who teach classes average 6.9 contact hours of instruction per week. As can be seen in Table 11, the chairpersons either teach a "full load" or less than a "half load." TABLE ll.--Contact Hours Taught per Week by Chairperson. Number of Number of Hours Chairpersons Percentage l- 2.99 2 9.5 3- 4.99 3 14.3 5- 6.99 3 14.3 7- 8.99 O 0.0 9-10.99 O 0.0 ll-12.99 5 23.8 13-15 8 38.1 N = 21. 81 Question B, Departmental Data In order to determine the size of the various departments, chairpersons were asked to provide figures concerning fall 76/77 term or semester credit hours, headcounts and/or FTE (full time equated) students in their departments. These figures were then reduced to fall term credit hours and projected for a year. There was a wide range of departmental sizes. The average department pro- duced between 20,000 and 25,000 term credit hours per school year. TABLE 12.--Department Size by Term Credit Hours. Term Credit Hours Number of Per Year Departments Percentage* 0- 5,000 1 3.3 5,001-10,000 4 13.3 10,001-15,000 4 13.3 15,001-20,000 3 10.0 20,001-25,000 6 20.0 25,001-30,000 3 10.0 30,001-35,000 3 10.0 35,001-40,000 l 3.3 40,00l-45,000 l 3.3 45,001-50,000 2 6.7 50,001-55,000 O 0.0 55,001-60,000 O 0.0 60,001-65,000 2 6.7 N = 30 *One-tenth of a percentage point was lost in rounding off percentages. 82 Question C, Chairpersons' Factors in Chaihperson SéléCfion The researcher used the same power loading formula and addi- tional weighting as was used in Question C of the Dean's Question- naire Analysis. Agreeing with the deans, the chairpersons favored "Leadership abilities“ by even a wider margin than the deans. The remainder of the list followed in a fairly evenly-spaced order with no real dispute as to rank order. Unlike the deans, only ten percent (three) of the chairpersons used the "Other" category. One chairperson used "Other" as his fourth choice and specified that the fact he was a faculty union officer had a bearing on his selection, and two chair- persons added "willingness to take the job" as their seventh choice. In Table 13, the chairpersons' rank order selections are compared with the deans' (see Table 5 for more information concerning the deans' selections). Question 0, Chairperson's Responsibilities (Chairperson) The chairpersons were asked to check those responsibilities which require a significant (not defined) portion of the chairperson's time. All 30 chairpersons agreed that preparing the departmental budget and teaching schedules took a significant amount of their time. In fact, half or more of the chairpersons felt that 50 percent of the 48 responsibilities listed required a significant part of their time. The POther" category was used only occasionally by the chair- persons. By section, "Other" included the following items: 83 1. Instruction and Curriculum a. Preparing for exhibits and performances b. Contacts and planning with hospitals, accrediting agencies and community advisory committees 2. General Administration--preparing publicity releases 3. Faculty Improvement--not used 4. Student Relations--student complaints 5. Community Relations--participation in community health planning TABLE 13.--Chairpersons' Factors for Chairperson Selection. 63:58:32? email... Leadership abilities l 1 Ability to work well with others 2 2 Administrative abilities/training 3 4 Professional experience 4 5 Lengthy service at institution 5 7 Desire for chairperson position 6 6 Lengthy teaching experience 7 8 Advanced degree(s) B 9 Community recognition 9 10* Other* 10* 3 N = 30 for chairpersons and N = 18 for deans. *Weighted due to fewer responses. 84 Several chairpersons added comments in the questionnaire margins to explain or clarify their reasons for checking various responsibilities. The comments generally included statements like "in coordination with faculty" or "with approval of business manager." Other chairpersons not only clarified but possibly vented some frus- trations. One chairperson summed up his General Administration responsibilities with the comment, "Handling all sorts of nitty-gritty stuff and attending countless meetings." Statements concerning the orientation of new faculty members included, "We haven't hired a new full-time faculty member in five (six) (seven) years" or "Yes, if there ever were any." One chairperson, commenting on advising students about the departmental programs, added, "Only when asked-- unfortunately the Counseling Department does this." Finally, a chairperson who had checked almost every responsibility on the list penned this closing note: "I'm too tired to think of any more!" The results of the chairperson reSponsibilities which the chairpersons' themselves felt took a significant amount of time are included in Table 14. More meaningful information may be obtained when the chair- persons' perceptions about the chairperson's responsibilities which take a significant amount of time (Table 14) are compared to the deans' perceptions (Table 6). Table 15 contains this comparison. For the purposes of analysis the ”Other" category will be excluded as it has been discussed previously. In general, the chairpersons' perceptions of responsibilities which take a significant amount of their time was higher than the 85 TABLE 14.--Chairpersons' Perceptions of Significant Use of Chairperson's Time. Number of Responsibility Chairpersons Percentage Selecting 1. Instruction and Curriculum: a. Classroom instruction 21 70.0 b. Developing curricula 21 70.0 c. Developing course outlines 12 40.0 d. Evaluating instructional aids 12 40.0 e. Developing program objectives 18 60.0 f. Selecting texts and teaching aids 9 30.0 g. Articulation with high schools or four-year colleges and universities 24 80.0 h. Conducting educational research 7 23.3 i. Other 1 3.3 2. General Administration: a. Preparing departmental budget 30 100.0 b. Preparing teaching schedules 30 100.0 c. Preparing classroom schedules 24 80.0 d. Coordinating departmental programs 24 80.0 e. Preparing examination schedules 1 3.3 f. Attending administrative meetings 23 76.7 9. Conducting departmental meetings 25 83.3 h. Interviewing, selecting and super- vising departmental clerical staff 22 73.3 i. Allocating office space 16 53.3 86 TABLE l4.--Continued. Number of Responsibility Chairpersons Percentage Selecting 2. General Administration (cont.) j. Supervising facilities 16 53.3 k. Preparing taxonomy reports 16 53.3 1. Developing advertising for departmental programs 16 53.3 m. Insuring equipment is properly cared for and stored 12 40.0 n. Planning for improved facilities 18 60.0 o. Other 1 3.3 3.) Faculty Improvement: a. Recruiting, interviewing and selecting new instructors 27 90.0 b. Orienting new faculty members 24 80.0 c. Conducting in-service workshops and meetings 11 36.7 d. Assisting faculty with teaching problems 23 76.7 e. Visiting and observing instructors in classrooms 13 43.3 f. Preparing faculty evaluations 16 53.3 g. Discussing evaluations with faculty members 16 53.3 h. Recommending faculty for tenure and promotion 8 26.7 i. Other 0 0.0 87 TABLE 14.--Continued. Number of Responsibility Chairpersons Percentage Selecting 4. Student Relations: a. Evaluating previous education of students 17 56.7 b. Advising students on programs 26 86.7 c. Meeting with student organizations and groups 3 10.0 d. Orienting students in departmental programs 9 30.0 e. Enforcing student regulations 10 33.3 f. Placing students in employment 8 26.7 9. Conducting follow-up studies on students 7 23.3 h. Other 5 16.7 5. Community Relations: a. Developing and meeting with advisory committees for departmental programs 16 53.3 b. Making public appearances 12 40.0 c. Serving in community groups 12 40.0 d. Arranging for work experience programs 8 26.7 e. Arranging for community groups to visit the department 6 20.0 f. Arranging for faculty and students to visit community institutions 5 16.7 9. Other 0 0.0 88 deans'. This is probably not too surprising because the chair- persons are the pe0ple actually doing the job, not assigning the job to be done. The term "significant" may have come into play also, but that is speculative, at best. By section, the analysis is as follows: 1. Instruction and Curriculum. In all cases (the "Other" category was excluded--see preceding paragraph), a higher percentage of chairpersons than deans felt that these responsibilities took a significant amount of time. Some of the percentage differences probably were not significant; however, the percentage differences concerning course outline development, text and teaching aid develop- ment, articulation with high schools or four-year colleges and universities and educational research are significant. It would appear that the chairpersons spend more time on these responsibili- ties than the deans are aware of. 2. General Administration. In most cases, the deans and chairpersons are in general agreement. The chairpersons seem to spend more time allocating office space and developing advertising than the deans give them credit for; however, the deans perceive that the chairpersons are supervising office space and taking care of equipment for longer periods than may be the actual case. This area has the highest overall percentages of time usage. 3. Faculty Improvement. Again there is general agreement. The one major difference appears to be that almost half of the deans thought the chairpersons were spending significant amounts of time visiting classrooms while only ten percent of the chairpersons agreed. 89 4. Student Relations. In all cases, a higher or equal percentage of chairpersons than deans felt these responsibilities take a significant amount of time. The chairperson's time spent evaluating previous student education and enforcing student regula- tions may be of importance. 5. Community Relations. This was the only general area where the deans' perception of the use of chairperson's time exceeded the chairpersons' perceptions. It is interesting to note that many deans place emphasis on the use of advisory committees in depart- mental programs and this is the area of greatest variance in the deans' and chairpersons' perceptions. In summary, the chairpersons appear to be doing more work with instruction, curriculum and students than the deans are aware of, but less work in faculty improvement and community relations than the chairpersons are credited with. General administration seems to be an area of mutual understanding with the highest percentage of time expenditure. Several (35 percent) of the deans and chairpersons also attached chairperson job descriptions. Without exception, the descriptions included such items as budgeting, scheduling and plan- ning. Most emphasized leadership, administration meeting attendance, and work with advisory committees. As a general rule, the descrip- tions became very detailed when listing procedures for hiring and evaluating faculty and staff, but much less detailed when listing other departmental functions. 90 TABLE 15.--Comparison of Chairpersons' and Deans' of Significant Use of Chairperson's Time Perceptions. Chairpersons' Deans' Respons1b1l1ty percentage Percentage 1. Instruction and Curriculum: a. Classroom instruction 70.0 61.1 b. DevelOping curricula 70.0 61.1 c. Developing course outlines 40.0 16.7 d. Evaluating instructional aids 40.0 27.8 e. Developing program objectives 60.0 55.6 f. Selecting texts and teaching aids 30.0 5.6 g. Articulation with high schools or four-year colleges and universities 80.0 55.6 h. Conducting educational research 23.3 5.6 i. Other 3.3 38.9 2. General Administration: a. Preparing departmental budget 100.0 100.0 b. Preparing teaching schedules 100.0 88.9 c. Preparing classroom schedules 80.0 72.2 d. Coordinating departmental programs 80.0 72.2 e. Preparing examination schedules 3.3 5.6 f. Attending administrative meetings 76.7 77.8 9. Conducting departmental meetings 83.3 83.3 h. Interviewing, selecting and super- vising departmental clerical staff 73.3 61.6 i. Allocating office space 53.3 22.2 91 TABLE 15.--Continued. . . . Chairpersons' Deans' Respons1b111ty Percentage Percentage 2. General Administration (cont.) j. Supervising facilities 53.3 77.8 k. Preparing taxonomy reports 53.3 50.0 1. Developing advertising for departmental programs 53.3 27.8 m. Insuring equipment is properly cared for and stored 40.0 61.1 n. Planning for improved facilities 60.0 55.6 o. Other 3.3 11.1 3. Faculty_Improvement: a. Recruiting, interviewing and selecting new instructors 90.0 83.3 b. Orienting new faculty members 80.0 66.7 c. Conducting in-service workshops and meetings 36.7 16.7 d. Assisting faculty with teaching problems 76.7 83.3 e. Visiting and observing instructors in classrooms 3.3 44.4 f. Preparing faculty evaluations 53.3 66.7 g. Discussing evaluations with faculty members 53.3 38.9 h. Recommending faculty for tenure and promotion 26.7 33.3 i. Other 0.0 11.1 92 TABLE 15.--Continued. Chairpersons' Deans' Respons1b111ty percentage Percentage 4. Student Relations: a. Evaluating previous education of students 56.7 33.3 b. Advising students on programs 86.7 83.3 c. Meeting with student organizations and groups 10.0 5.6 d. Orienting students in departmental programs 30.0 27.8 e. Enforcing student regulations 33.3 16.7 f. Placing students in employment 26.7 11.1 9. Conducting follow-up studies on students 23.3 22.2 h. Other 16.7 16.7 5. Community Relations: a. Developing and meeting with advisory committees for departmental programs 53.3 83.3 b. Making public appearances 40.0 27.8 c. Serving in community groups 40.0 27.8 d. Arranging for work experience programs 26.7 38.9 e. Arranging for community groups to visit the department 20.0 22.2 f. Arranging for faculty and students to visit community institutions 16.7 27.8 9. Other 0.0 0.0 N = 30 for chairpersons and N = 18 for deans. 93 Qpestion E, Delegating Responsibilities After listing those responsibilities which take a signifi- cant amount of time, the chairpersons were asked to list which of these responsibilities they would delegate. Table 16 lists the number of chairpersons selecting a particular responsibility, the number who would delegate the responsibility, and the percentage formed by these two factors. Two chairpersons (6.7 percent) indicated that they would ppp_be willing to delegate any responsibilities. An interview with one of these two chairpersons (the other indicated he did not wish to be interviewed) appears as Interviewee 4 in Summaries of Interviews in this chapter. The results show that over half of the chairpersons were willing to delegate 85 percent of their responsi- bilities. They clearly indicated that they wished to remain in complete control of such responsibilities as developing program objectives, attending and conducting meetings, planning for improved facilities, recruiting and selecting new instructors and preparing and discussing faculty evaluations. Question F, Delegating Authority On this key question concerning the willingness of the chair- persons to not only delegate the responsibility but the authority to act, the chairpersons overwhelmingly favored the delegation of authority. Twenty-six of the 30 chairpersons stated that, of the responsibilities which they had selected, they would delegate the authority to accomplish the responsibilities. Two chairpersons stated they would delegate authority in most areas (exceptions: 94 TABLE 16.--Chairpersons Willingness to Delegate Responsibilities. Responsibility No. Del./No. Sel. Percentage 1. Instruction and Curriculum: a. Classroom instruction 11/21 52.4 b. Developing curriculua 11/21 52.4 c. Developing course outlines 8/12 66.7 d. Evaluating instructional aids 9/12 75.0 e. Developing program objectives 7/18 38.9 f. Selecting texts and teaching aids 8/9 88.9 g. Articulation with high schools or four-year colleges or universities 15/24 62.5 h. Conducting educational research 5/7 71.4 i. Other 1/1 100.0 2. General Administration: a. Preparing departmental budget 16/30 53.3 b. Preparing teaching schedules 17/30 56.7 c. Preparing classroom schedules 22/24 91.7 d. Coordinating departmental programs 12/24 50.0 e. Preparing examination schedules 1/1 100.0 f. Attending administrative meetings 9/23 39.1 9. Conducting departmental meetings 10/25 40.0 h. Interviewing, selecting and supervising departmental clerical staff 12/22 54.5 i. Allocating office space 14/16 87.5 95 TABLE 16.--Continued. Responsibility No. Del./No. Sel. Percentage 2. General Administration (cont.) j. Supervising facilities 14/16 87.5 k. Preparing taxonomy reports 14/16 87.5 1. Developing advertising for departmental programs 13/16 81.3 m. Insuring equipment is properly cared for and stored lO/lO 100.00 n. Planning for improved facilities 5/18 27.8 o. Other 1/1 100.0 3. Faculty Improvement: a. Recruiting, interviewing and selecting new instructors 12/27 44.4 b. Orienting new faculty members 15/24 62.5 c. Conducting in-service workshops and meetings 9/11 81.8 d. Assisting faculty with teaching problems 16/23 69.6 e. Visiting and observing instructors in classrooms 8/13 61.5 f. Preparing faculty evaluations 5/16 31.3 g. Discussing evaluations with faculty members 4/16 25.0 h. Recommending faculty for tenure and promotion 5/18 62.5 i. Other Not Selected 96 TABLE 16.--Continued. Responsibility No. Del./No. Sel. Percentage 4. Student Relations: a. Evaluating previous education 15/17 88.2 of students b. Advising students on program 17/26 65.4 c. Meeting with student organiza- tions and groups 3/3 100.0 d. Orienting students in departmental programs 9/9 100.0 e. Enforcing student regulations 8/10 80.0 f. Placing students in employment 8/8 100.0 9. Conducting follow-up studies on students 7/7 100.0 h. Other 3/5 60.0 5. Community Relations: a. Developing and meeting with advisory committees for departmental programs 15/16 93.8 b. Making public appearances 9/12 75.0 c. Serving in community groups 8/12 66.7 d. Arranging for work experience programs 8/8 100.0 e. Arranging for community groups to visit the department 6/6 100.0 f. Arranging for faculty and students to visit community institutions 5/5 100.0 9. Other Not Selected N = 30 97 budget, coordinating departmental programs, orienting new faculty, conducting in-service workshops and meetings, and advising students on programs). Two chairpersons stated they would not delegate any authority. TABLE 17.--Chairpersons' Willingness to Delegate Authority. Number of Response Chairpersons Percentage Yes, in all areas 26 86.6 Yes, in most areas 2 6.7 Yes, in a few areas 0 0.0 No, in all areas 2 6.7 N = 30. Question G, Administrative Support to Chairperson In response to the question concerning the kinds and numbers of direct support personnel who were available to the chairpersons, the replies varied widely. Administrative/staff assistants and program directors appeared to be the rule at one college while another had just recently deleted these positions in favor of an organization almost entirely operated by full-time faculty. Most chairpersons had full or part-time use of a departmental secretary and two departments had two full-time secretaries. Student aides were used extensively. The "Other" category included such part-time 98 positions as laboratory/administrative technicians, para-professional personnel and secretarial pools. Nineteen of the 30 chairpersons (63.3 percent) felt that they were ppt_adequately supported with staff. One chairperson commented that, "Program directors are really needed," while another stated, "An administrative aide is sorely needed to get more than the necessary accomplished." TABLE 18.--Administrative Support to the Chairperson. Number of Personnel Type Chairpersons Percentage Administrative/Staff Assistant 11 36.7 Full-Time (8) (26.7) Part-Time (3) (10.0) Secretary 28 93.4 Full-Time (23) (76.7) Part-Time (5) (16.7) Clerk 13 43.3 Full-Time (4) (13.3) Part-Time (9) (30.0) Student Aide 26 86.7 Full-Time (2) (6.7) Part-Time (24) (80.0) Other 13 43.3 Full-Time (4) (13.3) Part-Time (9) (30.0) N = 30. 99 Question H, Needs Survey Using a recent national chairperson needs survey (see Question H, Chapter III) to determine what might be the education or training requirements of an administrative manager, the researcher received the responses listed in Table 19. The results of the national survey are compared with the researcher's findings. The comparison shows some agreement but also marked differences. By section, the analysis is as follows: 1. General Knowledge of the Community College. The researcher's survey showed a much higher need in this area than the national survey indicated. During interviews with chairpersons many of them felt that many newly-hired administrative personnel were from four-year institutions and had little background in or understanding of community colleges. 2. Curriculum and Instruction. The researcher's survey showed a generally lower percentage of chairpersons needing improve- ments in this area than the national survey did. Chairperson and dean interviews indicated that the newly-hired administrators from four-year institutions had a better background in this area than previously hired administrative personnel. 3. Administration. Long range planning appeared to be more of a problem nationally than in the-researcher's survey, but budget- ing appeared to be of greater concern to the researcher's chair- persons than to the national chairpersons. 4. Managerial Skills. The researcher's survey showed more concern for problem solving and communications than the national 100 Pm we mm we mm mm om mm mm mm on mm mp mm mm 0.0m o.o¢ n.0m 0.0: o.on m.m¢ n.o¢ o.om o.om o.om ~.om 0.0m m.m¢ o.on o.om »_o>eeooeem ocoz meme need: mmcmsu m>muommmm gee mmwmmumgum eeaem eee ae_=oeu meeeeseeoz mppwxm Faecomaeez Amemwmxm cowmeLoecfi pcmsmmmcmzv mHz mcwpwauam mcwccmpa mmcmm one; cowgecumwcw5u< mm>wuuwnno pmcowuuagumcH mo mmmzmwz new mom: mpcwgmumz Pecomuoscumcaumpmm co am: can cowuegagmem mmwmmpmgum PocowpoagumcH maopgm> we mmm=m>epomeem mmzueosaa< pmcowpwumgpicoz co mmcmpzocx mmwuspm aumpwnwmemu :owpuzeumcm co cowueape>m :owuuzgumcu ucm Eapzuwggzu aeoumw: mucmczpm Loco ammo wmmPPou xuwcssEou one mo mmumpzocx Pmsmcmw .v .F >o>gzm Pecowpcz .mmmpcwugmq >m>c=m m.em;ugmmmmm .mmmpcmuema mummz m.:omgmacwc;u .ucmsmmmmm< mummz m.:omgmasmmcuui.mp m4mg=m Pocowpm: cw mac._ n 2 can aw>s=m m.Lm;ugmmmmg cw on u z om mm mm mm Pm we we om cm pm mm mm om mm mm mm mm ow m.m¢ m.mo n.0c m.m< m.me n.c~ m.me m.m¢ m.mv o.o¢ m.mm m.m¢ 5.0m o.on o.oe o.om o.ov m.mm ezoo\a=-moeepoe_=w copeepaowoc< mcpuwsgomm ucmvaum mmwusum susoommm chowpzuvumcm ea: mcwammxe Low mmwmmuogum acmpwgz Femoqoga new ucmgw copumuavm gmcmw: new 3m; mmmapmc< mummz aumcaeeou muomz maowcmppmumwz acmpompmm\mcmzmw>gmpcm mcwcmmep muw>gmmncu xupaoou mopzscom one; aupzumm mpcmwmgna< mocmEgomcma m=_uu=c:ou cowumzpm>m appsomu\mecum pmccomgma mcompmomczesou mcw>pom Empaogm moeoecoeca meeeoom eoepeeomom eoepceou meeeeom Face Amswpmzm mcwumocamumcwEEmgmogaiacwccmFay mmaa 102 survey, but the national survey showed that faculty and staff motiva- tion, strategies for effective change, goal setting and priority setting were greater problems. 5. Personnel. The researcher's survey showed less concern for this area than the national survey indicated. 6. Miscellaneous Needs. There was general agreement in this area. One notable difference in this section--Law and Higher Education--may be due to the fact that almost all Michigan community college legal agreements are defined in faculty union contracts. Question I, Problems and Obstacles Using another recent national survey (see Question I, Chapter III) concerning chairperson problems and obstacles, the researcher obtained the responses listed in Table 20. The results are compared by rank order with the responses from the national survey. Both the researcher's survey and the national survey generally agree that the chairperson simply does not have enough time to do the job. This is also a major thesis of this research study. There were, however, some major differences of opinion between the two surveys. The lack of time to do the job was, by far, the first selection on the researcher's survey, but the national survey, by a similar wide majority, selected "inadequate role definition," an eighth place selection on the researcher's survey. Part of the explanation for this difference may lie in the fact that faculty union agreements in many of the Michigan community colleges carefully 103 limit and define the chairperson's responsibilities. Also, the researcher received at least one chairperson job description from each community college surveyed, and all of the descriptions appeared to have been c0pied from a divisional or college master file. In short, the majority of chairpersons in Michigan community colleges appear to have a role which clearly defined. The researcher's survey selected "allocation of resources" as the second problem/obstacle while the national survey placed this far down the list. A partial explanation for this difference may be that many Michigan faculty and some administrators feel that their community colleges place too much emphasis on construction of facilities and not enough on salaries and hiring of additional faculty and staff. Then, too, there are most likely some political differences about allocations to various departments. One chair- person commented, "Why is it Health Careers gets all the faculty, staff and equipment while my department, which produces three times as many credit hours, gets nothing." Although both surveys showed "faculty evaluation procedures" far down the list, there was a noticeable difference between the two. Again, faculty union contracts carefully define these pro- cedures, so that Michigan chairpersons may not feel this problem was as serious as the chairpersons in the national survey. 104 TABLE 20.--Chairperson's Problems and Obstacles. Rank, Problem/Obstacle Regfipcpger's NatiosglkSurvey Not enough time to do the job 1 2, 3 (Tie) Allocation of resources 2 ll, 12 (Tie) Monetary constraints 3 2, 3 (Tie) Inadequate communications 4 4 No involvement in decision-making 5 8 Administrative inefficiencies 6 5, 6 (Tie) Crises management 7 10 Inadequate role definition 8 1 Faculty resistance to change 9 5, 6 (Tie) Lack of goals/direction 10 11, 12 (Tie) Lack of administrative training 11 14 Poor human relations 12 13 Inadequate time management 13 9 Faculty evaluation procedures 14 7 N = 30 in researcher's survey and N = 200 in national survey. Question J, Willingness to be InterViewed The chairpersons were not nearly as willing as the deans to be interviewed. A slight majority of 16 of the 30 chairpersons (53.3 percent) said they would accept an interview. 105 Question K, Additional Comments Many of the additional comments were written on the margins of the questionnaire and not many chairpersons added comments in this section. A few, however, did. One chairperson wrote "It would be interesting to compare items B (departmental credit hours) and G (administrative support to the chairperson) within this institution." Another offered support for his dean by penning, "Interview the dean, he needs help, he thinks!" (see Interview 1, in Summaries of Inter- yjeup, this chapter). One of the chairpersons complained that "This is a small department (and) . . . providing personnel for numerous 'staff' sections is a real problem in fall and winter. We use part-time instructors (six this winter) and full-time people who wish overload." Finally, a chairperson stated, "My role is both a line and staff role. The problem's balancing time and energy to accomplish both in a complex and demanding environment." Summaries of Interviews In order to validate responses from questionnaires and to allow respondents the opportunity to expand on their replies, visitations were made to the community college campuses. A total of three deans and five chairpersons were interviewed, each for a period of approximately one hour. The interviews all took place in the interviewees' offices. Salient points of the discussions follow: Interviewee 1, Dean Interviewee is the dean of two very large departments, each producing over 45,000 term credit hours per year, and a center for 106 department related activities. Before being appointed dean two years ago, he was a staff assistant himself, and presently has an administra- tive assistant. His chairpersons each have staff assistants, also. The dean is generally in favor of the concept of an admini- strative manager and, in fact, has hired one to run the day-to-day operations of the center. However, he states, "The authority line becomes very touchy and depends greatly on the dean or chairperson involved. I would not presume to make that decision for my chair- persons." The dean feels that the authority line decision for an administrative manager depends on four factors: 1. The abilities and expertise of the senior supervisor (i.e., chairperson). In general, if the senior supervisor is very knowledgeable about the administrative functions, he or she might be more likely to delegate authority in this area. This is due to the fact that the senior supervisor can usually ascertain how well the administrative functions are being handled by an occasional check. 2. The confidence the senior supervisor has in the junior administrator's abilities. This is usually accomplished over a period of time and is a reflection of other's (i.e., the faculty, in the case of a department) confidence in the administrator. This factor could, in fact, overcome a lack of senior supervisor administrative ability. Using his own experience as a staff assistant, the dean felt that he had been able to overcome the lack of a formalized authority line by building confidence with the personnel whom his superior directed. 107 3. The personality and background of the senior supervisor. Many supervisors delegate responsibilities and "assumed" authority to accomplish tasks, but are unwilling to formally delegate authority. "Assumed" authority can be very frustrating to the administrator and can lead to delayed decisions and lack of confidence in the adminis- trator's abilities. On the other hand, many administrators feel more comfortable with "assumed" authority because they cannot be legitimately held responsible for actions taken. 4. The willingness of the junior administrator to "step into a growing role." This is an important consideration because, if the administrator is doing a good job, his responsibilities will most likely continue to increase. Administrators who prefer to accomplish day-to-day routine tasks "would not fit an administrative manager mold." In summary, this dean feels that the administrative manager concept would work well in large departments (see Chapter I, Definition of Terms) but it would seem that, if the person is relatively unknown when hired, he or she should be hired as a staff/ administrative assistant initially and, depending on the four factors previously mentioned, gradually move into the position of administra- tive manager. Interviewee 2, Dean Interviewee is the dean of 19 small to average size depart- ments. This seemed like an unusual number of departments for one person to attempt to administer and the dean admitted he "sometimes 108 felt more like a referee than a dean.” The community college has an almost vertical operational organizational structure from the president to the provost to the dean to 19 chairpersons. In accord- ance with the 134 page faculty union contract, any four full-time faculty members who wish to, may form a department. Only half kiddingly, the dean said, "This leads to departments of women's chemistry and men's chemistry." The college's faculty is approxi- mately 80 percent full-time and 20 percent part-time and the average department has seven or eight faculty members. Due to declining enrollments, several full-time faculty are "on loan" to other depart- ments to complete a full teaching load. Chairpersons all teach a "full load" of 12 contact hours per week and many teach an "overload" of 15 contact hours per week. The remainder of the chairperson's time is spent as an administrator. Chairpersons are paid faculty wages plus 100 dollars per full-time faculty member assigned to the department (maximum of $1500) per semester. Chairpersons are elected every two years and according to the dean, "politics play a very important role in the selection of chairpersons." Many deals are made within some departments (i.e., the members of one discipline within a department may vote as a block to elect "one of their own" as chairperson) and "often times a chairperson's status in the (faculty) union may have an overbearing effect on his or her election as chairman." Other departments "keep electing the same person year after year, regardless of his or her union status." In response to questions concerning the position of administra- tive manager within the various departments, the dean felt the 109 departments were too small to provide enough meaningful work for such a person and the practical matter of paying 19 administrative managers would be prohibitive. We then discussed the possibility of having an administrative manager working with the chairpersons in four or five departments. Evidently this had been tried to some degree previously. The persons had been called "administrative coordinators" and been assigned to the departments from the college president's office. They reported directly to the president and were in constant conflict with the chairpersons. When a change was made at the top administrative level, the college "adopted a policy of absolute minimum administrative personnel" which led to the present organization. The dean relies heavily on a rather sophisticated on-line computer to keep in touch with room schedules, registration and teaching loads within the departments. Chairpersons have ready access to the dean or the provost, but the chairpersons generally initiate contact. Candidly speaking, the dean stated that, "Once I approve the budgets, chairpersons pretty much run their own shows." The dean does have funds available to hire persons to work on special projects or to work in specialized areas. For example, "We were having some trouble in the Voc-Tech area so I hired a faculty member on a part-time basis to handle it." The key point is that these specialized projects are always "handled" by faculty members. This is in accordance with established procedure within the present organizational structure and constitutes a part of a teaching load or an overload for the faculty member. 110 The dean stated that if,instead of faculty members, administra- tively trained personnel were hired they should be trained or educated in budgeting, scheduling of classrooms and teachers, interview pro- cedures and the handling of student complaints. To say that this community college operates in a decentralized manner would be an understatement. Although the dean is classified as an administrator, he sees himself more as a coordinator and feels that personal relationships with the chairpersons are much more important to a successful operation than a formalized structure. Because of this decentralized structure and a "recent bad taste" from an overly centralized structure, the concept of an administrative manager "probably wouldn't work." Interviewee 3, Dean Interviewee is the dean of a primarily service-oriented division which has two small departments (4000-9000 term credit hours per year). He was appointed dean in 1968. He has an administrative assistant but because of the small size of the departments, his chairpersons do not. In principle, he favors the concept of an administrative manager and has, in fact, delegated authority and responsibility in selected areas to his administrative assistant. Like Interviewee 1, he would prefer ("especially if he or she was a largely unknown quantity") to hire the administrative person on as an assistant who gradually works into the role of manager. "It's a matter of con- fidence," he says, "and the chemistry between the chairperson and the 111 administrator." In the chairperson's absence, his administrative assistant makes decisions and takes actions in areas not specifically delegated, but "always keeps me informed and that's the way I like it." In the future, the dean foresees more responsibilities and authority being passed to the administrative assistant. When asked about what experience, education and training the administrator should have, the dean placed heavy emphasis on experience. The administrative assistant's background had provided him self sufficiency and the ability to make sound decisions under pressure. The administrative assistant has a good background in psychology, both formal and informal, and is "low key" in his deal- ings with senior administrators and faculty. As for formal education, the dean feels that, in addition to the necessary management courses, a good administrator at his college should take training in evaluation procedures, statistics and a specialized course in State budgeting. Ideally the administrator would have received a portion of his or her education at a community college, but, as a minimum, should have formally studied community colleges in order to learn about the philosophy of the two-year institutions. This dean feels that an administrative manager would be very helpful in a small (in terms of credit hours) division such as his or in a service-oriented division where the tasks, though many, are often routine. 112 Interviewee 4, Chairperson Interviewee is the chairperson of a very large (30,000- 35,000 term credit hours per year) department. His faculty consists of over 100 full-time and part-time instructors and 25 staff per- sonnel. As chairperson, he is classified as an administrator, does not hold faculty status and is, therefore, not a member of the faculty union. Although authorized to teach one class per term, he does not do so. He was appointed to his present position 12 years ago. At present he has an administrative assistant and staff support personnel. The organizational structure of his college is centralized with the majority of major decision-making power concentrated at the dean's level or above. He does have a major input to the decision- making process and also has a reasonable amount of flexibility in his departmental operations. Once a position has been approved within his department, he has full authority to hire and terminate. His administrative assistant has been with the chairperson for several years and has the chairperson's full confidence. The administrative assistant handles faculty interviewing, hiring and terminations, and also many of the day-to-day operations like class and instructor scheduling, taxonomy preparation and making community contacts. The chairperson summed up in this manner: "As I understand your (administrative manager) concept, my administrative assistant is an administrative manager in all things except formalized title." Despite what might appear to be a great relief from administrative problems, the chairperson still considers himself to be an administrator 75 percent of the time and a leader only 25 113 percent of the time. He says, "I wish the roles were reversed. I was a pretty darn good instructor for several years and would like to be able to spend more time talking with my faculty and helping them with teaching problems." He'd like to have more time to make class visita- tions and plan for departmental progress, also. His problems stem from the fact that essentially he has nine different programs operating within the department. The coordination, mediation and problem solving require a great amount of the chair- person's time. In general, the chairperson favors the administrative manager concept, saying, "I just wish I had a couple more, or at least two or three program directors." He feels that good administra- tive assistants or managers should have a thorough background in recruiting and interviewing techniques and be able to work with community people and industry. Considering the centralized organizational structure of this community college and the large departmental size, the administrative manager may serve a useful function. Interviewee 5, Chairperson Interviewee is the chairperson of an average sized (17,000- 20,000 term credit hours per year) department, and teaches a “full load" of 12-15 hours per week. His faculty consists of eight full- time and five part—time members (the part-time faculty vary from two to eight, depending on enrollments). The chairperson has a responsible position within the faculty union and is a member of the faculty negotiating team. He has been elected to the chairperson's 114 position every two years, with one exception, since 1967. The organizational structure of the college is very decentralized, allowing the chairperson great flexibility of operation. Upon initial contact, the chairperson told the interviewer that, "We tried putting administrators in the departments and it didn't work" (see Interviewee 2, paragraph 3). This chairperson felt that since his department taught courses which would normally be considered "core" or required courses, operations were very stable and unchanging. Administration was a relatively simple matter and he could "take care of the required responsibilities in the 20 or so hours a week available for that sort of thing." The delegation of responsibilities and authority to an administrative manager would be "a waste of time and money" in his opinion. His personal relationships with the dean were very good (this was also confirmed by the dean) and the department is function- ing smoothly ”as things are." The chairperson sees his position as being one of a mediator with his faculty. He is also the initial contact point for student complaints and "solves about 90 percent of them" at his level. Obviously, this chairperson does not feel that an administra- tive manager is needed or wanted. Considering the size of the department and the unhappy experience with another administrative concept, his feelings are probably justified. 115 Interviewee 6, Chairperson Interviewee is the chairperson of a very large (28,000- 33,000 term credit hours per year) department and has over 200 faculty and staff members in his department. He was a faculty member in the department before being appointed by the central administration six years ago. Like Interviewee 4, he is an administrator, does not hold faculty status or teach, and is not a member of a faculty union. He has two administrative assistants plus other support staff personnel. His college uses a centralized organizational structure, but the chairperson can and does operate somewhat independently. Final approval for departmental decisions often rests with the dean and interpersonal relationships play an important role in this process. The chairperson's administrative assistants are both in the authority line, have been delegated numerous administrative responsi- bilities, and the commenserate authority. The "up-the-chain" operational line usually operates from subordinate up, but the "down- the-chain" operational line often operates from chairperson directly to the affected person with the chairperson notifying intermediate supervisors of occurrences. This appears to work surprisingly well, but occasionally results in some confusion. His administrative assistants operate in a vertical role with the junior assistant reporting to the senior one who works directly for the chairperson. The junior assistant generally manages the largest discipline while the senior assistant is responsible for the day-to-day management of the entire department. Being more interested 116 in the short and long range planning aspects rather than the daily administration of the department, the chairperson created this particular structure and appears pleased with it. The chairperson feels he still is "only 40 percent leader and 60 percent administrator. I'd like to turn those percentages around." He would like to "think, spearhead some ideas and plug some 100pholes." He feels that he is at the point in his life to "do some creative thinking and publish a book." He adds, "I'd like to foster more research into the community college philosophy as it relates to our community environment." On the subject of the administrative manager concept, he feels, especially in his circumstance, that the idea is really the only way to free the chairperson "to co the things he was hired for." He recommends that the administrative manager should "know something about the departmental disciplines" but needs a thorough understand- ing of budgeting techniques and procedures, grant proposals, CBE (Competency Based Education), taxonomies, and "a good dose of psychology, so that he or she can work well with people." This chairperson strongly favors the administrative manager concept which appears ideally suited to a chairperson who may not have a strong interest or formal training in administration. Interviewee 7, Chairperson Interviewee is the chairperson of an average sized (19,000- 22,000 term credit hours per year) department and teaches a full load of 12-15 hours per week. His faculty consists of ten full-time 117 members and one part-time member. He is not particularly active within the faculty union but has been elected as chairperson every two years since 1967. In his own words, ”Elected is probably stretch- ing the point. Every two years I am acclaimed. No other faculty member is prepared to give the time." His college is decentralized and the chairperson appears to have great flexibility. However, he does not describe his perception of the chairperson's position in that manner. "The chairperson's position is a service role with no real power," he says. "The primary job is to be a mediator, help the faculty and deal with complaints." His department consists of four not-too-closely related disciplines which could possibly lead to some political in-fighting described by Interviewee 2. This, however, is not the case because the chairperson goes out of his way to insure each discipline "receives its fair share of resources." This chairperson spends more additional hours administering his department than the "twenty or so that are available each week." Budgeting and scheduling are not a particular problem to him as "I've been doing that for ten years and it all falls into place." However, he stated, "I could use such a person (administrative manager) on at least a part-time basis so that I could do some plan- ning and make contacts in the community to expand our programs." He feels that he is simply maintaining the status quo, and enrollments are declining to some degree because of the lack of innovative courses. He admitted that the administrative manager concept 118 "might not be too popular at this college, but, handled properly, could be a help to me." This chairperson appears to favor the idea of an administra- tive manager assigned to three or four departments to free the chair- person from the most routine responsibilities so that the chairperson could take a more active role in building his or her department. The key to acceptance of an administrative manager seems to be that the manager works with the chairperson and has no authority over the chairperson. Interviewee 8, Chairperson Interviewee is the chairperson of the largest department which the author researched. The department produces over 60,000 term credit hours and employs a faculty and staff exceeding 300. This chairperson holds faculty status and teaches "a few" contact hours each term, but is not a member of a faculty union. He was appointed to the chairperson's position in 1965. He has an admini- strative assistant whom the chairperson describes as an "alter ego." The department is very well organized with complete job descriptions available to all faculty and staff. Each person in the department, from the chairperson to the newest student aide, has specific written responsibilities which greatly simplifies determin- ing which person to see if a departmental member has a problem. "With a couple more program directors, I'd really have a going con- cern," he says. The administrative assistant is completely familiar with all of the chairperson's functions and has been accepted by the 119 departmental staff and faculty as a substitute in the chairperson's absence. The chairperson summed up as follows, "If I were to be sick for six months, I have no doubt that the department would continue to function normally and probably continue to expand." The chairperson has no hesitancy about delegating responsi- bility and authority. He states, "Part of my job is to build people and I can't do that by keeping them in tow all the time." The chair- person has distributed office manuals to each of his programs, and set department policy and guidelines which he expects to be followed, but the day-to-day operations are the responsibility of the person directly involved. Concerning the administrative assistant, the chairperson feels that his assistant is an administrative manager "in fact." The key attributes which the assistant must have or learn are (1) a philosophy which allows for divergence and a questioning attitude, (2) organizational expertise, and (3) the ability to work well with others. In the atmosphere described in this department, the administra- tive manager should not only be delegated authority and responsibility, but, in turn, could re-delegate them. This may be the ideal type of department for the administrative manager concept. Summary The data received from questionnaire responses have been collected, organized and presented in this chapter. Short narrative analyses of responses were included with each question grouping. 120 Summaries of interviews with eight selected deans and chairpersons were presented. The data presented in this chapter are summarized and findings presented in Chapter V. CHAPTER IV: FOOTNOTES 1John W. Best, Research in Education (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1959), p. 189. 121 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEORETICAL REFLECTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Summary The author's threefold purpose of this study was to (1) determine if a need exists for an administrator to act as a depart- mental manager, (2) identify and describe the salient functions of the chairperson which might be suitably accomplished by an administra- tive manager and (3) delineate the educational and/or experiential requirements for an administrative manager. The researcher's method of investigation initially involved a brief literature search followed by pilot interviews. When the concept of an administrative manager appeared feasible, a thorough literature search was made. Two questionnaires, "Chairperson Survey for Selected Michigan Community Colleges" (Appendix C) and "Dean Survey for Selected Michigan Community Colleges" (Appendix D), were developed. The questionnaires were sent to five of the 29 Michigan com- munity colleges and included 30 deans and 70 chairpersons. When initial responses were received, it became apparent that the replies from one of the colleges did not fully align with the researcher's purpose and the number of potential responses was reduced to those from 25 deans and 55 chairpersons. Of this number, 18 deans (72 122 123 percent) and 30 chairpersons (55 percent) responded. The data from these questionnaires were compiled into tables and analyzed in fre- quencies, percentages and, where necessary, rank ordered (Chapter IV). Eight interviewees, three deans and five chairpersons, were selected from among the respondents. These persons were interviewed by the researcher during March of 1978. Five of the interviewees (two deans and three chairpersons) were essentially positive about the administrative manager concept, two (one dean and one chairperson) were negative and one chairperson felt the concept might work on a shared basis but, for political reasons, his college faculty would most likely not accept the idea (Chapter IV, Summaries 0f Interviews). The analyses reported in Chapter IV lead to several general and specific findings. Findings General Findings Although not one of the researcher's primary purposes in this study, certain identification data concerning the respondents may provide useful background information. 1. Length of service: The average length of service as a dean was 7.8 years and ranged from one year to slightly over 12 years (Table 2). The chairpersons averaged 7.4 years, ranging from one month in the position to 17 years (Table 9). 2. Educational attainment: The chairpersons' average attainment was 6.6 years of college education, with nine of the 30 chairpersons having doctoral level degrees (Table 8). Ten of 17 124 chairpersons who had Master's Degrees were current candidates for higher degrees. 3. Previous position: The great majority of deans (15 of 18) had been previously employed by their institutions, usually as assistant deans, chairpersons, or faculty members (Table 3). Like- wise, most of the chairpersons had held previous institutional positions, usually as faculty members (Table 10). 4. Contact hours taught by chairperson: Nine of the 30 chairpersons taught no classes. Of the 21 chairpersons who did teach, their average contact hours taught per week was 6.9 hours. This average is somewhat misleading as the actual teaching hours were con- centrated at both ends of the scale, less than seven or more than 11 per week (Table 11). Specific Findings 1. Determination of the need for an administrative manager: The major finding in this determination of need is that, by a wide margin over 13 other problems or obstacles, the chairpersons simply do not have enough time to do their jobs (Table 20). Coupled with the finding that more than 60 percent of the chairpersons felt that they were not adequately supported with staff personnel (summary prior to Table 18), leads the researcher to believe that in many cases there is a need for an administrative manager. A combination of these factors--departmenta1 size, current support staff, the reason(s) a chairperson was selected and the willingness of the chairperson to delegate responsibilities and authority--also bears 125 on this decision. It should be noted that any one of these factors could be overriding and none is purely objective. a. Departmental size: Based on the size of departments whose chairpersons indicated a possible need for an administra- tive manager (Tables 12, 16 and 17), it appears that a depart- ment production level of 23,000 to 25,000 term credit hours per year would be necessary. This is slightly higher than the average department size (Table 12) included in this study. In the case of community colleges which have smaller departments, consideration might be given to having an administrative manager working simultaneously for two or more departments. b. Support staff: For those departments which have an administrative staff person assigned to the chairperson, the need already apparently exists. As was suggested by some of the interviewees (Chapter IV, Summaries of Interviews), it may be good policy initially to hire a person in a staff position and then gradually evolve to the concept of the administrative manager. c. Reason(s) for chairperson selection: The deans (Table 5) and the chairpersons (Table 13) agreed that the chair- person is selected for his or her position because of leadership ability. This factor was also a major assumption made by the researcher (Chapter I, Background for the Study). Despite this fact, several of the chairpersons (Chapter IV, Summaries of Interviews) indicated that they spend the majority of their time as administrators, even though administrative abilities ranked 126 fourth on the deans' list of criteria for chairperson selection (Table 5) and third on the chairpersons' list (Table 13). d. Chairperson willingness to delegate responsibilities and authority: This is probably the most subjective area of all and will vary from one chairperson to another. Of the 30 chair- persons whom Uuaresearcher contacted, over half indicated that they would delegate 85 percent of their responsibilities and 27 chairpersons would delegate half of their responsibilities (Table 16). Twenty-six of the 30 chairpersons also indicated that, of the responsibilities which they had selected, they also would delegate the authority. However, it should be noted that two chairpersons stated they would pet delegate any responsibili- ties or authority. 2. Chairperson functions which could be handled by an administrative manager: Two findings of the researcher's study bear on this determination. These concern the deans' and chairpersons' perceptions of the chairperson's time expenditure accomplishing various responsibilities and the willingness of the chairpersons to delegate these responsibilities and authority to an administrative manager. By comparing these findings (Tables 14, 15, 16 and 17), the researcher developed the following list of chairperson responsibili- ties which at least half of the deans and chairpersons felt take a significant portion of the chairperson's time ppg_which the chair- persons would be willing to delegate. Not all responsibilities which meet these criteria are listed, as the researcher deemed that some, 127 such as classroom instruction, were inappropriate responsibilities for an administrative manager. a. Instruction and Curriculum--Articu1ation with high schools or four-year colleges and universities. b. General Administration (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Preparing departmental budget Preparing teaching schedules Preparing classroom schedules Coordinating departmental programs Interviewing, selecting and supervising departmental clerical staff (6) (7) Supervising facilities Preparing taxonomy reports c. Faculty Improvement (1) Orienting new faculty members (2) Assisting faculty with teaching problems d. Student Relations--Advising Students on Programs. e. Community Relations--Developing and meeting with advisory committees for departmental programs. When only the chairpersons' perceptions of time usage and willingness to delegate are considered, allocating office space, developing advertising for departmental programs and evaluating previous education of students can be added to the above list. 3. Education or experiential requirements for an administra- tive manager. The requirements would differ between those persons 128 just entering post-secondary education and those with an educational background plus experience in a similar administrative capacity (e.g., staff or administrative assistant) but not as an administra- tive manager. These requirements have been developed from the chair- person's needs assessment surveys (Table 19) and interviews with deans and departmental chairpersons (Chapter IV, Summaries of Inter— yieup). For simplicity, the requirements are divided into two cate- gories. The first, education, includes a list of course offerings which would be beneficial to persons entering at some level of post- secondary education or to persons with experience who have "gaps" in their formal education. The second, experiential, includes experience or training provided in workshops or seminars. a. Education. The following types of courses, most of which are offered at larger community colleges or four-year universities, were suggested by the interviewees for the would- be administrative manager. (1) Administrative courses: Basic studies in personnel administration and administration in post- secondary education were recommended. A solid background in the theories and fundamentals of administration was also suggested. Because of dealings with public agencies, some public administration would also be helpful. (2) Management courses: Almost all types of management courses would be beneficial, but most of the interviewees who favored the concept of an administrative manager agreed that offerings in management theories and 129 principles plus an understanding of various management systems were necessary. (3) Education courses: The interviewees felt that several education courses would benefit the would-be admini- strative manager, not just because he or she would be working in an educational institution, but because of the practical applications for some of the courses. A partial listing includes courses in community college history and philosophy, adult education, student personnel work, evaluation, counseling, interviewing techniques and the principles of psychology and sociology. (4) Financial management and analysis: None of the interviewees felt that the administrative manager need be a mathematical genius, but should have a basic understanding of accounting, budgeting, statistics and computer principles. b. Experiential. Short-term workshops or seminars, consultant's visits and independent study, using materials such as films and books, are methods of professional improvement which persons with administrative education and experience may use to upgrade their skills in preparation for the position of administrative manager. Often, these improvement methods are offered on-campus or at a near-by off-campus site and usually are of short duration (one-half to three days). The offerings needed will vary with the type of community college, the state location of the college, and the administrative organization of 130 the two-year institution. According to some of the interviewees, the following would be typical for a practitioner in Michigan. c. State Budgeting and Funding Procedures. In the State of Michigan approximately 47 percent of all course funding is provided by State monies through a taxonomy (see Chapter I, Definition of Terms and Appendix F) procedure. A seminar on this subject would necessarily include consultants from the State legislature and the State Department of Education to present a rationale or opinions and a workshop where administrators work with examples of courses which are funded at different levels. d. Competency Based Education (CBE). CBE is another State-initiated system for monitoring community college course offerings. Within the next two years all community college lesson plans, most likely, will be written in the CBE format and all courses taught and judged by means of CBE objectives criteria. This training probably would be offered in a three- day workshop, using self-paced study and project development activities. e. Grant Proposals. This is an area which many com- munity college personnel often feel is the responsibility of a few specifically trained individuals. The seminar should present instruction on how people at all levels of administration can provide in-puts and determine eligibility for this increasingly vital source of revenue for community colleges. f. Efficiency Related Skills. A collective title for a series of short (two hour to half-day) instructional seminars 131 covering a range of topics such as implementation of M80 (Management-By-Objectives) in academic departments, collection and use of research data in decision making, PPBES (Planning, Programming, Budgeting, Evaluating Systems), goal setting and participative management. These suggested exposures are certainly not all of the experiential training which would benefit future administrative managers, but the list does provide a sample of those most often mentioned by the chairpersons and deans in this study. Conclusions The author of this study found four major conclusions. 1. Chairpersons of large community college departments have a need for an administrative manager. 2. The administrative manager should have full responsibility and formally delegated authority to act in those areas selected by the chairperson. Final review and approval must remain with the chair- person. 3. An administrative manager simultaneously assigned to two or more departments is a possible consideration. 4. Initially hiring a person as an administrative or staff assistant is a means of carefully determining his or her capabilities for the position of administrative manager. 132 Recommendations for Further Research As the author was developing this dissertation, five areas of possible further research became apparent. These suggestions may provide information for future studies. 1. An examination should be made of faculty reactions and opinions concerning either an in-place administrative manager or about the idea of hiring one. 2. More extensive research is needed concerning the leader- ship functions of the chairperson and the possible return of the chairperson to the leadership role. 3. A determination should be made of the most effective managerial styles for administering community college departments. 4. Researchers should inquire into the application of formal management systems, such as MBO (Management-By-Objectives), to community college departments. 5. Community colleges should initiate extensive analyses of professional resource centers in order to provide seminars and work- shops for their faculties and staffs. Reflections and Theoretical Considerations During the course of any extended research such as this study, the researcher forms opinions, intuitions and theoretical con- siderations which are not necessarily provable by factual data but which may, nevertheless, be valid. Three observations of this type come to mind. 133 Increasingly, community college academic departments are feeling the force of administrative law--1aw which is not judicial opinions or legislative enactments but the policies and rules of a state or federal agency which have the force of law and, in fact, are law until a given regulation is superseded by an agency itself or invalidated by a court. Community college administrators at the departmental level expressed a need in three areas: (1) Collective bargaining--the legal responsibilities of the chairperson and administrative staff in unionization activities and information concerning the problems caused by the bitterness between colleagues on substantive and emotional issues, (2) Affirmative action--actions deliberately taken to preclude or to redress unlawful discrimination and (3) Substantive due process--the reasonableness of the criteria used in reaching a determination (e.g., the admission or termination of a student). A second area of reflection, also concerning faculty unions, was brought to the author's attention on several occasions. Michigan is the second most unionized state (next to New York) in the United States and, perhaps, it is only natural that faculty unions in Michigan community colleges are the rule rather than the exception. Union activities in those areas of faculty interest such as pay, working conditions, hours and class size are certainly justifiable. The author has some concern, however, when, as occasionally happens, an administrative power vacuum develops which is then filled by a unionized faculty. In a sense, "the inmates are running the asylum" and decisions too often are made, not in the bright light of 134 budgetary considerations and actual enrollments, but in the shadow of optimistic appraisals and program biases. The sense of commitment to a particular institution by a faculty member-administrator may be overshadowed by the commitment to a discipline or departmental course of study. Long range planning on an institutional basis may be neglected entirely and short-range planning is often on a department- by-department basis rather than a coordinated activity. On the other hand, the author also has some concerns about administrators in community colleges. The majority of persons who are administrators in the Michigan community colleges surveyed are lacking in administrative training. This does not mean that they are incapable or incompetent, but when combined with the increased complexity of the two-year institutions, lower efficiency and poorer management can occur. Too often, it appears, people who are very learned in specific areas of instruction are "promoted" to administrative positions, while individuals with managerial and administrative expertise who lack lengthy teaching experience are not considered. Crisis management, instead of systematic management, becomes the standard operating procedure. Students and the general public, both of whom are becoming increas- ingly more sophisticated, expect and even demand the ultimate in the administration of today's campuses. BIBLIOGRAPHY 135 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,’1962. Barzun, Jacques. The American University: How It Runs, Where It Is Going. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Best, John W. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1959. Blau, Peter M. Ipe Organization of Academic Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons,1973. Borg, Walter R. and Meredith D. Gall. Educational Research: An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: David McKay, 1973. Brann, James and Thomas A. Emmet, eds. The Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex Role. Detroit: Balamp Publishing, 1972. Burns, Gerald P. Administrators in Higher Education: Their Functions and Coordination. New York: Harper and Row, 1962} Cohen, Michael D. and James G. March. Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974. Corson, John J. Governance of Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Dilley, Frank B. "The Department Chairman as Academic Planner." In The Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex Role. Editedlby James Brann and Thomas A. Emmet. Detroit: Balamp Publishing, 1972. Dodds, Harold W. The Academic President-~Educator or Caretaker? New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Doyle, Edward A. The Status and Functions of the Departmental Chair- man: A Study of the Status and Function of the Departmental Chairman in Thirty-three Sélected’Colleges Undér Private Auspices. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1953. 136 137 Dressel, Paul L. and William H. Faricy. Return to Responsibility. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971. Dressel, Paul L., F. Craig Johnson and Phillip M. Marcus. [pe- Confidence Crisis: An Analysis of University Departments. San Fhancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970. Dubrin, Andrew J. Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior. New York: Pergamon Press, l974. Edwards, Charles W. and James W. Pruyne, eds. The Administrator in Higher Education: An Assessment of ProfessionaliNeeds. Normal: I11.: Department of’Educotional Administration, Illinois State University and the University Council for Educational Administration, 1976. Fayol, Henri. General and Industrial Management. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, 1949. Garrison, Roger H. Junior College Faculty: Issues and Problems. Washington, D.C.: American Association of JuhiorTC011eges, 1967. Glass, Gene V. and Jullan C. Stanley. Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall, 1970. Grable, John R., ed. Role of the Department/Division Chairman in the Community College. A Report of a Conference at Sam Houston State University Community Junior College Graduate Program, JDly 31-August 1, 1972. Hontsville, Texas: *Sam Houston State University, April, 1973. Hammons, James O. and Terry H. Smith Wallace. An Assessment of Community College Staff Development Needs in the Northeastern United States. University Park, Penn.: Center for the Study ofTHigher Education, Pennsylvania State University, 1976. Staff Develppment Needs of Public Community College Department/Division Chairpersons. University Park, Penn.: Center for the Study of HigherTEducation, Pennsylvania State University, 1977. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart andTWinston, 1973. Koontz, Harold and Cyril O'Donnell. Principles of Management: An Analysis of Managerial Functions. New York: MEGraw-Hill, T968} 138 Lombardi, John. The Department/Division Chairman: Characteristics and Role in the Communitthollege. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information. Topical paper No. 40, 1974. . The Department/Divisional Structure in the Community College. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information, 1973. Topical Paper No. 38, 1973. The Duties and Responsibilities of the Department/ Division Chairman in Community Colleges. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information. Topical Paper No. 39, 1974. McHenry, Dean E. et a1. Academic Departments: Problems, Variations and Alternatives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977. Millett, J. D. The Academic Community. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Montgomery, James R. et al. The Role Analysis of Department Chair- men at State Universities. Blackburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Office of Institutional Research, 1974. Nunnally, Jum C., Jr. Introduction to Measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Parsons, Talcott and Gerald M. Platt. The American University, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Priest, W. "The Division Chairman in the Multi-Campus Community College." In Role of the Department/Division Chairperson in the Community College. Edited by John R. Grahle. Huntsville, Texas: Sam Houston State University, April, 1973. Richardson, Richard C., Jr., Clyde E. Blocker and Louis W. Bender. Governance for the Two-Year College. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Rohrer, Hibler and Replogle (Staff Office). Managers for Tomorrow. New York: The New American Library, 1965. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision Making Processes in Administrative Orgepizations. '2hd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1965. Stroup, Herbert. Bureaucracy in Higher Education. New York: Free Press, 1966. 139 Underwood, David. "The Chairman as Academic Planner." In Ipe_ Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex Role. Edited'by James Brann and Thomas A. Emmet. Detroit: Balamp Publishing, 1972. Urwick, Lyndall F. The Elements of Administration. New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1934. Waltzer, Herbert. The Job of Academic Chairman: Experiences and Recommendations from Miami University. An Occasional Paper. Washington, D.C.: ‘The American Council on Education, 1975. Webb, Eugene J. et al. Unobtrusive Measures: Non-Reactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. Edited and with Introduction by Talcott Parsons. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1947. Woodburne, Lloyd S. Principles of College and University Administra- tion. Stanford: Stanford University Press 1958. Journals and Periodicals Anderson, G. Lester. "Organizational Diversity." New Directions for Institutional Research 3 (Summer 1976): 1320. Bloomerly, Peter. "Junior College Departments and Academic Governance." Junior College Journal 42 (February 1971): 38-40. Dressel, Paul L. and Lou Anna Kimsey Simon. "Allocating Resources Among Departments." New Directions for Institutional Research 3 (Autumn 1976). Engel, Bernard F. "So You Want to Be Department Chairman?" Ipe_ Chronicle of Higher Education, May 6, 1974, p. 20. Haas, Eugene and Linda Collen. "Administrative Practices in University Departments." Administrative Science Quarterly 8 (1963): 44-60. Heimler, Charles H. "The College Departmental Chairman." Ipe_ Educational Record 48 (Spring 1967). Hill, Winston W. and Wendell L. French. "Perceptions of Power of Departmental Chairmen by Professors." Administrative Science Quarterly 11 (1967): 548-574. 140 Koehnline, William A. and Clyde E. Blocker. "The Division Chairman in the Community College." Junior College Journal 40 (February 1970): 9-12. Lombardi, John. "Prospects for Middle Management." Change (Community College Supplement) 4 (October 1972): 32a-32d. MacLeod, Robert B. "Confession of an Ex-chairman." American Association of University Professors Bulletin 40 Autumn 1954): 424-431. McKeachie, Wilbert J. "Memo to New Department Chairmen." Ipe Educational Record 49 (Spring 1978). Moore, Samuel A. II. "Leaders Are Leavers." The Journal of General Education 20 (January 1969): 291-296. O'Grady, James P. Jr. "Role of the Departmental Chairman: Missouri and Illinois Two-Year Colleges." Junior College Journal 42 (February 1971): 32-34. Pierce, Harold B. "Look at the Science Division Head." Junior College Journal 42 (November 1971): 28-31. Richardson, Richard C. Jr. "Departmental Leadership in the Two-Year College." Current Issues in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American Associotion for Higher Education, NEA, 1967. Satlow, I. David. "Profile of the Successful Department Head." Business Education World 43 (April 1963): 14-16. Smart, John C. and Charles F. Elton. "Administrative Roles of Departmental Chairmen." New Directions for Institutional Research 3 (Summer 1976): 39-60. Smart, John C. and James R. Montgomery, eds. "Examining Departmental Management." New Directions for Institutional Research 3 (Summer 1976). Smith, Albert B. "Department Chairmen: Neither Fish Nor Fowl." Junior College Journal 42 (March 1972): 40-43. Qupublished Material Aatish, Swaran. "The Role of Deans and Chairpersons in Graduate Education in Selected Colleges at Michigan State University." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. 141 Ahmann, J. Stanley. "The Emerging Role of the Departmental Chairman: Be an Administrative Activist." Paper read at WICHE Department Chairman Program, Colorado State University, April 11, 1969. (Mimeographed.) American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. "The Department/Division Chairperson: A Neglected Species." Paper discussed at AACJC meeting in Denver, Colorado, April 20, 1977 (Seminar R). (Mimeographed.) Anthony, John. "Study on Departmental Chairmen in Public Community Colleges." Glen Ellyn, 111.: College of Dupage, November 1972. (Mimeographed.) Bloomerly, Peter. "The Public Two-Year College Department: A Study of the Role of the Department and the Departmental Chairman in Academic Governance." Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1969. Brightman, Richard W. "Evaluating the Divisional Chairmen Leadership Conference of 1970." Costa Mesa, California, Coast Com- munity College District, 1971. (Mimeographed.) Burnette, Jimmy H. ''An Analysis of the Internal Organization Structures of Selected Public Junior Colleges in Florida." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1966. Combs, Arthur M. "The Leadership Role of Department Chairmen as Perceived by Chairman and Faculty With Whom They Work in Selected Florida Junior Colleges." Ph.D. dissertation, Miami University, 1972. Davidson, Robert Clement. "The Administrative Role of Department Chairmen in Public Four-Year Colleges." Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1967. Englund, Thomas H. "The Selection, Orientation, and In-Service Education of Department Chairmen in Selected Schools and Colleges of Education." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Featherstone, Richard L. "The Department, the Chairperson and the Professor." Education 982 class offered at Michigan State University, January 1976 to March 1976. Freligh, Edith A. "An Investigation of the Qualifications, Method of Selection, and Terms of Office of Department and Division Chairmen in Selected Public Two-Year Colleges in the United States." Ed.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1973. 142 Gates, Claude L. Jr. “A Study of Administrators of Technical Educa- tion Programs in the Public Junior Colleges of the United States." Ed.D. dissertation, Florida State University, 1964. Harding, Louis Thomas. "An Administrative Instructional Package Designed for New Department Chairmen in Community Colleges." Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1972. Matthews, John E. "The Role of the Department Chairman in Arizona Community Colleges." Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 1969. McKenna, D. L. "A Study of Power and Interpersonal Relationships in the Administration of Higher Education." Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Michigan, 1958. Novick, Jebiel. "The Role of Department Chairmen in University Governance in Large Mid-Western Universities as Perceived by Faculty, Chairmen and Administrators." Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1970. O'Grady, James P. Jr. "The Role of the Departmental Chairman in Selected Missouri and Illinois Two-Year Colleges." Ph.D. dissertation, St. Louis University, 1969. Pierce, Harold B. "The Role of Science Division Heads in Regionally Accredited Junior Colleges in the United States." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1970. Powers, David D. "The Relationships Between Faculty Morale and Perceived Leader Behavior of Department Chairmen at a Florida Metropolitan Community College." Ed.D. dissertation, University of Miami, 1973. Ramer, Hal Reed. "Perceptions of University Departments and of the Role of Their Chairmen. A Study of Some Attitudes and Opinions of Selected Professors and Departmental Chairmen, Deans and Central Administrators of The Ohio State University.‘ Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1963. Ravetch, Herbert W. "Responsibilities, Activities, and Attitudes of Selected Southern California Community College Department/ Division Chairmen." Ed.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1972. Sénchez, Afigusto V. "Present and Preferred Administrative Responsibilities of Community-Junior College Division Chairmen in the Southern Association: A Comparative Analysis." Ed.D. dissertation, East Texas State University, 1974. 143 Schroeder, Glen B. "Leadership Behavior of Departmental Chairmen in Selected State Institutions of Higher Education." Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico, 1969. Smith, Albert B. "Role Expectations for and Observations of Community College Department Chairmen: An Organizational Study of Consensus and Conformity.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970. Stull, William A. "An Exploratory Study of the Role of Division Chairmen in the Virginia Community College‘System." Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1974. Turner, Keith S. "The Administrative Role of the Department Chairman in Florida Public Community Colleges.“ Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University, 1973. Wallace, Terry H. Smith. "The Division/Department Chairperson in the Community College: An Annotated Bibliography." Fayetteville, Ark.: The University of Arkansas, 1976. (Mimeographed.) Wyrick, Floyd I. "The Effect of Departmental Leadership on Faculty Satisfaction and Departmental Effectiveness in a Big Ten University. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1972. APPENDICES 144 APPENDIX A COVER LETTER FROM PRESIDENT GANNON 145 .Caming Community College 41' N. CAPITOL AVI. ”I “10 mm. W “'01 December 15, 1977 Dear Colleague: Mr. Rod Grubb, Administrative Manager of the Perform- ing and Creative Arts Department at Lansing Community College, is a candidate for a Ph.D. degree in Higher Education Administration at Michigan State University. Because of his position and his involvement in adminis- tration at Lansing Community College, he has developed a strong interest in understanding the different roles of department chairmen in Michigan community colleges apd the considerations and procedures for their selec- t on. Your participation in this study will contribute greatly to its success. The resulting analysis should be of significant interest to all of us. Although Mr. Grubb will treat individual information about your community college as confidential, he will provide in his report an analysis of community college practices and you will receive a copy of that study. Your participation in this project will be appreciated. 146 APPENDIX B COVER LETTER 147 148 December 16, 1977 Dear Colleague: As President Gannon has indicated, I am working on my Ph.D. dissertation which is entitled, "A Rationale for a Departmental Administrative Manager in the Community College." The idea of an administrative manager as opposed to a staff assistant may require some explanation. The concept is to reduce the chairperson's administrative load and allow the chairperson to assume more of a leadership role; therefore, an administrative manager's duties consist of day-to-day operations (as selected by his chairperson) such as scheduling, registration, budget, student problems, taxonomy and facilities. He or she is not only given these responsibilities but the authority to act in these areas. Naturally, the manager is still responsible to his chairperson, but, by working together, they may have a more effective, faster reacting department which increases enrollments and improves quality. The concept may have merit for all community colleges. An important aspect of the study is the information which will be obtained from the attached survey. I realize that you are busy and am well aware of the number of such forms you are requested to complete during the course of a year; however, this is a solution- oriented type of study which should only take about ten minutes to complete. I will send you a summary of the findings when the study is completed. The information received from you will be treated confidentially and will not be associated with any community college, division or department. I solicit your cooperation and your assistance in making this project a success. Sincerely 'PnLAc 12.6% Roderic R. Grubb APPENDIX C CHAIRPERSON SURVEY l49 APPENDIX C CHAIRPERSON SURVEY FOR SELECTED MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES* A. Personal Data: Name Title Department of Institution Highest Degree Number of years as Chairperson at this institution Previous position Cowman-th—I Faculty Status: Yes No a. If "Yes"--approximate number of contact hours taught each term/semester B. Departmental Data. Using the most current figures available, please provide the following information concerning your depart- ment for Fall enrollments only: l. Fall 76/77, credit hours-- term credit hours or semester credit hours. 2. Fall 76/77, headcount or total number of student seats-- 0R 3. Fall 76/77, FTE (full time equated) students--(term credit hours : l5.5) *A similar survey is also being sent to your dean. 150 l5] Initial Reasons for Your Having Been Selected as Chairperson. In your opinion, what were the major factors in your having been selected over other candidates as chairperson? Please rank order, one through ten (one being the most important): Lengthy service at institution Lengthy teaching experience Leadership abilities Administrative abilities/training Professional experience Advanced degree(s) Desire for chairperson position Community recognition Ability to work well with others Other (please specify) L L L L L L L L l... 0 NA Chairperson Responsibilities (Please attach a copy of your position description, if available). Place a check by those specific responsibilities which require a significant portion of your time: l. Instruction and Curriculum: a. Classroom instruction 0' Developing curricula DevelOping course outlines Evaluating instructional aids Developing program objectives n D. (D Selecting texts and teaching aids Articulation with high schools or four-year colleges and universities. Conducting educational research Other (please specify) l-h ‘3' L l‘h 152 General Administration C" O Q. (D O O O C I O O 3 3 O Preparing departmental budget Preparing teaching schedules Preparing classroom schedules Coordinating departmental programs Preparing examination schedules Attending administrative meetings Conducting departmental meetings Interviewing, selecting and supervising depart- mental clerical staff Allocating office space Supervising facilities Preparing taxonomy reports Developing advertising for departmental programs Insuring equipment is properly cared for and stored Planning for improved facilities Other (please specify) Faculty Improvement a. 0" O Q. (D a—Jo . Recruiting, interviewing and selecting new instructors Orienting new faculty members Conducting in-service workshops and meetings Assisting faculty with teaching problems Visiting and observing instructors in classrooms Preparing faculty evaluations Discussing evaluations with faculty members Recommending faculty for tenure and promotion Other (please specify) Student Relations a. b. c. Evaluating previous education of students Advising students on programs Meeting with student organizations and groups l53 d. Orienting students in departmental programs e. Enforcing student regulations _____f. Placing students in employment _____g. Conducting follow-up studies on students _____h. Other (please specify) 5. Community Relations a. Developing and meeting with advisory committees for departmental programs b. Making public appearances c. Serving in community groups d. Arranging for work experience programs e. Arranging for community groups to visit the department f. Arranging for faculty and students to visit community institutions 9. Other (please specify) Delegating Responsibilities. If you were to be (or are) supported by an administrative manager, what responsibilities in paragraph D would you be willing to delegate? Indicate by code only (e.g., D.l--c,d,f would indicate "developing course outlines," "evaluating instructional aids, and "selecting texts and teaching aids"): (pp. 2 & 3) 0.1 (p. 3) 0.2 (pp. 3 & 4) 0.3 (p.4) D.4 (pp. 4 & 5) 0.5 Would not_be willing to delegate any responsibilities. l54 Delegating Authority. With the understanding that final approval for all departmental actions must rest with the chairperson, would you be willing to delegate authority for day-to-day operations to the administrative manager to act in those areas selected in paragraph E? Yes, in all areas 2 Yes, in most areas (exception(s) l. 3. Yes, but only in a few areas 4. No, in all areas Administrative Support to the Chairperson. Please indicate with a check mark the kinds and numbers (in parentheses) of direct support personnel which are presently available to your depart- ment: 1. Administrative or staff assistant(s) _____JFull time _____Part time (____;%) a. Their names and titles: 2. Secretary ( ) ______Full time _____ Part time (_____%) 3. Clerk ( ) ______ Full time ______Part time (_____%) 4. Student Aide ( ) ______Full Time _____ Part time (_____%) 5. Other (please specify) _____ Full time ______ Part time (_____%) 155 6. Do you feel that you are adequately supported with staff to accomplish your responsibilities? Yes No Needs Assessment. In a survey conducted last year by the AACJC, 1098 chairpersons indicated a medium to high need in the follow- ing areas of day-to-day operations. Assuming you have an administrative manager, please check those areas in which you would want him or her to have received specialized education, training and experience. 1. General Knowledge of the Community College _____Open Door ______Students _____History 2. Curriculum and Instruction _____Evaluation of Instruction _____Feasibility Studies _____Knowledge of Non-Traditional Approaches _____Effectiveness of Various Instructional Strategies _____Preparation and Use of Self-Instructional Materials _____Dses and Misuses of Instructional Objectives 3. Administration _____Long Range Planning _____Budgeting _____MIS (Management Information Systems) 4. Managerial Skills _____Motivating Faculty and Staff _____Strategies for Effective Change _____Using Time More Effectively _____PPBS (Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems) _____Goal Setting _____Conflict Resolution _____Setting Priorities _____Problem Solving _____Communications 156 5. Personnel _____Staff/Faculty Evaluation _____Conducting Performance Appraisals _____Faculty Load Formulas _____Faculty In-Service Training ______Interviewing/Selecting 6. Miscellaneous Needs _____Community Needs Analysis _____Law and Higher Education _____Grant and Proposal Writing _____Strategies for "Keeping Up" ______Institutional Research Studies _____Student Recruiting _____Articulation Guidelines-Up/Down Problems/Obstacles. In another recent (April 1977) study by the AACJC, 200 community college chairpersons rated fourteen problems or obstacles which prevented them from functioning more effectively. Would you rank order, one through fourteen (one being the most important), these problems or obstacles? Lack of administrative training Inadequate role definition Poor human relations Monetary constraints Allocation of resources Not enough time to do the job Lack of goals/direction Inadequate communications Crises management Faculty resistance to change Inadequate time management Administrative inefficiencies wN-HOOOOVOSU'I-wa—J _.n b No involvement in decision-making Faculty evaluation procedures 157 Would you be willing to be interviewed for not more than one hour on the subject of administrative support for chairpersons? The interview would be scheduled at your convenience sometime during the first three months of 1978. Yes No —— Any additional comments that you care to make: APPENDIX D DEAN SURVEY 158 APPENDIX D DEAN SURVEY FOR SELECTED MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES* A. Personal Data: 1. Name 2. Title 3. Institution 4. Number of years as dean at this institution 5. Previous position B. Method Used in Selecting Chairpersons (please check): l. Appointed by dean/central administration 2. Elected by institutional committee, comprised of: 3. Elected by departmental faculty 4. Combination of and 5. Other (please specify)_ C. Reasons for Chairperson Selection. In your opinion, what are the major factors of importance in selecting a chairperson? Please rank order, one through ten (one being the most important), these factors: Lengthy service at institution Lengthy teaching experience Leadership abilities Administrative abilities/training *A similar survey is also being sent to your departmental chair- persons. 159 ____J O Other (specify please) 160 Professional experience Advanced degree(s) Desire by applicant for chairperson position Community recognition Ability to work well with others Chairperson Responsibilities (Please attach a typical chair- person position description, if available). Place a check by those specific chairperson responsibilities which, in your opinion, require a significant portion of the chairperson's time: 1. Instruction and Curriculum: a. U“ O Q. (D “.1: [COL-h Classroom instruction Developing curricula Developing course outlines Evaluating instructional aids Developing program objectives Selecting texts and teaching aids Articulation with high schools or four-year colleges and universities Conducting educational research Other (specify please) General Administration: U" O D. (D O I O C Preparing departmental budget Preparing teaching schedules Preparing classroom schedules Coordinating departmental programs Preparing examination schedules Attending administrative meetings Conducting departmental meetings Interviewing, selecting and supervising depart- mental clerical staff Allocating office space Supervising facilities #17? O O B 3 0. 161 Preparing taxonomy reports Developing advertising for departmental programs Insuring equipment is properly cared for and stored Planning for improved facilities Other (please specify) Faculty Improvement: a. U' n G. (D d.|=_l©l_h Recruiting, interviewing and selecting new instructors Orienting new faculty members Conducting in-service workshops and meetings Assisting faculty with teaching problems Visiting and observing instructors in classrooms Preparing faculty evaluations Discussing evaluations with faculty members Recommending faculty for tenure and promotion Other (please specify) Student Relations: U’ O Q. CD -+, m I h. Evaluating previous education of students Advising students on programs Meeting with student organizations and groups Orienting students in departmental programs Enforcing student regulations Placing students in employment Conducting follow-up studies on students Other (please specify) Community Relations: a. U" n Q (D Developing and meeting with advisory committees for departmental programs Making public appearances Serving in community groups Arranging for work experience programs Arranging for community groups to visit the department 162 f. Arranging for faculty and students to visit community institutions 9. Other (please specify) Administrative Support to the Chairperson. Please indicate with a check mark the kinds and the numbers (in parentheses) of direct support personnel which, as an average, are available to the chairpersons: _____l. Administrative or staff assistant ( ) _____full time Part time ( %) 2. Secretary ( ) _____Full time _____Part time (_____% 3. Clerk ( ) _____Full time _____Part time ( %) 4. Student Aide ( ) _____Full time _____Part time ( %) 5. Other~(please specify) Full time Part time ( %) Would you be willing to be interviewed for not more than one hour on the subject of administrative support for the chair- person? The interview would be scheduled at your convenience, sometime during the first three months of l978. Yes No Any additional comments that you care to make: APPENDIX E INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR SELECTED DEANS AND CHAIRPERSONS 163 APPENDIX E INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR SELECTED DEANS AND CHAIRPERSONS Interviewee Title College Telephone Number Place of Interview Date of Interview A. Objectives l. To determine if a need for a departmental manager exists. 2. If such a need exists, then determine: a. the chairperson functions which could be handled by an administrative manager, and b. the educational or experiential requirements for an administrative manager. B. Procedures Interview should begin by returning the completed question- naire to the interviewee. The interviewer will explain and answer questions concerning the concept of an administrative manager and then begin questioning. The questions will be used as guide only, and not a rigid format. 164 165 1. What is the approximate size of your department(s) in term credit hours produced last school year? a. How many faculty members in your department(s)? (l) Full time (2) Part time 2. How is the chairperson(s) selected? 3. In your Opinion, what should be the three or four most important criteria for the chairperson(s) selection? a. b. C. d. 4. Is the chairperson(s) being utilized based on the criteria in Question 3? 5. Approximately what percentage of time does the chairperson spend as: a. leader (_____%) b. administrator (____%), or c. faculty member ( %)? 6. What administrative support does the chairperson(s) have? a. administrative or staff assistant b. program director c. secretary d. clerk 166 e. technician f. laboratory assistant 9. other ( ) 7. Is this support adequate? a. If not, in what areas is the support inadequate? 8. What are the six most important functions of a chairperson(s)? 'thCLOU'flJ 9. Which, if any, functions does the chairperson(s) feel are not being adequately met due to lack of time? l0. Which, if any, functions listed in Questions 8 or 9 would the chairperson(s) be willing to delegate? ll. Are there other functions, not listed in Questions 8 or 9 which the chairperson(s) would be willing to delegate? 167 l2. Which, if any, of the functions listed in Questions 10 or ll would the chairperson(s) n9: be willing to delegate advanced authority to an administrative manager to manage? l3. Assuming an administrative manager is assigned to the chair- person, what are the six most important areas in which the administrative manager should have education or training? (See question H on Chairpersofis Survey). "hbelOU’m 14. Additional Comments: APPENDIX F STATE OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC ACT 97 AUGUST 4, 1977 168 Act No. 97 Public Acts of 1977 Approved by Governor‘ August 4, 1977 *ltem Veto Sec. 1. NATIONAL GUARD SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM ................................................... $75,000 (Page 3) STATE OF MICHIGAN 79TH LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION OF 1977 Introduced by Senator Zollar ENROLLED SENATE BILL No. 210 AN ACT to make apprOpriations for community and junior colleges and certain other purposes relating to education for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978; and to provide for the disposition of fees and other income received by various state agencies. The People of the State of Michigan enact: Sec. 1. There is apprOpriated for the community and junior colleges and certain state purposes related to education and subject to the conditions herein set forth, from the general fund of the state, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, the sum of $110,250,534 or as much thereof as may be necessary for the several purposes and in the following respective amounts: ALPENA COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 1,587,611 BAY de NOC COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 1,163,477 CHARLES STEWART MOTT COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 5,625,039 DELTA COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 4,498,433 GLEN OAKS COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 640,242 GOGEBIC COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ 3 1,316,583 (39) For Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30, GRAND RAPIDS JUNIOR COLLEGE 1978 NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 5,678,286 HENRY FORD COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 7,676,297 HIGHLAND PARK COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ 3 3,068,862 JACKSON COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ 3 4,541,600 KALAMAzoo VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ 3 3,037,058 KELLOCC COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 2,703,240 KIRTLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 1,203,921 LAKE MICHIGAN COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ 3 1,509,773 LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 9,659,568 MACOMB COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ..................................................................................... - ....... 3 12,079,203 MID MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE - NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ 3 1,191,752 MONROE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 1,155,621 MONTCALM COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 1,081,513 MUSKECON COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ 3 3,492,912 NORTH CENTRAL MICHIGAN COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 911,819 NORTHWESTERN MICHIGAN COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ 8 2,231,796 OAKLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE ' NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ 3 7,798,843 ST. CLAIR COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ 6 2,426,709 SCHOOLCRAFT COLLEGE 4, NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 4,266,733 SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN COLLEGE . . NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 1,588,837 WASHTENAW COMMUNITY COLLEGE _ . NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 3,348,276 For Fiscal Year WAYNE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE Ending Sept. 30, NET STATE ALLOCATION (INCLUDING A DEDUCTION OF 1978 $45,000.00 FOR EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION EXPENSES) ............................... $ 12,270,030 WEST SHORE COMMUNITY COLLEGE NET STATE ALLOCATION ............................................................................................ $ 731,500 GROWTH CONTINGENCY FUND .................................................................................... $ 1,690,000 NATIONAL GUARD SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM ............................................................ $ 75,000 TOTAL COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES .................................................. $ 110,250,534 Sec. 2. (1) The sums appropriated in this act shall be paid out of the state treasury and shall be distnbuted by the state treasurer to the respective institutions in 12 monthly installments upon certification by the state budget director that this act is being fully complied with. The amount distributed to an institution shall not exceed the net appropriation authorized by this act. (2) Each of the amounts appropriated shall be used solely for the respective purposes stated in this act, except as otherwise provided by law. A community or junior college shall not pay an employers contribution to more than 1 retirement fund providing benefits for an employee. Sec. 3. As used in this act: (a) “CYES" or “calendar year equated students” means student credit hours generated between January 1, 1976, and December 31, 1976, divided by 31 student semester credit hours. (b) “FYES” or “fiscal year equated students” means student credit hours generated between July 1 1976, and June 30, 1977, divided by 31 student semester credit hours. (c) “Contact hour” means a formalized hour of student instruction in which the student is scheduled to come into contact with an instructor or with tutorial or laboratory equipment a fixed number of hours during the academic period. (d) “Quarter schedule” means an average of less than 700 instructional minutes per credit hour for the fall and next succeeding academic period. (c) “Semester schedule” means an average of 800 or more instructional minutes per credit hour for the fall and next succeeding academic period. (I) “Trimester schedule” means an average of not less than 700 instructional minutes per credit hour, but less than 800 instructional minutes per credit hour, for the fall and next succeeding academic period. Sec. 4. The appropriations made in this act were calculated on the following calendar year equated student enrollments for the calendar year 1976: Vocational- General Academic Technical Health Total Two-Year CY ES CYES CYES CYES Alpena ........................................ 937 391 47 1,375 Bay de Noc ............................... 552 244 118 913 Charles Stewart Mott ................ 4,572 1,262 614 6,447 Delta ........................................... 4,452 1,284 253 5,989 Glen Oaks .................................. 496 118 56 670 Gogebic ...................................... 435 361 72 868 Grand Rapids ............................. 4,398 629 479 5,506 Henry Ford ................................ 4,948 2,179 320 7,447 Highland Park... ......................... 2,037 468 237 2,742 Jackson ....................................... 2,922 712 161 3,795 Kalamazoo Valley ...................... 2,185 593 421 3,199 Kellogg ....................................... 1,998 321 311 2,630 Kirtland ...................................... 500 517 53 1,070 Lake Michigan. ......................... 1,371 328 138 1,838 Lansing ............. . ......................... 5,854 2,373 573 8,800 Macomb ..................................... 9,605 3,060 456 13,121 Mid Michigan... ......................... 472 266 201 940 Monroe ....................................... 1,065 280 61 1,406 Vocational- General Academic Technical Health Total Two-Year CYES CYES CYES CYES Montcalm ................................... 607 188 60 855 Muskegon ................................... 2,369 698 163 3,230 North Central ............................ 632 93 110 836 Northwestern ............................. 1,391 433 209 2,033 Oakland ...................................... 8 .692 1 ,772 495 10,959 St. Clair ...................................... 1,571 547 350 2,467 Schoolcraft ................................. 3,621 942 301 4,864 Southwestern .............................. 739 292 255 1,286 Washtenaw ................................. 2,431 1,148 291 3,870 Wayne ........................................ 9,696 1,065 977 11,738 West Shore ................................. 523 184 45 752 TOTAL ...................................... _ 81,071 22,748 7,827 111 646 Sec. 5. (1) The amounts in section 1 appropriated to each community and junior college are based upon the following computations: (a) For colleges with an enrollment in excess of 2,000 CYES and Operating as part of a K to 12 school district, the general academic CYES shall be multiplied by $1,473.00, the vocational-technical CYES Shall be multiplied by $2,073.00, and the health CYES shall be multiplied by $2,594.00. For all other community college districts, the general academic CYES shall be multiplied by $1,497.00, the vocational-technical CY ES shall be multiplied by $2,082.00, and the health CYES shall be multiplied by $2,594.00. (b) For community colleges Offering instruction to inmates of a state correctional facility, the derived gross budget shall be increased by $200.00 for each CYES receiving the instruction. As used in this subdivision, "state correctional facility” means any correctional facility which houses state prisoners, whether Operated by the state or some other governmental unit. For the fiscal year 1978-79, this allocation shall be $150.00 per prison FYES, and for the fiscal year 1979-80, the allocation shall be $100.00 per prison FYES. (c) For institutions with 1976 calendar year enrollments less than 1,500 CYES, the derived gross budget including the prison allowance of the college district shall be increased by a factor equal to 70 divided by the total CYES of the college district. For institutions with CYES between 1,500 and 4,000, the derived gross budget shall be increased by a factor equal to 25 divided by the total CYES Of the district. An adjustment shall not be made to the gross budget if the total CYES exceeds 4,000. ((1) The adjusted gross budget of the college district shall be reduced by a tuition deduct equal to $372.00 for each in-district calendar year equated student and $558.00 for each out-of—district or out-Of-state calendar year equated student excepting that a reduction shall not be made for calendar year equated students generated by persons who are inmates of a state correctional facility. (6) The gross operating cost of the college district shall be reduced further by a local tax deduction equal to the district’s state equalized valuation multiplied by 1 mill. If the district's state equalized valuation per CYES is greater than $530.00, the college with less than 6,000 CYES shall receive a tax exclusion grant equal to 80% and colleges with more than 6,000 CYES 67% of the difference between its 1977 state equalized valuation multiplied by 1 mill and $460.00 multiplied by the college’s 1976 CYES. This tax exclusion grant shall be phased out over a 5-year period for colleges with enrollments less than 6,000 CYES and over a 3- year period for colleges over 6,000 CYES beginning with fiscal year 1977-78. For Wayne county community college, the local tax revenue deduction shall be equal to the district state equalized valuation multiplied by .25 mills, as provided by section 11 of Act No. 62 of the Public Acts of 1933, as amended, being section 211.211 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (2) This section shall not apply to those prison programs that are totally funded with federal dollars. (3) Beginning January 1, 1977, each community or junior college shall certify and submit CYES enrollment reports according to the community college taxonomy, definitions, and program categories established under this act to the senate and house fiscal agencies and the department of management and budget. The auditor general shall audit the enrollment reports based on the definitions and guidelines established in this act and the community college taxonomy developed by the department of education. The auditor general’s enrollment audit shall be submitted to the legislature by March .1 each year. Sec. 6. The department of education shall revise and update the taxonomy of community college courses for the 1977 calendar year and at periodic intervals thereafter pursuant to this act. This taxonomy shall be limited to those courses for which community colleges seek state funding. A panel consisting of 5 members shall be established to give direction, to review and approve the actions of the department of education with regard to the development of the taxonomy and matters of difference between a college 4 and the department concerning the taxonomy. The panel shall consist of 2 senators and 2 representatives selected from the house and senate appropriations committees on a bipartisan basis, and 1 representative of the department of management and budget. Sec. 7. (1) The enrollment report cited in this act shall be organized according to the following program category definitions: (a) The vocational-technical program category shall be limited to those courses which meet the core requirements or elective requirements for an occupational degree or certificate, or which were included in the 1976 occupational taxonomy if the course complies with 1 or more of the following criteria: contact hours of scheduled instruction which are at least 1.25 times the credit hours rendered in the course; or class size limitations which occur as a function of the instructional delivery design as dictated by the substance of the course being taught or by demonstrated added costs of a support nature such as equipment or coordination associated with the course. (b) The health program category shall be limited to courses which meet the core requirements or elective requirements for degrees or certificates in the following allied health programs: dental hygiene, dental assisting, practical nursing, registered nursing, dental laboratory technology, inhalation therapy, occupational therapy, medical records technology, medical laboratory technology, radiologic technology, physical therapy, and pharmacology. Courses in these allied health programs shall comply with 1 or more of the following criteria: contact hours of scheduled instruction which are at least 1.25 times the credit hours rendered in the course; or class size limitations which occur as a function of the instructional delivery design as dictated by the substance of the course, or by demonstrated added costs of a support nature such as equipment or coordination associated with the course. Other allied health courses may be included in the vocational-technical program category if those courses meet the requirements of that category. (c) The general academic program category shall be limited to courses which meet the core requirements or elective requirements for a degree or certificate and which do not qualify for inclusion in the vocational-technical or health program categories. Remedial courses in reading, writing, mathematics, and physical or biological sciences taught for the purpose of correcting fundamental skill deficiencies in order to pursue a degree or certificate may be included in the general academic program category. Courses in career develOpment involving formally organized, regularly scheduled group instruction of at least 10 students per class and directed towards program orientation and career guidance may be included in the general academic program category. N ondegree or noncertificate courses of formally organized regularly scheduled instruction in the areas of home management, family relationships, nutrition, occupational skill training, and conversational foreign languages may be included in the general academic program category. (2) Student credit hours included in the enrollment reports shall meet 1 or more of the following criteria: (a) Student credit hours in courses which may be applicable toward associate degrees in arts, applied science, commerce, science, or general studies. (b) Student credit hours in courses which may be applicable to an occupational certificate. (0) Student credit hours in basic studies courses in arts, sciences, humanities, letters, or social sciences. (d) Nondegree "institutional” student credit hours generated in remedial courses, career development courses, home management courses, family relationship courses, nutrition courses, occupational skill training courses, and conversational foreign language courses if these courses are subjected to a curriculum review process, and if certificates of completion are awarded. (3) Institutional student credit hours shall be calculated on the basis of 16 contact hours of instruction for each equated credit in semester programs or the equivalent thereof in quarter term or trimester programs. (4) Credit hours taught in a course shall not be in excess of contact hours of instruction received. (5) Regular student credit hours or institutional student credit hours generated in correspondence courses, and credited by examination, shall not be included in the enrollment repOrt. (6) Institutional student credit hours or instructional contact hours generated in hobby crafts and recreational instruction shall not be included in the enrollment report. (7) A community or junior college shall not include in the enrollment report student credit hours generated in apprenticeship training programs Operated as a part of the department of education’s itinerant instructor’s program, or courses in which the cost of instruction is fully funded by federal or other revenue sources from business, industry, or state agencies. (8) A community or junior college shall not include in the enrollment report student credit hours generated in comprehensive employment training act programs when reimbursement through federal programs is not based on tuition. Students enrolled in comprehensive employment training act programs that receive tuition reimbursement shall be included in the enrollment count. Sec. 8. (1) A community or junior college shall report calendar year equated students by dividing the total number of student credit hours for which students were enrolled as of 1/ 10 of the total number of class days for each academic period during the calendar year by 31 for a college operating on a semester schedule, by 36 for a college Operating on a trimester schedule, and by 46.5 for a college operating on a quarter term schedule. Academic periods may include exam periods but shall not include registration, counseling, or orientation periods. Community and junior colleges shall maintain and retain class lists or other records which clearly identify the number of credit hours, contact hours, and audit hours of students for courses offered throughout a fiscal year. Class lists for each academic period shall be retained for audit purposes and shall be consistent with the enrollment reports submitted according to this act. Audit hours in credit courses which are recorded on the records may be included in the enrollment report. Records of contact hours shall be maintained as annual student hours. Certified enrollment reports shall be submitted to the state budget director within 30 days after the enrollment counts are computed for each academic period during the calendar year. (2) A community or junior college shall not include in the enrollment report, student credit hours generated for persons, other than inmates in state correctional facilities, enrolled concurrently in college credit courses and in secondary programs as a part of a cooperative program between a college district and a secondary or intermediate school district. This act shall not be construed to prohibit community or junior college services from being offered to high school enrollees, but college aid for the same hours of instruction already reimbursed by K to 12 aid shall not be paid. Inmate students or pupils may be enrolled by the department of corrections in both community or junior college and K to 12 programs. An inmate student shall not be equated to more than 1 full-time student or pupil when enrolled in both college and K to 12 programs. The department of corrections shall document the proportion of part-time membership or enrollment in which each student is enrolled in both K to 12 and college programs and shall certify the data annually to the department of management and budget, to the senate and house fiscal agencies, and to the auditor general. (3) A community or junior college shall not prohibit a student from dropping courses during an enrollment period by eliminating drop procedures during an enrollment period or developing a refund schedule which would not provide for the reimbursement of funds for courses which are dropped during the enrollment period. As used in this subsection, “enrollment period” means 1/10 of the total number of class days for an academic period. (4) A community or junior college enrollment report including FYES, annual teacher hours, and annual student hours shall be established semiannually by the office of the budget for the periods July 1 through December 31 and January 1 through June 30 of each year to maintain comparability of enrollments historically and with other fiscal year records. (5) Credit course offerings shall be included in the total enrollment count for a fiscal year if the enrollment period for any course in question is completed before June 30 regardless of whether the course is terminated at the end of the fiscal year or not. If the enrollment period is not completed by June 30, the course shall be reported in the succeeding fiscal year. (6) The auditor general shall conduct biennially performance audits of community and junior colleges as the auditor general considers necessary, but shall conduct not less than 3 performance audits. Sec. 9. (1) Each community or junior college of this state shall furnish to the senate and house appropriations committees of the legislature information the senate and house fiscal agencies require. Before October 2 each year, the department of education shall furnish to the agencies a list of the name of each community college, its mailing address, and the name of the chief administrative officer of the community college. (2) Each community and junior college shall furnish an annual accounting of all income and expenditures to the legislature. The accounting shall include a report of trust and endowment funds presently held by each institution, the purpose of each trust or endowment, expenditures from each trust or endowment fund during the fiscal year, revenue from interest and other sources added to each trust or endowment fund during the fiscal year, and the balance in each trust or endowment fund at year end. Sec. 10. (1) Money received by the state from the federal government or private sources for the use of community or junior colleges Is appropriated for the purpose for which provided. The acceptance and use of federal or private funds does not place an obligation upon the legislature to continue the purposes for which the funds are made available. (2) Appropriations under this act shall not be expended in contemplation of matching federal or other funds until federal or other matching funds are available. The acceptance of those funds does not obligate the state to continue programs after the federal or other funds are no longer available. A financial report of all programs supported by federal or other funds including revenues, receipts, and expenditures shall be 6 furnished the chairmen of the senate and house appropriations committees and included in the annual budget document. (3) A community or junior college shall not establish special programs or expand existing. programs which are beyond the scope of the programs of the college already established and recognized by the legislature, including a program which may develOp as a result of gifts or moneys received or available from the federal government, if that acceptance will require obligation or expenditure of state funds. (4) It is a condition of any appropriation made in this act that the community or junior college receiving the appropriation shall pay the employer’s contributions to the Michigan public school employees retirement system and that the executive office shall include those contributions to the Michigan public school employees retirement system by community and junior colleges in the executive budget recommendations for each community and junior college. (5) None of the apprOpriations contained in this act shall be used for the construction of buildings or operations of institutions not expressly authorized in section 1. Funds appropriated in this act to each institution may not be used to pay for the construction or maintenance of any self-liquidating projects. A contract shall not be let for the construction of a self-liquidating gift, grant, or institutionally funded project at any of the state supported institutions of higher education unless the project is specifically authorized by the legislature in a concurrent resolution. The request for legislative authorization shall be initially submitted for review and approval to the joint capital outlay subcommittee and the department of management and budget. All nonstate funded project requests shall include a complete use and financing statement as defined by a policy issued by the joint capital outlay subcommittee. The use and financing statement for self-liquidating and self-supporting projects shall contain schedules for the liquidating of the debt, for the estimated or actual total construction cost, and all associated estimated Operating costs, including a statement of anticipated revenues. (6) The governing body Of a community or junior college shall reduce expenditures authorized by appropriations when it appears that actual revenues for a fiscal period will fall below the revenue estimates on which appropriations for that period were based. Sec. 11. Each community or junior college shall report to the state budget director and the legislature any modification in tuition and student fees not later than 30 days after the modification is established by the college board. Sec. 12. A summary report shall be provided by each community or junior college to the legislature every September 15 for the previous academic year, of all full-time faculty members and administrators in the employ of the college who are also under the employ Of any other college, community college, university, school district, or governmental agency, except elected officials. Sec. 13. ( 1) When it appears to the governor, based upon written information received by him from the state budget director and the department of treasury, that actual revenues for a fiscal period will fall below the revenue estimates on which appropriations for that period were based, the estimates being as determined by the legislature in accordance with section 31 of article 4 of the state constitution of 1963, the governor shall make a finding that actual revenue for that fiscal period will fall below those revenue estimates. The governor shall then order the director to review all appropriations made by the legislature, except those made for the legislative and judicial branches of government or from funds constitutionally dedicated for specific purposes. (2) Based upon needs, the director shall recommend to the governor a reduction of expenditures authorized by the appropriations, either direct or open-ended, for that fiscal year. The governor Shall review the recommendations of the director and shall prepare his order containing reductions in expenditures authorized by appropriations so that actual revenues for the fiscal period will be sufficient to equal the expenditures. The governor shall give not less than 5 days’ written notice to the members of the appropriations committees of the senate and house specifying a time and place for a joint meeting of the governor and the 2 committees, at which the governor shall present to the committees his recommendations and c0pies of his proposed order. (3) Not later than 10 days after submission Of the order to the committees, each committee by vote of a majority of its members elected and serving shall approve or disapprove the order. Expenditures authorized by appropriations shall not be reduced unless appfoved by both appropriations committees. Upon approval by both apprOpriations committees, the director shall carry out and implement the order. (4) If either or both appropriations committees disapproves the order, the order is without force and effect. Not later than 30 days after the proposed order is disapproved, the governor may give reasonable written notice'to the members of the appropriations committees of the senate and house as to the time and place of a further joint meeting of the 2 appropriations committees at which time he shall submit another 7 order reducing expenditures authorized by appropriations. Within 10 days after the receipt of that order by the appropriations committees, each appropriation committee shall by a majority of its members elected and serving, approve or disapprove the order. A copy of the order of the governor and resolutions of both the appropriations committees approving it shall be filed with the secretary of state and the order shall thereupon become effective. Sec. 14. Each community or junior college shall establish and maintain procedures for verifying each student’s residency. These procedures shall include the following criteria if available: current address, voter registration card, driver’s license, high school transcript, and parent’s address. Sec. 15. The governing body of a community or junior college may establish a scholarship fund within the general fund for the purpose of supporting Michigan resident senior citizens over the age of 60 in an amount equal to the full tuition charges per semester hour of credit or the quarter term equivalent. The state budget director shall not make payments for any credit hours for which the tuition charges do not comply with Act No. 331 Of the Public Acts of 1966, as amended, being sections 389.1 to 389.195 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, and the intent of this section. The director shall not make payment for any credit hours of a course for which scholarships are available for the course unconditionally to all students in the course. Sec. 16. A community or junior college shall not enter into a COOperative venture with a baccalaureate institution which requires the joint lease, purchase, or rental of Space without specific legislative authorization. Sec. 17. Each community and junior college shall submit to the legislative fiscal agencies by December 1, 1977, a report on the number of counselors, number of hours of counseling provided, the case loads, total expenditures for counseling, the number of students counseled, and the kind of testing provided. Sec. 18. Each community or junior college shall submit by December 1, 1977, a copy of its master agreement between the faculty and the board to the senate and house fiscal agencies. Sec. 19. The community and junior colleges shall collectively further develop and test the recommen- dations of the 1976 community college task force, and Shall conduct a study on methods of funding counseling services. They shall provide a report of not less than 3 alternatives to the legislature and the executive office by January 1, 1978. Sec. 20. From the $75,000.00 apprOpriated in section 1 for the national guard scholarship program for the fall term of 1977, the department of education shall grant scholarships sufficient to cover tuition costs to members of the national guard attending a community or junior college. Sec. 21. From the amount appropriated in section 1 for a growth contingency fund, the state budget director by May 1, 1978, shall adjust each college’s appropriation in section 1 according to the following: (a) If the actual 1977 state equalized valuation for a college is different than that used to calculate state aid in section 1, an adjustment shall be made to the college for the actual state equalized valuation. (b) If the total 1976-77 fiscal year equated student enrollment for a college is greater than the CYES cited in section 4, the college shall receive an allocation from the growth contingency fund based on the difference between the section 1 amount and the state aid amount derived by using FYES. If the total adjustments for all colleges exceed the total amount apprOpriated in section 1 as a growth contingency, the state budget director shall prorate the amount allocated to each college accordingly. Sec. 22. Each community and junior college shall report to the house and senate fiscal agencies by December 1 of each year the program scope and related costs of student health services for the prior academic year. Sec. 23. Each community and junior college shall report to the senate and house fiscal agencies by January 1, 1978, the number of dropped, failed, and incomplete student credit hours compared to total student credit hours for the fall term of 1977, and each term thereafter. Sec. 24. The K-14 differential shall be eliminated in 1978-79. This act is ordered to take immediate effect. figzm/ Secretary of the Senate. - ...........// 1. 1 / ' ’ Clerk of the House of Representatives. Approved _ Governor.