A STUDY OF THE RELATTONSHIPS BETWEEN SELF- PERCEIVED INVOLVEMENT . IN DETERMINING COLLEGE POUCIES AND SELF-REP‘GRTED SUPPORT 0F @635 POLEGiES MQONG' 54%in EN A MiiLWWiT mama-w GGLLEGE BMRIEI ‘ Thesis for the Degree a? m a. woman SYA‘FE WWERSE‘W mmm mam 3593mm: 1273 LIBRARY Michigan State I Y ' . r ‘2 "-."'£‘?‘c14-. .0 '-}\E ‘~ 0" u'.-.— 'l . .~ This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELF-PERCEIVED INVOLVEMENT IN DETERMINING COLLEGE POLICIES AND SELF-REPORTED SUPPORT OF'THOSE POLICIES AMONG FACULTY IN A MULTI-UNIT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT presented by ELIZABETH ROSEMARY REDSTONE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education " a a -——___- .. ,- I J J I Z ,1, , '1’: 7 /, )/.; I I K r,» , I ‘ ’ 1 I D ‘ ‘ 'V S. _ Major professor Date—Augus-t—101_L9¥_3_ 0-7 639 if 3: BY *5 HUM; & SONS’ BflflK BINDERY INC. LISP: ‘-J.'{ SINGERS QI::;.'.‘.;.:.;. IIIr‘ulCII ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-PERCEIVED INVOLVEMENT IN DETERMINING COLLEGE POLICIES AND SELF-REPORTED SUPPORT OF THOSE POLICIES AMONG FACULTY IN A MULTI-UNIT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT BY Elizabeth Rosemary Redstone This study was an analysis of the factors that are significant predictors of the degree to which faculty members self-report support of Institutional policy in a multi-unit community college district. The study was undertaken primarily to help community college adminis- trators reduce the possibility of adversary relationships developing by identifying factors which might be emphasized to increase faculty support of institutional policy. Procedures The study involved sending out questionnaires to 376 full-time faculty members who were employed by an arbitrarily selected multi-unit, urban based, community college district. The questionnaire consisted of three parts. Part I was concerned with: (l) the degree of support indicated by faculty members for twenty-two selected policies; (2) the degree of perceived faculty participation in initiating or changing the selected policies; and (3) the degree of perceived administrative responsiveness to faculty participation and faculty professional con- cerns. Part II was concerned with an attempt to identify a faculty pro- file which would distinguish between those faculty members who are more supportive of policy and those who are less supportive of policy. Elizabeth Rosemary Redstone Part III was concerned with the demographic factors of: respondent's discipline area, experience, involvement in college affairs, education, professional license, sex and age. Conclusions l. The faculty member's perception of the degree of participation in initiating and changing policy is a significant predictor of support for policy. 2. The faculty member's perception of administrative responsiveness to participation and to the professional concerns of the faculty is a significant predictor of support indicated for policy. 3. The degree of faculty cohesion is a significant predictor of support indicated for policy except for Campus 3. h. The degree of faculty intimacy is a significant predictor of support indicated for policy except for Campus 3. 5. The degree of faculty control is a significant predictor of support indicated for policy for Campus 2 and the District but not for Campus l and Campus 3. 6. The degree of faculty stratification is not a significant pre- dictor of support indicated for policy. 7. The number of years employed in the District is not a signifi- cant predictor of support indicated for policy except for Campus l. 8. Total teaching experience is not a significant predictor of support at the campus level but it is at the district level. 9. Each campus differs significantly on the degree of support indicated for policy. That is, the mean for Campus 2 is greater than the mean for either Campus l or 3, and the means for Campus l and 3 are statistically equal. Elizabeth Rosemary Redstone l0. There is a significant difference between campuses on the degree of perceived participation in initiating and changing policy. That is, the mean for Campus 2 is greater than the mean for either Campus 1 or 3, and the means for Campus l and 3 are statistically equal. II. There is a significant difference between campuses in the degree of administrative responsiveness. That is, the mean for Campus 2 is greater than the mean for Campus l, and the mean for Campus l is greater than the mean for Campus 3. l2. There is a significant difference between campuses in the degree of faculty cohesion. That is, the mean for Campus l is less than the mean for either Campus 2 or 3, and the means for Campus 2 and 3 are statistically equal. l3. There is no significant difference between campuses in the degree of faculty intimacy. lh. There is no significant difference between campuses in the degree of faculty control. l5. There is no significant difference between campuses in the degree of faculty stratification. l6. There is a significant difference between campuses on the length of employment in the district. That is, the mean for Campus 3 is less than the mean for either Camptsl or 2, and the means for Campus l and 2 are statistically equal. l7. There is a significant difference between campuses on the average number of hours devoted to Campus committee work during l972- l973. That is, the mean for Campus 3 is greater than the mean for either Campus l or 2, and the means for Campus l and 2 are statistically equal. Elizabeth Rosemary Redstone l8. There is a significant difference betweeh campuses on the number of professional association meetings attended during l972-l973. That is, the mean for Campus l is greater than the mean for either Campus 2 or 3, and the means for Campus 2 and 3 are statistically equal. l9. There is a significant difference between campuses in the age of faculty members. That is, the faculty members of Campus l are older than the faculty members of Campus 2 and 3, and the faculty members of Campus 2 and 3 are statistically the same age. A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELF-PERCEIVED INVOLVEMENT IN DETERMINING COLLEGE POLICIES AND SELF-REPORTED SUPPORT OF THOSE POLICIES AMONG FACULTY IN A MULTI-UNIT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT BY Elizabeth Rosemary Redstone A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education l973 This study is dedicated to all the faculty members who made the study possible. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The assistance and encouragement of the doctoral guidance committee composed of Dr. Max Raines, Chairman of the Committee and Director of the dissertation, Drs. Helen M. Green, James F. Rainey, and Melvin C. Buschman is gratefully acknowledged. Grateful appreciation is also expressed to Drs. Alfred M. Livingston and Alex Rubins for their invaluable advice and encourage- ment and to Miss Marilyn Terbraak for her typing assistance. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x Chapter I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Educational Significance . . . I Social Systems Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Delimitations of the Problem 6 Hypotheses . . . . 7 Definitions . 8 Focus of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Related Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l0 Organizational Climate . . . . . . . l0 Participation in Decision Making Process . . . ll Limitations of Participation . . . . . . . . . l2 Assumptions of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . l3 Organization of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . IA 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I5 Management Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l6 Social Group Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2i The Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Perception Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3i 3 PROCEDURES 32 Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Selecting the Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Description of the Population . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . 36 Composite Profile of Full-Time Faculty Members . . 37 iv Chapter I. 5 THE FINDINGS: ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES OF FACULTY MEMBERS . . . . Initiating and Changing Policy Administrative Responsiveness . Faculty Cohesion . . . . . . . Faculty Intimacy . . . . . . . Faculty Control . . . . Faculty Stratification . . . Number of Years Employed Total Teaching Experience . . . . Differences Between Campuses in Degree of Support . . . . . . . . Differences Between Campuses in the Degree of Self-Perceived Participation in Initiating and Changing Policy . . Differences Between Campuses Regarding Self-Perceived Administrative Responsiveness . . . . . . . . Differences in Degree of Faculty Cohesion Between Campuses . Differences Between Campuses in Degree of Faculty Intimacy . Differences Between Campuses in Degree of Faculty Control . . Differences Between Campuses on Demographic Variables . . . Differences Between Campuses on Question 8| . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between Campuses on Question 86 . . . . . . . . . Differences Between Campuses for Question 9i . . . . . . . . . Differences Between Campuses for Question 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . Hypotheses of the Study . . . . . Procedures for the Study Sources of Data . . . . . . . . The Questionnaire . . . . . . Selecting the Sample . . . . Statistical Analysis . . . . Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . Page BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IOO APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IZO APPENDIX E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I22 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Number of Campuses, Number of Full-Time Faculty Members, Number of Respondents and Percentage of Respondents by Campus and by District . . . . . . . . . 36 2. Composite Profile of Full-Time Faculty Members . . . . . . . 38 3. Prediction from Perceived Participation to Degree of Support Indicated for Policy . . . . . . . . . . #2 A. Prediction from Perceived Administrative ReSponsiveness to Degree of Support Indicated for Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A3 5. Prediction from Degree of Faculty Cohesion to Degree of Support Indicated for Policy . . . . . . . . A5 6. Prediction from Degree of Faculty Intimacy to Degree of Support Indicated for Policy . . . . . . . . A7 7. Prediction from Degree of Faculty Control to Degree of Support Indicated for Policy . . . . . . . . A7 8. Prediction from Number of Years Employed to Degree of Support Indicated for Policy . . . . . . . . A8 9. Prediction from Total Teaching Experience to Degree of Support Indicated for Policy . . . . . . . . #9 l0. Analysis of Variance for Degree of Support . . . . . . . . 50 ll. Scheffe Post-Hoe Comparison of Means for Support of Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SI l2. Analysis of Variance Table for Degree of Self- Perceived Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 I3. Scheffe Post-Hoc Comparison of Means for Self- Perceived Participation in Initiating and Changing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 IA. Analysis of Variance Table for Degree of Administrative Responsiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sh vii Table Page IS. Scheffe Post-Hoc Comparison of Means for Degree of Administrative Responsiveness . . . . . . . . . 55 I6. Analysis of Variance for Degree of Faculty Cohesion . . . . 55 I7. Scheffe Post-Hoc Comparison of Means for Degree of Faculty Cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 IB. Analysis of Variance Table for Degree of Faculty Intimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 I9. Analysis of Variance Table for Degree of Faculty Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S8 20. Variable Number, Description of Variable and Questions Included in the Variable for Univaraite Reg ress ion 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 59 2i. Significance for Overall Regression Equation Using Variables 2, 3, h, S, 7, 9, l3 . . . . . . . . . . . 6O 22. Significance for Overall Regression Equation Using Variables 2, 3, h, 5, 7, 8, 9, IO, ll, l2, l3, lh, l5, l6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6O 23. Analysis of Variance for Length of Service as a Full-Time Member of the Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6i 2A. Scheffe Post-Hoc Comparison of Means for Length of Service as a Full-Time Member of the Faculty . . . . . . . 62 25. Analysis of Variance for Average Number of Hours Spent per Week on Campus Committees During l972-l973 . . . 63 26. Scheffe Post-Hoe Comparison of Means for Average Number of Hours Spent per Week on Campus Committees During I972-73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 27. Analysis of Variance for Number of Professional Meetings Attended During I972-l973 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6h 28. Scheffe Post-Hoc Comparison of Means for Number of Professional Association Meetings Attended During '972-73 0 o e e e e o e e e e e e e e e e o e e o o e e o 65 29. Analysis of Variance for Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 30. Scheffe Post-Hoc Comparison of Means for Age . . . . . . . . 67 viii Table Page 3i. Summary of Hypotheses Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 32. Summary of Differences Between Campuses . . . . . . . . . 69 LIST OF FIGURES Comparison of Selected Characteristics Between College Faculty Members and Public School Teachers Reasons Why Committee is Attractive to Members Flow Chart of Procedural Steps and Dates . . . . . Summary of Post-Hoc Comparisons . . . . . . . . Page 25 28 NO 70 Chapter I INTRODUCTION Educational SLQDITIEEEEE, In the tumultuous 60's, the authority of the educational establish- ment was challenged at all levels, not only by students, but by other segments of the system. It was during this period that the community college achieved its greatest growth. Consequently, the autocratic style of its administrators, a relic of its early ties with secondary education, was challenged. The faculty requested more participation in the decision-making process. When their request was denied by some administrators, the more militant faculty members demanded and won the legal right to collective bargaining. Now nothing was a prerogative of the administrator: everything was negotiable, or so it seemed to the administrator caught up In collective bargaining. When the bargaining unit was defined as required by law, the lines between faculty and administrators were tightly drawn. The negotiation of master contracts tended to raise the barriers even higher. In such a rigid system, interaction (communication) between groups becomes difficult. Or, in the terminology of social systems theory, the boundaries of subsystems (groups) become impenetrable except at the Interface. Whatever interaction occurs, occurs between spokesmen for each group, thereby causing the groups to drift further apart. The wider the chasm, the greater the feelings of mistrust because first-hand knowledge of the other group's members or activities is not available. The greater the feelings of mistrust, the more likely an adversary relationship will develop. By definition, an adversary relationship Is a win-lose relationship. But no matter who wins or loses, in an inter- dependent system such as the educational system, the jockeying for posi- tion throws the entire system out of equilibrium. Thus energy that could have been expended to improve the system must be used to regain lost equilibrium. Much can be done, though, to eliminate the factors that give rise to an adversary relationship if educational administrators are knowl- edgeable about the theories of social systems and participative manage- Milt. Social Systems Theory Briefly, the theory of social systems maintains that society is a large social system which is composed of many subsystems. Some of these subsystems are called organizations. Organizations are also composed of many social subsystems called departments, divisions, or branches, which are themselves composed of social subsystems. The ultimate social subsystem is the individual. . . .a social system is a system of the actions of individuals, the principal units of which are roles and constellations of roles. It is a system of differentiated action, organized into a system of differentiated roles (Havelock, l97l: 2-25). Generally, a system may be thought of merely as a set of components which act with and upon one another to bring about a state of balance or interdependence. Therefore, any change in the position or behavior of a particular component induces change In varying degrees in all other elements of the system. Systems may be static or dynamic. In a dynamic system, the components push and shove at one another, displace each other, or force changes in each other In a pattern of action and reaction that maintains a dynamic equilibrium. Nearly all systems in the real world that can be identified and examined are likely to be Open systems (not self contained). Open systems contain both dynamic and unstatic components which are themselves open systems. Open systems are dependent upon and interrelated with multiple- system environments. Every social system receives Inputs (human, man-made, natural resources) and generates outputs (messages, services, products.) The output of one social system may be the input of another social system or the feedback (answer) to an input. Feedback is the mechanism through which man seeks to regulate the output of the system. Each social system deveIOps a set of Internally shared norms, attitudes, and values which create a distinct identity for the organiza- tion within a larger, multI-organizational, multi-system, muItI-person environment (Havelock, l97l). This value system clearly delineates the boundaries of the social system; “Insiders” from "outsiders,” ”family” from ”not family.“ Any Interaction between social groups, therefore, takes place at the boundary or interface. If two, or more social groups are formally connected by messages to form a greater system, linkage has occurred. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY In this study, a multi-unit social system will be studied; namely, a multi-unlt community college district. This multi-unlt system is composed of three major subsystems; regionally located, semi-autonomous campuses. The three major subsystems (campuses) are further divided into three faculty subsystems which are further divided into divisions, departments, and faculty organizations, and eventually divided into individual faculty members. Since all three campuses are linked together by uniform district policies, It is possible to determine the degree to which the three faculty subsystems influence the support which faculty members have for administrative policy. In a dynamic, social system ”. . .any change in the position or behavior of a particular element induces change in varying degrees in all other elements of the system.“ (Richardson, g£_gl. l973: 3). Therefore, a change in the degree of faculty participation in initiating and changing policy should lead to a change In the degree of support of policy. But, does it? If It does, to what degree? These are two questions which this study will attempt to answer. Since the community college developed with elements of both the secondary school and the university, Hemphill's four factors which seem to distinguish clearly between the university faculty and the public school faculties have been selected to describe the community college faculty, and to attempt to answer the question: Is there a faculty profile that Is supportive of policy? Finally, there should be demographic characteristics of faculty members that the administrator can recognize as leading to support of policy. This study will attempt to identify these characteristics. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This study will attempt to answer the following questions per- taining to an urban based, multi-unit community college district: l. Does faculty participation in initiating and changing policies lead to faculty support of those policies: 2. Is there a faculty profile which distinguishes between those faculty members who are supportive of policy and those who are less supportive of policy? 3. Are there identifiable demographic characteristics of faculty members that the administrator can identify as leading to support of policy? More specifically, this study deals with the following selected variables as they relate to faculty support or non-support of insti- tutional policies. I. Faculty self-descriptions as measured by . Control Intimacy Stratification Vlscidity (cohesion) COD) 2. The demographic variables of Sex Age Educational level Discipline identification Professional license holder Teaching experience I. Two-year college 2. University or four-year college 3. Secondary A. Total fiMUfiW) O O 3. The participative variables of A. Involvement In college affairs I. Campus committees 2. All-college committees 3. Student activities 8. Involvement In professional activities I. Meetings attended 2. Offices held A. The perception variables of A. Amount of input the faculty had in initiating and changing policies 8. Administrative responsiveness I. Department Head 2. Dean C. Impact of participation I. Campus 2. District DELIMITATIONS OF THE PROBLEM The following delimitations were established for this study: I. The study was delimited to one, multi-unit community college district located in a large metrOpolitan area and composed of three regional campuses which were established in I963, l966, and l97l. The selected multi-unit community college district may not be representative of other multi-unit community college districts. 2. The study included only full-time faculty members of each campus who were eligible for membership in the campus Faculty Senate. Part- time faculty members were not included because they do not have formal Opportunities to participate in decision making, nor do they have oppor- tunities for extensive personal contact with the full-time faculty. 3. The data were gathered by means of a forced-choice questionnaire which limited the scope of responses. A. ReSponses were limited to a particular moment In time during the spring quarter of I973. No allowance was made for the dynamics of change in perception or support over time. 5. Responses were limited to those Individuals who were willing to answer and return the questionnaire. 6. The study does not Include personality characteristics of the individual which are not related to the Institution. HYPOTHESES l. The degree to which faculty members perceive participation (Input) in initiating and changing policies Is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members indicate support of policy. 2. The degree to which faculty members perceive administrative responsiveness Is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members Indicate support of policy. 3. The degree of faculty cohesiveness Is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members Indicate support of policy. A. The degree of faculty Intimacy Is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members Indicate support of policy. 5. The degree of faculty control is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members Indicate support of policy. 6. The degree of faculty stratification is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members indicate support of policy. 7. The number of years a faculty member has been employed In the district Is a significant predictor of the degree to which he will indicate support of policy. 8. Total teaching experience Is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members Indicate support of policy. 9. There Is a slgnIfIcant difference between the degree of support Indicated for policy by faculty members of each campus. this DEFINITIONS The following terms are defined according to their usage throughout study: MultI-unit community college district: A community college district operating two or more campuses within Its district under one govern- ing board, with each campus having a separate site administrator. Campus President: Site administrator Facult : All full-time faculty who are eligible for membership In the Faculty Senate. Faculty Senate: A voluntary organization of all full-time faculty members, counselors, librarians, nurses and quasi-administrators who teach a minimum of eighteen quarter hours per year. The faculty governing body for each campus. Participation: Both formal Input (by serving on campus or district committeesT’and Informal Input (voluntary written or oral com- munication to any administrator whether acknowledged by the admin- istrator or not.) All-college_commlttee: A district committee composed of repre- sentatives fFom each campus and from the district office. Campus committee: Membership restricted to local campus faculty members and administrators. Socialization: The process by which all new members of the faculty learn the value system, the norms, and required behavior patterns of the district and of the local campus. Control: The degree to which the faculty regulates the behavior of IndIvIduals while they are functioning as faculty members. Intimac : The degree to which members of the faculty are mutually acquaInted with one another and are familiar with the most personal details of one another's lives. Stratification: The degree to which the faculty orders its members Into social hierarchies. Vlscidity (cohesion): The degree to which members of the faculty finctlon as a unit. FOCUS OF STUDY The primary focus of this study was to determine the extent to which the self-perceived Involvement of faculty In determining college policies Is related to support of those policies In a multI-unit, urban-based community college district. More specifically, It was hypothesized that the more Involved the faculty members perceived themselves to be in the decision making process, the more support they would indicate for se- lected policies as Implemented. It was anticipated that the study would help community college administrators to develop a more positive rapport with the faculty, thereby reducing the possibility that adversary relationships might develop. The secondary focus of this study was to determine If a faculty (group) profile exists which would distinguish between those faculty members who are more supportive of policy and those who are less supportive of policy. It will Identify selected variables which the administrator might strengthen through various administrative procedures such as hiring, In-service training, and opportunities for Informal as well as formal socialization. It was also anticipated that the identi- fication of such variables would better enable the faculty to understand Its strengths and weaknesses. The third focus of the study was to Identify demographic factors that the administrator can recognize as co-related to support of policy. The fourth and final focus of this study was to point out that there are unique factors In each unit of a multI-unit community college district which help to determine unit support of district policy. Recog- nition of these differences should lead to a reappraisal of the degree ID of campus autonomy feasible. It was not the purpose of this study to suggest in any way that un- questionlng support of policy Is desirable In a dynamic, viable community college. RELATED RESEARCH grggnlzational Climate Organizational climate Is "the set of characteristics that describe an organization and that (a) distinguish the organization from other organizations, (b) are relatively enduring over time, and (c) Influence the behavior of people In the organization.” (Forehand and von Haller Gilmer, l96h: 362). Climatic variation may be assessed either directly or Indirectly. For this study, the Indirect method of assessment through participants' perceptions Is used. This method of assessment Is supported by Likert's (l96l) interaction-Influence mode. This model assigns central Importance to organizational characteristics (structure, objectives, supervisory practices) as they are perceived by individuals. Halpln's (I966) Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (0CDQ), which utilizes sixty-four Likert-type items, Identifies six organizational climates found In elementary schools. They are the open, the autonomous, the controlled, the familiar, the paternal, and the closed. The College Characteristics Index (CCI), (Pace and McFee, I960) which assesses a range of dimensions of college climate, states In the rationale that perceptions are based upon experience that Is both more extensive and more Involved than that of outside observers. ll Hemphill has also developed a set of scales for measuring dimensions of group performance. The characteristics which pertain to the group as a unit are size, Vlscidity, homogeneity, flexibility, stability, perme- ability, polarization, autonomy, Intimacy and control: and the character- Istics that pertain to the member relation to the group are position, participation, potency, hedonic tone, and dependency. The four factors which seem to distinguish clearly between the university faculty and the public school faculties have been selected to describe the community college faculty in this study. They are control, stratification, vis- cIdity (cohesion), and Intimacy. (See definitions on page 8). Participation in Decision-Making_Process A major emphasis of recent social action programs, management con- sultants and educational administrators has been participation: the In- clusion and active Involvement of Individuals who are affected by decisions In the decision-making process. The stress on participation is usually based upon the notion that people who are Involved In the decision-making process will be more com- mitted toward Implementing the decision than those who are not involved. Considerable research has been conducted to establish the validity of this theory. The best known studies pertaining to participation In the social science field are the works of Kurt Lewln (I963) and associates. These studies were carried out to determine how best to Influence housewives to use certain meat Items that they normally would reject. The results seemed overwhelming. Housewives who were Involved In a group discussion and group decision-making process about the Importance of eating the I2 ”undesirable" food used It much more than those who heard a lecture on the topic. The process of discussion and arriving at a decision were considered to be the major factors (Havelock, l97I). Edith Bennet Pelz (I955) reproduced the Lewin experiment In a highly controlled laboratory experiment. Although her study supported Lewin's general findings, her results showed that group discussion by itself was not directly related to the decision to participate. The decision to participate depended upon (I) the perceived consensus among their peers and (2) the fact that they had made a decision to participate. The Lewin and Pelz findings have also been supported by studies In the field of education. Lin, g£_gl;, (I966) report that ”teachers who are involved In decisions related to Innovations are more pre-disposed to adoption. Uffelman, ”states that Involvement In the development of programs Is directly related to their acceptance.” (Havelock, I97l: 5-3). Limitations of Participation Participation In the decision-making process does not always bring about positive results. It will not Succeed In situations where: I. The invitation to participate Is perceived as an Invitation to discuss (rubber stamp) commitments which have already been made. (Gregg, I964). 2. Other aSpects of the environment conflict with the effect It is supposed to produce (Coch and French, I963). 3. The decision to start participation was essentially non- participative (Strykker, I956). h. Outside experts are Invited In by top management when they are not requested by lower management (Strykker, I956). l3 5. The focus for decision making is focused on Insignificant matters (Shultz, I969). Furthermore, the opportunity to participate Is not highly prized by people who: I. Do not feel that the opportunities are legitimate for the role they are playing (Barnard, I938). 2. Find their major Interests and satisfaction outside the job (Simon, I960). 3. Have basic personality characteristics which disincline them toward decision-making or asserting themselves in groups (Vroom, l960). 4. Define their role on the job as that of critic (Carvell, I970). ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY The following assumptions were made for the purposes of this study: I. That reality Is In the eye of the beholder (perceiver). Or, in other words, what an individual perceives to be true, is true. 2. That there is some faculty involvement in Initiating and changing policies. 3. That the findings of the study will Identify the factors that are related to faculty support of policy. A. That If more attention needs to be given to the social systems and participative management concepts to reduce the possibility of ad- versary relationships developing, community college administrators will respond positively. IlI ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY The organization of the study is as follows: Chapter l--An Introduction to the study and a review of related research. Chapter 2--A review of literature concerned with the problem under Investigation. Chapter 3--The development and use of the Instrument utilized in gathering the data, the pilot run of the instrument, and the methodology employed In collecting and analyzing the data, and the statistical analysis used. Chapter A--An analysis of the data compiled from the returned questionnaires. Chapter 5--A summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations. Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE “The idea of participation as a principle of organization is not a new one. It has Its roots, after all, In the ageless democratic idea.” (Shultz, I969: #7). It is expressed in the democratic emphasis on the dignity of the individual and on the worth of freely stated opinions before a decision Is made. Nevertheless, It has only been recently that the concept of employee participation has been accepted as legitimate In the management of busi- ness and Industry and even more recently into the administrative function of the educational system. Although faculty, student, parent and citizen committees have a long and distinguished history, their principal function was to "advise" rather than to ”determine” policy. Today, the trend seems to be toward full partnership of all groups In the administration of edu- cational systems. Consequently, It is necessary to understand the basic tenets of participative management. An analysis follows of several managerial concepts that evolved into participative management. The chapter begins with a brief explanation of traditional management and continues with a discussion of the influence the human relations movement had on the development of participative management theory. Maslow's ”Hierarchy of Needs” and Herzberg's* ”Job *Although Herzberg's methodology has been challenged by behavior- ists, phenomonologists uphold It. Since a major assumption of this study is that what an Individual perceives to be true Is true, the con- troversy surrounding Herzberg's work does not affects Its applicability to this study. l5 l6 Satisflers” and ”Job Dissatisfiers” are discussed. Both theories were expanded upon and Incorporated Into the participative management theories of McGregor, Likert, and Scanlon. Since participative management emphasizes group as well as IndI— vIduaI participation, the social science concept of groups will be dis- cussed as well as the speclallzed group known as a committee. ”Since groups profoundly affect perception,” (Hicks, I972: l6l) the chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the psychology of perception. MANAGEMENT THEORY Until the l920's, the only theory of management was the traditional theory that maintains that work is inherently distasteful to most peOple so what they do is not as important as what they earn. It also maintains that few workers want or can handle work which requires creativity, self-direction or self-control. During the l920's and I930's social scientists laid the theo- retical groundwork to dISplace, but not completely supplant, the ”image of the average organization member as a mechanical, economic unit” (Miles, g£_213, I969: A7) with the image of the average member as a man striving to satisfy higher order needs than money through participation in the decision-making structure of the organization. It was the Haw- thorne studies, conducted by Elton Mayo (I960) In l923-26 and l927-32 at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company, that triggered what became known as the human relations movement. Mayo's studies found that social Influences were more significant in increasing production than either physical factors or changes in pay, and that workers react to change In terms of the meaning change had for them. I7 The meaning a worker assigned to a change depended upon his social conditioning (values, hopes, fears), derived from his family and group connections outside the work environment, and upon his social situation at work, In which group pressures determined attitudes and sentiments (Filley and House, I969: 22). Therefore, management should be more concerned with what makes man tick, with problems of Informal organizations, and with problems of communi- cation, participation, and understanding. The human relations movement drew heavily upon the work of A. H. Maslow (I965), whose theory of motivation stresses two fundamental premises: I. Man always wants something, but what he wants depends upon what he has. Only an unsatisfied need (want), therefore, can In- fluence his behavior (motivate). 2. Man's needs are arranged in a hierarchy of Importance. Once a lower order need Is satisfied, another higher order need emerges and demands satisfaction. Maslow hypothesizes five classes of needs and their order of potency as follows: I. Physiological - Hunger, thirst and sex 2. Safety - Security and protection from physical harm 3. Belongingness and Love - Affection, acceptance. friendship A. Esteem - Self-Esteem and Esteem from others 5. Self-Actuallzatlon - Becoming what one is capable of becoming While Maslow's need hierarcy does not provide a complete under- standing of human motivation or the means to motivate people, It does provide an excellent starting point because It has a great deal of common-sense validity. Organizations have been extremely successful In satisfying lower-level needs but not so successful in satisfying higher level needs. Frederick Herzberg (I966) studied need satisfaction of engineers and accountants and concluded that there are two major factors: moti- vational factors, which are job-centered, and maintenance factors, which are “peripheral to the job Itself and more related to the ex- ternal environment of work.‘l (Donnelly, g£_gl:, l97l: th) Motivational factors Include: recognition, feelings of accom- plishment and achievement, opportunity for advancement and potential for personal growth, reSponsibility, a sense of job and individual importance, new experiences, and challenging work. These factors correSpond closely to what Maslow termed self-actualization or the need to become what one is capable of becoming. If these factors are present, positive attitudes and motivation may occur. Maintenance or hygiene factors Include: wages, fringe benefits, physical working conditions, and overall company policy and admin- Istratlon. These factors correspond to the lower two hierarchs of Maslow; and If present, can prevent dissatisfaction but cannot bring about positive attitudes. For “when employees are highly motivated, they have a high tolerance for dissatisfaction arising from the per- ipheral factors (maintenance or hygiene). However, the reverse is not true.” (Donnelly, 5£_213, l97l: IAZ) Douglas McGregor (I960) also studied workers' needs and In his Theory Y makes the following assumptions about what employees want from their work and what management's attitude should be toward trying to satisfy employee desires: l. The expenditure of physical and mental effort In work Is as natural as play or rest. 2. Man will exercise self-direction and self-control In the service of objectives to which he is committed. I9 3. Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement. h. The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but to seek responsibility. 5. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity In the solution of organization problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed In the population. 6. Under the conditions of modern Industrial life, the Intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partly utilized. The assumptions of Theory Y, in addition to placing the onus on management to seek the collaboration of workers, ”also encourage creativity and the sharing of responsibility for planning and obtain- Ing the objectives of the organization.” (Carvell, I970: I09). It assumes that when the goals of the worker are the same as the goals of the organization, the worker will work harder to attain them. By participating in the planning of change, an employee has a stake In the success of that change. In general, the available evi- dence Indicates that a solution worked out by a group is more accept- able to it than a solution Imposed on it by a supervisor; but, participation In planning change or resolving problems carries the Implication of responsibility for the implementation of the agreed upon solution. Therefore, “some peOple do not wish to participate because It might diminish their effectiveness as critics of the solution.” (Carvell, I970: 206). If employees feel that nothing Is accomplished by participating, the organization Is better off with no participation since it would appear that management was just going through the motions in an attempt to stimulate cooperation. In order for participation to be effective, Flippo (l97l) maintains that the following prerequisites must be met: 20 I. sufficient time 2. adequate ability and interest on the part of the participants 3. rational requirement of structures and systems A. lack of the necessity for secrecy 5. reasonable security for the participant Participation is one of Likert's (l96l) basic commandments In his linking-pin theory. “He sees men and managers linked In search of common goals--goals understood and embraced by supervisors and sub- ordinates at all levels in the organizational hierarcy.” (Hutchinson, l97l: 348). Likert sees groups linked together in the hierarchy with the supervisor serving as the linking pin, since he holds membership In the group that he leads as well as In the higher order group of supervisors. Therefore, the group and not the Individual Is charged with the responsibility of meeting goals; and since the groups are interlocked with each other, unity of objectives is achieved thrOUghout the organization. Although there are many studies that document fantastic increases in production through the use of total participation, the Norwegian Shoe investigators, French, Israel, and As, warn that ”the effects of partici- pation hold only for subjects who experience only as much participation 'as they consider right and proper' and that the effects of participation increase with decreasing resistance to the methods adapted by management to assure participation.” (Heyel, I972: 52h). Therefore, participation should be encouraged only in matters which the employees feel are within their jurisdiction. Joseph N. Scanlon, a leading advocate of participation as a basic principle of organization maintains that ”the average worker is able to make and, given the right kind of circumstances, wants to make Important contributions to the solution of production problems.” 2I (Shultz, I969: MOO). Therefore, if management Is willing to discuss real problems and to cheerfully accept suggestions that promise to be productive, each Individual would then feel the obligation to work for the best Interests of the organization. A more recent approach to participative management is Management by Objectives, as formulated by Peter Drucker (l95h). MBO seeks to Integrate the company's need to clarify and achieve Its profit and growth goals with the manager's need to contribute and develop himself. Management by Objectives tells a manager what he ought to do. The proper organization of his job enables him to do It. But It is the Spirit of the organization that determines whether he will do It. It Is the Spirit that motivates, that calls upon a man's reserves of dedication and effort, that decide whether he will give his best or do just enough to get by (Humble, I970: Preface) Therefore, Schleh, (I96l) following Drucker's lead, recommends that objectives be set for personnel all the way down to the foreman and salesman and, In addition, to staff people. To effectively use management by objectives, the superior and the subordinate must meet to discuss and jointly establish attainable goals for the subordinate and then mutually evaluate the subordinate's performance in terms of the established goals. If this is done con- sistently, then the employee's morale and attitude toward the company will Improve, he will contribute more to the attainment of the company goals, and he will be less anxious about where he stands with his superior. SOCIAL GROUP THEORY Although the Hawthorne studies of the I920's pointed out the Importance of the work group's influence over Its members, It has only been recently that the focus has shifted from the Individual to the 22 group In organizations. The impetus seems to be a result of Likert's linking-pin theory which points out that an organization functions best when Its personnel function as members of highly effective work groups Instead of as Individuals. According to Wadla, a group is ”a collection of Individuals, sharing certain norms, who are striving toward Individual need satisfaction through the attainment of a common goal." (Wadia, I968: IAN). Thus, norms are usually established by a group as a means of accomplishing Its goals; and over time, the group develops in addition to rather clear- cut behavioral norms, set Ideologies and rules. Because people tend to adopt group standards unconsciously, ”groups profoundly affect per- ception. That is, the very way one sees or understands events Is greatly determined by his group experienceJ'Ichks, I972: I6l). iAccordIng to Cribbins (I972) a group Is characterized by a greater or lesser degree of attraction among its members, Internal cohesion, interdependence, ability of the members to affect and Influence one another, exclusiveness, and shares values, objectives and interests. ”The greater the Interpersonal attraction among the members of a group, the greater the power of the group over the group members.” (Collins and Guetzkow, I96A: I29). Groups have been categorized by Fiedler (I960) as Interacting, coactlng, and counteracting. ”The designation depends upon whether the members have a face-to-face relationship, work relatively Independently of each other, or are Opposed and yet must reconcile conflicting view- points.” (Cribben, 1972: 93). Warren (I969) categorizes groups into consensual, diffuse, and job- specific which are distinguished by variations In 23 face-to-face association diffuse and unspecialized interaction relative permanence or stability of membership . mutual Identification PWN-fl Stability and mutual identification predominate In the consensual peer group. ”Because Of homogeneity of Interests, cohesiveness becomes a product of the Initial composition of the consensual peer group.” (Warren, I969: 5A6). Consequently a sense of subjective unity is created, thereby eliminating the need for frequent contact or an elaborate socialization process. ”Extensive interaction of peer group members in Informal, off- the-job contacts characterizes the diffuse peer group.” (Warren, l969: 5A6). Unlike the consensual peer group, homogeneity of background and Interests are not requisites for membership In the group. Therefore, the rewards of social participation accelerates the socialization process. Job-specific peer groups are characterized by face-to-face association. Interaction within the work context is more frequent than off-the-job socializing. ”Stability of membership is less likely, and Identification occurs only as a mutual recognition of a shared formal status, not as a commitment or a sense of unity." (Warren, I969: 5A7). Hemphlll (I956) characterizes groups by dimensions and Identifies fifteen which pertain either to the group as a unit (size, Vlscidity, homogeneity, flexibility, stability, permeability, polarization, autonomy, Intimacy, and control) or the members relation to the group (position, participation, potency, hedonic tone, and dependence.) In a sample composed of descriptions supplied by I30 members of the faculty of a liberal arts college, Hemphlll found that this sample differed from those composing the entire standard population as follows: 2A (Hemphill, I956: l5‘l6). I. More of the members of the college department regard their groups as heterogeneous and few regard their departments as homogeneous. 2. More members describe their departments as involving a relatively high degree of Participation than regard their depart- ment as low In Participation. 3. College departments are seen by most members as low on the Permeability dimension. Very few members describe college departments above average on Permeability. A. More members of the college department describe their groups as relatively high In Importance to them than see their groups as unimportant. S. More members of the department described their groups as relatively low on Control than describe them as high in this respect. 6. College departments appear to more of their members to be highly stratified with marked emphasis on rank and status differences than to be low on the dimension Stratification. 7. There Is a tendency for college faculty members to regard their departments as relatively low on teamwork, co- hesion, and freedom from dissension (Vlscidity) rather than the opposite. 8. There are fewer department members who describe their groups as low In pleasantness (Hedonic Tone) than In the standard pOpulation. In another sample consisting of descriptions of school staffs supplied by 320 public school teachers, Hemphlll found that they differed from the standard population as follows: (I956: 2l-23). l. The school unit is seen to exercise moderately high control over the conduct of the teachers (Control). 2. The unit is described as relatively less Intimate than other groups In the standard population (Intimacy). 3. The school unit Is seen to be moderately difficult to join as a staff member (Permeability). A. The teachers regard the school unit as relatively Im- portant to them as a group (Potency). 25 S. The school unit is seen to be a relatively autonomous group by teachers. 6. The school unit Is regarded by teachers to be relatively heterogeneous In membership. 7. The school is seen by the teachers as a relatively stable group with little turnover or change in Its basic characteristics. 8. There Is a tendency for the teachers to regard their group as requiring considerable Participation but with little emphasis on Stratification. In comparing the two studies, the characteristics of control, stratification, cohesion and Intimacy seem to clearly distinguish between college faculty members and public school teachers. Therefore, it would seem logical that they also distinguish between a third group of teachers, community college teachers, who are between the public school teachers and the liberal arts college faculty members. Characteristic College Public School Control Relatively low Moderately high Stratification Highly stratified Little stratification Cohesion Relatively low More low than high Intimacy More high than low Relatively less Intimate Figure I: Comparison of Selected Characteristics Between College Faculty Members and Public School Teachers Source: Hemphlll, Group Dimensions: A Manual for their Measurement NO matter how specific groups are defined or categorized, all new members of the group must learn the value system, the norms, and the required behavior patterns. This process is called socialization. The extent of the socialization required depends upon the new member's prior socialization. If he has 26 . . .clearly anticipated the norms of the organization he Is joining, the social process merely involved a reaffirmatlon of these norms through various communication channels. the personal example of key peOple, and direct Instruction from supervisors, trainers, and Informal coaches. (Schein, l96l: l02). But, If he ”comes with values and behavior patterns that are out of line with those expected by the organization, then the socialization process involves a destructive or unfreezing phase.” (Schein, l96l). The success of the socialization depends, of course, upon the initial motivation of the entrant to join the group and the degree the group can hold the new member captive during the period of sociall- zation, i.e., boot camp for new soldiers and management training for new managers. Most of the subtle values of the organization, such as what is taboo, how the boss really wants things done, etc., are transmitted during the group socialization process. ”Of course, sometimes the values Of the Immediate group are sometimes out of line with the value system of the organization as a whole and are thereby passed on to the new member. . .” (Schein, I96l: I06) rather than the value system of management. The entire socialization process is geared to the development of commitment and loyalty to the group. Once a member Is committed he becomes his own agent of socialization by internalizing the norms of the group. He then feels guilty if he does not conform to the pre- vailing norms. In addition to avoiding feelings of guilt by conform- Ing, he may also gain social approval. Of the three possible responses to socialization: l. Rejection of all values and norms. (Rebellion) 2. Acceptance only of pivotal values and norms; rejection of all others. (Creative Individualism) 27 3. Acceptance of all values and norms. (Conformity) (Schein, l96l). The second response Is the only acceptable one for a vital, progressive group. For a bureaucratic organization or for a group interested In maintaining the status quo, the third response Is ideal. THE COMMITTEE A committee is a formal group, and may be defined as ”two or more persons appointed by their Immediate superior for the purpose of acting or advising their superior about a subject that is not clearly within the competence of any of them.” (O'Donnell, I972: 38l). This definition implies that the superior does not sit In on the committee meetings. Committees are usually relatively formal bodies, with a definite structure and specific responsibilities and authority as well as a more or less fixed membership. Most authorities agree that “the one time when a committee can be legitimately used--and the only circumstances In which Its use can be justlfied--is when It can do a better job than a single member.” (O'Donnell, I972: 382). This means that the net effect must be superior as to cost, time, decisiveness, justice, and sound judgment, and that there is no regularly, established position that can carry out the responsibility. PeOple become members of committees through: I. Appointment by superiors 2. Selection either formally or informally by other committee members 3. Election either formally or informally A. Volunteering 5. Right of office or job contact 28 Whether the committee member sees ”participation In the committee as a means or an end, It can potentially serve needs classified as either task or social.” (Filley and House, I969: 329). Social Needs Task Needs I Control of Environment Committee Status of as Means Membership Better Wages m_a--. ..- .. .-sse_".m_u.._mr._-hfl- -.. Committee Security Leadership as Ends Participation Control Problem Solving I Figure 2: Reasons Why Committee Is Attractive to Members Source: Filley and House, Manpgerial Process and Orgpnlzational Behavior, p. 329. Back (I95l) has shown In an experimental study that the source of attraction to a group (committee) affects group behavior. In groups constructed on the basis of personal attraction, members engaged In long, pleasant conversations, and were highly Influenced by the opinions of other members. Those members oriented toward prestige acted cautious- ly, engaging In fairly short discussions, and were carefulnot to antag- onize each other and thereby lose status. Those oriented toward task accomplishment completed the task quickly and efficiently, keeping their discussion relevant to the work. Among the major benefits enjoyed by management by using committees are those pertaining to synergy (the sum of the whole Is greater than the sum of the Individual parts); to enforced participation In the planning of change so that there will be group pressure created to 29 Implement the change with a minimum of resistance; and to communicating information. Increasingly, though, “the size of the group seems to limit the extent to which Individuals want to communicate." (Filley and House, l969: 385)- In order to make the most effective use of committees according to Allen (I972), be sure that: l. Committees have a clearly stated purpose 2. Members of the committee are carefully selected and have equal status 3. Chairman understands his proper role A. There is adequate preparation for the committee meeting 5. Committee ls of the proper size (between 5 and 9 members) 6. A logical procedure Is followed In conducting the meeting 7. Adequate follow up Is necessary 8. Work of the committee Is consistently evaluated PERCEPTION THEORY Perception, according to Ruch, ”Is an active process, midway along a continuum from direct sensing to thinking, by which we organize and give meaning to the Information we receive through our senses.” (I967: 332). "It Is the Immediate result of contact with the environment.” (Bartley, I972: 225). Through perception we are able to maintain a stable environment despite the multitude of constantly changing sensory stimuli, and to fill in the gaps by Interpreting a "series of fragments as a whole when sensory data are Incomplete.” (Ruch, I967: 332). How accurately we Interpret (perceive) the Information (stimuli) 30 depends upon the situation and the state of the person receiving the sensation. In addition, certain "social and cultural factors encourage the deveIOpment Of certain perceptions and render the development of others less likely. . . .Success or failure may also affect perception.” (Ruch, I967: 333). Also, there is ”evidence of perceptual defense against stimuli with socially unacceptable connotations. Direct social suggestion can also Influence what we see.” (Ruch, I967: 333). Perception relies heavily upon past experience to determine into which category one places new sensations or Information. Through association Inference, one learns that certain signs are associated with certain forms of behavior, thereby, making It possible to build up a whole framework of sign-expectancies (categories) that can be used as a framework in perceiving and acting toward others. But, ”when one is confronted with a situation In which present categories do not seem adequate, one either deveIOps new categories to handle the Information or tries to twist the Information until It fits an existing category.” (Watson, I972: ID). “The categories Into which individual place sen- sations and which they use to Interpret stimuli from the environment are called concepts.“ (Watson, I972: l8). Since It Is not possible for the human nervous system to attend to everything, by necessity, perception ls selective. Therefore, ”depend- ing upon the motivation currently acting upon the perceiver and the goals be Is attempting to accomplish, his perception will selectively attend to the stimuli and sensation available.“ (Watson, l972: IO). How accurately an Individual perceives anything can only be Inferred from the Individual's report of what he has seen. However, perception may be distorted by perceiver inattention or because: 3i i. persons are influenced by considerations they are unable to identify 2. difficult perceptual judgments are sometimes distorted by irrelevant cues 3. emotional factors enter into abstract or Intellectual judgments h. people tend to rely on favorable sources of information more than unfavorable or unknown sources 5. it is unlikely that anyone facing a decision Is able to identify all the factors on which his judgment are based, and even if he isaware of them, he finds it difficult to estimate how much weight he gives to each. (Costello, i963) or according to Filley and House, ”even when we are perceiving on the basis of the obvious cues, it is quite likely that we are responding as well to less obvious cues, also inherent in the situation." (l969: ii5). in conclusion, Solley and Murphy accurately summarize the litera- ture on perception when they conclude that: As a process, perception can best be conceptualized as an Instrumental act which structures stimulation. As an act, it can be analyzed into stages, such as a preparatory stage ' consisting of expectancy and attending, a sensory reception state, a trial-and-check state, and a final structuring stage. These stages do not exist as Isolated units but merge and intertwine In the process. (l960: 33). SUMMARY Chapter 2 has been designed to accomplish the following purposes: (l) to identify the theoretical framework upon which participative management is based, (2) to examine in detail the concepts of partici- pative management including (a) the role social group theory plays in the successful implementation of participative management, and (b) the role of the committee, and (3) to briefly examine the effect perception has on the success or failure of participative management in practice. CHAPTER 3 PROCEDURES The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the sources of data, to describe the research instrument (questionnaire), the sampling tech- nique, the pOpulation, and the statistical tools utilized to determine the extent to which the self-perceived involvement of faculty members in determining college policies is related to support of those policies in a multI-unlt community college district. SOURCES OF DATA The data summarized in this study were compiled from the 222 usable questionnaires returned by the sample of 376 full-time faculty members who were employed by a large, multi-unit (three campus), urban based, community college district. To determine whom should be considered full-time faculty, each campus' definition of eligibility for membership in the campus faculty senate was used. THE QUESTIONNAIRE The questionnaire utilized In this study was composed of three parts. Part i was concerned with the degree of self-perceived participation the faculty had in initiating or changing 22 selected policies and the degree to which the faculty member supported the selected policies as currently implemented. An additional section pertaining to the perceived degree of faculty participation in implementing.the selected policies had been 32 33 contemplated, but was removed as a result of difficulties participants experienced during the pilot run of the questionnaire (N-lO) in distin- guishing between "input in initiating and changing policies" and ”input in implementing policies.” The original nine point scale was also re- duced to a five point scale upon the recommendation of the participants in the pilot run. There was also included In Part i questions pertaining to the faculty's perception of administrative responsiveness to professional concerns of the faculty and to the faculty's perception of the Impact the faculty participation had upon policy formation. A tentative list of 22 policies was assembled and a panel of experts, faculty members from two of the three campuses involved in the study, were requested to: (i) read the list of policies, (2) add any policies they considered equally or more important, and (3) to rank order the entire list of policies. Since no additional policies were suggested by two or more jurors, and since there was no consensus as to the order of importance, the original list of 22 policies was main- tained. At the suggestion of the guidance committee, four forms of Part i were circulated with the policies scrambled to assure randomi- zation of responses. Scrambling was accomplished by dividing the 22 policies into two groups of five and two groups of six and then arranged so that each group appeared in all four possible positions on the questionnaire. Part ii of the questionnaire was an attempt to identify a faculty profile which would distinguish between those faculty members who are more supportive of policy and those who are less supportive of policy. it consisted of selected questions, used by permission of the author, 3“ from Hemphlll's The Groyp Dimension DescriptlomsQuestionnaire. The questions were selected from the dimensions of control, intimacy, stratification and viscidity (cohesion) since these dimensions seemed to distinguish between faculty members of a liberal arts college and public school teachers. Therefore, it seemed probable that since community college teachers are somewhere in between the four-year college teacher and the public school teacher in the educational hierarchy, these dimensions might also characterize collumunity college faculty members. Although all questions pertaining to a specific dimension were listed together on the questionnaire, no indication was given as to groupings or what might be considered a ”correct" response. The instructions simply said that "the following questions are Intended to obtain your perception of the faculty.” At the suggestion of the participants in the pilot run of the questionnaire, the order of scoring was reversed in Part ii to be consistent with the order of scoring in Part I. Part iii of the questionnaire consisted of personal (demographic) factors pertaining to: discipline area, experience, faculty involve- ment In college affairs, professional involvement, education, pro- fessional license (certification), sex and age. No changes were made in Part iii after the pilot run of the questionnaire. All responses during the pilot run of the questionnaire were marked on "marked sensed" answer forms; but at the suggestion of the participants in the pilot run, the scoring scale was printed next to the questions on the final form of the questionnaire. After the questionnaire was sufficiently refined and approved, it was prepared for mailing to the 376 full-time faculty members selected 35 for the study. A questionnaire and cover letter (Appendix A) were sent via campus mall to all full-time faculty members of campus l and 2 as defined by the various faculty senates, and hand delivered by the presi- dent of the faculty senate on campus 3. All returns were made via campus mall to the Office of the Executive Vice President, attention of the author. SELECTING THE SAMPLE A multi-unit, urban based, community college district was arbi- trarily selected for the study. Although the study of a single, multl-unit, urban based, community college district does not allow statistical generalizations to be made to other multi-unit, urban based community college districts, it may provide an acceptable basis for the design of future studies of multl-unit community college districts. DESCRIPTION OF THE POPULATION The population of this study consisted of all the full-time faculty members employed by a multi-unit, urban based community college dis- trict. The faculty members were employed on three regionally located, semi-autonomous campuses. Each campus had a president and a full complement of supporting and teaching staff. The three campuses had been established over a period of ten years: Campus l in l963, Campus 2 in i966, and Campus 3 in l97l. Consequently, some faculty members had taught at two or more campuses during their tenure on the faculty. Table l illustrates the number of campuses involved in the study, 36 the number of full-time faculty members for each campus, the number of responses for each campus, and the percentage of responses for each campus. The totals, of course, indicate the same information for the district. Table i NUMBER OF CAMPUSES, NUMBER OF FULL-TIME FACULTY MEMBERS, NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS AND PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS BY CAMPUS AND BY DISTRICT Number of Number of Faculty Percent of Campus Responses as Faculty Members Respondents a Percent of District Campus Members Responding by Campus Responses I 22h l20 53.62 5h.i 2 l26 82 65.1 36.9 3 26 20 76.9 9.0 District 376 222 59.0 i00.0 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The information from the returned questionnaires was transferred to ”marked sense" score sheets. The score sheets were read by the computer and transferred to BO-column computer cards. The cards were then processed through the Computer Laboratory facilities at Michigan State University. The CISSR - PACKAGE (Computer institute for Social Science Research) was utilized to compute means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables. Ail correlations were corrected for attenuation (freed from error). 37 PACKAGE was also used to perform (l) multiple groups (2) square root (3) decomposition and (A) ordering analyses upon the resulting correlation matrix. Univariate regression analysis was performed to determine the rela- tive contribution of each independent variable to the dependent variable. The level of significance for the rejection of the hypotheses of no sig- nificance was set at the .05 level. Product moment correlations were used to determine whether the significant relationships were positive or negative. Analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was a sig- nificant difference between the campuses studied. if a significant dif- ference was found, Scheffe Post-Hoe comparisons were utilized to locate the difference. COMPOSITE PROFILE OF FULL-TIME FACULTY MEMBER Table 2 on the following page illustrates the frequency count and percentage of response for the demographic factors of sex, age, educa- tion, length of service as a full-time member of the faculty, and dis- cipline area for each campus. The totals for all factors illustrate demographic factors for the district. The typical respondent was male, between the ages of 35 and AA who had a masters degree and had been employed by the district for approx- imately five years. His discipline area varied by campus with Humanities being represented in the upper 50 percent for all campuses. Of the hi percent of the faculty that did not respond to the ques- tionnaire, there is no evidence to indicate that they differ from those who did respond except in their decision to participate in the study. 38 0.00. .wmw 0.00. .pw 0.00. muwu 0.00. mmWw N.N m 0.0 0 0.m m 0.. N vmucoaoccs ..m. 0N 0.0. N N.N. 0. N.:. n. 0:0\000 m.:N m0. 0.00 0. n.0N m0 0.0m :0 mz\eomeum0 uu.eum.0 m manmu N mausmu . manmu 0000202 >H420_om » >0o.ooo .um.: m.m_ cm o.m . :.m. ._ o.m. m. uuco.um a new: N.N N. 0.0. N m.m N 0.0 m .um .mto_>m;mm 0.0 m. o.m_ m :.m. .. N.: m met< «menace. m... mN o.m _ m.m_ m. N.N ._ mmuc_m=m m.0 :_ o.ON : m.: : o.m 0 u.a a zu.mo= :.m. :m o.om e N.N. o. o.m_ m. mo_u_cme:: N.N. 0N o.o_ N N.N 0 N.e_ ON Nmo.oc;uoe moe< oc..a.0m.0 0.00. .Nmm 0.00. wa. o.oo. .mm o.oo. .Nww .mboN N.N 0 o.o o :.N N N.N : meme» 0. m.e :. 0.0 o e.m m N.N ._ memoN m m... mN o.m _ 0.: a 0.0. ON meme» 0 s.N_ mm 0.0 o m.m_ e. N.N. MN memoN N _.0 m. o.m _ m.m N N.N o. memoN 0 :.o. MN o.o_ N N.N. o. N.m __ mamoN m m... mN o.m_ m :.m. _. N.N ._ mama» : 0.0 m. o.m . m.0 N N.m .. mama» m m... mN o.mN m 0.:_ N. 0.0 N mtmu> N 0.N_ 0N o.mm N ..N_ o. N.N __ EmmN _ 00 o ucoE>o.aEu mo cu0c04 ucmuLom .aoem acouLom .eru uceuLom .Ueem acmueem .emeu >0000um0 No.0um.0 m meaEmu N meaEmu Anmac.ucouv N 0.0mh NO .>e:un on» we co.ue.eeou on» c. eo>.o> -c. moucoseom as.“ ecu mo.u.>.uue aceucoee. egos on» .o co.ueeum:... u.zeeem m nee.>oce e>one m ocam.u >03km z. mm.h.>.hu< no m40.ec< .moueo 0cm naeum .meeveuoLe 00 “Logo zo.u eueo mmxm o:-30..0u ecouom MNNO eeauouoce sumo LeusoEOu :92 5 me: o:u30..0u umc.u MNxm acceseumc_ mo ucuEno.e>00W mNN: _ee.ecco.umead mo mc._.mz umt.e MNNO sec 00.... ceueeeou mo ucuEeo.o>00 .m 05:0.u .NNNm ,MNN: m:.uou anm co.m.>e¢ MNNN oe.ecco.unoad mo aceeeo.o>00 com «Lauecou.4 mo u.nonuc>m aceEeLumc. ISI 00 yeah uo..e NNN. Evil. socmomex mo co.um~..eaueeucou Chapter A THE FINDINGS: ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES 0F FACULTY MEMBERS The purpose of this chapter is to present an analysis of the re- sponses of the 222 full-time faculty members who participated in the study. The chapter presents an analysis of the effect of the independent variables upon the degree to which faculty members indicate support of policy. Correlations were computed among the variables, and univariate regression analysis was used to determine the relative contribution of each independent variable to the dependent variable (support of policy). The regression matrix and tables of means for the variables are in appendix C and D. Analysis of variance was used to determine significant differences between campuses. When a significant difference was found, Scheffe's post-hoc comparisons were used to determine where the differences existed. Product moment correlations were utilized to determine the degree of significance of relationships, and a .05 level of significance was utilized throughout the study. Tables of means and frequency counts for demographic variables are in appendix E. Since this is a descriptive study, no direction or causation is implied. hi AZ initiating and Changing Policy Table 3 illustrates the relative contribution of the degree of per- ceived participation (questions 23 through #4, appendix A) in initiating and changing policy and the degree to which faculty members indicate support of policy. Using regression analysis and a .05 level of signif- icance, it was found that the degree to which faculty members perceive participation in initiating and changing policy is a significant pre- dictor of self-reported support of policy. Although any value from 0.000 to 0.05 would have been significant, all of the values were at the extreme lower end of the range, (0.005. This means that there are less than 5 chances in l000 that the hypothesis that the degree to which faculty members perceive participation in initiating and changing policy is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members Indicate support of policy should be rejected. Table 3 PREDICTION FROM PERCEIVED PARTICIPATION T0 DEGREE 0F SUPPORT INDICATED FOR POLICY Standard Tabled Computed Beta Error of F F Sign. College df Weight Beta Value Value Level District 2/219 .682 .0119 3.07 192.303 <0.005* Campus 1 1/118 .611 .072 3.92 70.378 4005* Campus 2 1/80 .653 .0811 3.95 59.690 T3 + 2.950 1 2.351 510 X2' 3 + 1.910 1 1.589 510. X1 ’ x2+x3 + 1.995 _+_ .981 $10 2 31' - T +7 . 2 1 3 + .935 1 1.039 NS 2 ._ _ _. +_ x3 x2 x1 - 2.930 1 1.990 510 2 Differences Between Campuses on Question‘86' Table 25 illustrates the differences between campuses on the average number of hours spent per week on campus committees during I972- I973. Since a significant difference was found at the <0.005 level, Scheffe post-hoc comparisons were made to determine where the differences existed. Table 26 on the following page gives the result of the com- parisons. The post-hoc contrasts indicate the means for Campus l and Campus 2 do not differ on the number of hours expended per week on campus committees. All other contrasts which involve Campus 3 indicate 63 Table 25 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOURS SPENT PER WEEK ON CAMPUS COMMITTEES DURING I972-I973 A Source of Sum of Mean Tabled F Computed Sign. Variance Squares df Squares Value F Value Level Between 339.036 2 l67.0l8 3.07 l5.5l0 «(0.005 Within 2358.I97 2I9 IO.767 Total 2692.l89 22l *Significant at the .05 level Table 26 SCHEFFE POST-HOG COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOURS SPENT PER WEEK ON CAMPUS COMMITTEES DURING l972-73 Contrast Confidence Interval Significance 71-72 «1 .259 1 1.169 NS 31‘, -73 - 9.158 1 1.963 510 Y2-73 - 9.917 1 2.026 510 71' 72*73 - 1.999 1 1.256 510 2 If 2.11;}; - 2.338 1 1.329 510 if Y2+Yl + 9.288 1 1.908 510 69 that the mean for Campus 3 differs from all other means. Or in other words, Campus 3 spends more time per week on campus committees than do the other two campuses separately or averaged together. Differences Between Campuses for Question 9i Table 27 illustrates the differences between campuses on the number of professional association meetings attended during l972-l973. Since a significant difference was found at the .028 level, Scheffe post-hoc comparisons were made to determine where the differences existed. Table 28 on the following page gives the result of the comparisons. The post- Table 27 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS ATTENDED DURING l972-l973 Sources of Sums of Mean Tabled F Computed Sign. Variance Squares df Squares Value F Value Level Between 199.933 2 79.966 3.07 3.631 .028* Within 952l.237 2l9 20.699 Total 967l.l7l 22l *Significant at the .05 level. hoc contrasts indicate that the mean number of professional association meetings attending during l972-l973 for Campus 2 does not differ from the mean number for Campus 3 nor from the average of the means for Campus l and Campus 3. It does indicate that mean for Campus l differs from 65 the mean for Campus 2 and Campus 3 and from the average of the two means. in other words, Campus l faculty members attended more professional association meetings during l972-i973 than did the faculty members of Campus 2 and Campus 3. They also attended more meetings than the average of Campus 2 and Campus 3. Table 28 SCHEFFE POST‘HOC COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR NUMBER OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION MEETINGS ATTENDED DURING l972-73 Contrast Confidence Interval Significance “fl-22 + 1.338 1 .611 510 71-363 + 2.900 1 1.036 510 X2 - X3 + l.062 :_ l.07l NS - _ _ +_. x1 x2 x3 + 1.869 1 .660 $10 2 Y - '1? +7 2 1 3 - .138 1 .700 NS 2 _ _ _ +_ x3 x2 x1 - 1.731 1.009 510 2 Differences Between Campuses for Question 93 Table 29 illustrates the differences in age between campuses. Since a significant difference was found at the .098 level, Scheffe post-hoe comparisons were made to determine where the differences existed. Table 66 Table 29 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE Sources of Sums of Means Tabled F Computed Sign. Variance Squares df Square Value F Value Level Between 7.998 2 3.979 3.07 3.087 .098* Within 28l.889 2l9 l.287 Total 289.837 22l *Significant at the .05 level 30 gives the results of the comparisons. The post-hoc contrasts indicate that mean age for Campus 1 differs from the mean age for Campus 2 and Campus 3 and from the mean age for the average of Campus 2 and 3. The mean age for Campus 2 differs from the mean age for Campus l and from the average of the means for Campus l and Campus 3. 67 Table 30 SCHEFFE POST-HOG COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR AGE Contrast Confidence Interval Significance 71' 'x'z - .359 + .078 $10 71' Y3 - .950 11.108 510 x2 - x3 + .091 11.108 NS x1 ' x2 + X3 + .905 1 .078 $10 2 X2 " x1+ x3 - .139 1 .078 $10 2 x3 " x2 " x, - .270 11.108 NS 2 . SUMMARY Tables 3i and 32 and Figure 9 briefly summarize the findings of the study. 68 Table 3i SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES TESTED Variable District Campus l Campus 2 Campus 3 Perceived Participation in Initiating and Changing Policy SIG SIG SIG SIG Perceived Administrative Responsiveness SIG SIG SIG SIG Faculty Cohesion SIG SIG SIG NS Faculty Intimacy SIG SIG SIG NS Faculty Control SIG NS SIG NS Faculty Stratification NS NS NS NS Years of Employment in District NS SIG NS NS Total Teaching Experience SIG NS NS NS 69 Table 32 SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CAMPUSES Variable Significance Support of Policy SIG Perceived Participation in Initiating and Changing Policy SIG Perceived Administrative Responsiveness SIG Faculty Cohesion SIG Faculty Intimacy NS Faculty Control NS Faculty Stratification NS 70 A - Administrative Responsiveness B - Faculty Cohesion C - Participation Support of Policy 70.i58 1. (1.2.7:!) 1. 2. (aim/L) 7- [5"4‘) / 6o . 217 I m 3“) 7622.541) , (4,. an) 8. 00 5 5 5 (9.3”) 303.00) .3 (5:20") independent Variables A, B, C Figure 9: Summary of Post-Hoc Comparisons* *NOTE: A illustrates the relationship between administrative respon- siveness and support of policy for the three campuses. it shows that Campus 2 reported greater perceived administrative responsiveness (I2.95l compared to II.358 for Campus l and 9.300 for Campus 3) and greater support of policy (70.l58 compared to 60.2l7 for Campus l and 58.500 for Campus 3). B Illustrates the relationship between degree of faculty cohesion and support of policy, and C Illustrates the relationship between degree of perceived participation and support of policy. Chapter 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This study was an analysis of the factors that are significant predictors of the degree to which faculty members indicate support of institutional policy in a multi-unit community college district. The study was undertaken primarily to help community college adminis- trators reduce the possibility of adversary relationships developing by identifying factors which might be emphasized to increase faculty support of institutional policy. Hypotheses of the Study The following hypotheses were tested: l. The degree to which faculty members perceive the participation (input) they had in initiating and changing policies is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members indicate support of policy. 2. The degree to which faculty members perceive administrative reSponsiveness is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members indicate support of policy. 3. The degree of faculty cohesiveness is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members indicate support of policy. 9. The degree of faculty intimacy is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members indicate support of policy. 7i 72 5. The degree of faculty control is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members indicate support of policy. 6. The degree of faculty stratification is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members indicate support of policy. 7. The number of years a faculty member has been employed in the district is a significant predictor of the degree to which he will indi- cate support of policy. 8. Total teaching experience is a significant predictor of the degree to which faculty members indicate support of policy. 9. There is a significant difference between the degree of support indicated for policy by faculty members of each campus. PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY Sources of Data The data involved in this study were compiled from the 222 usable questionnaires returned by the arbitrarily selected sample of 376 full-time faculty members who were employed by a multi-unit, urban based, community college district. The Questionnaire The questionnaire consisted of three parts. Part I was concerned with: (l) the degree (“complete support,” ”mostly support,” “some support,“ “little support,” ”no support,“ ”no policy extant”) of sup- port indicated by faculty members for 22 selected policies; (2) the degree (”a great deal,” ”fairly much,‘I ”some,” ”comparatively little,” ”none,” ”no policy extant“) of perceived faculty participation in 73 initiating or changing the selected policies; and (3) the degree (”a great deal,” ”fairly much,” ”some,” “comparatively little, none” of perceived administrative reSponsiveness to faculty participation and faculty professional concerns. Part II was concerned with an attempt to identify a faculty profile which would distinguish between those faculty members who are more supportive of policy and those who are less supportive of policy. Selected questions from Hemphill's, The Group Dimension Descriptions Questionnaire, were used by permission of the author. Part Iii was concerned with the demographic factors of: respond- ents's discipline area, experience, involvement in college affairs, education, professional license, sex and age. Selectigg the Sample A multi-unit, urban based, community college district was arbitrar- ily selected for the study. Statistical Analysis The CISSR - PACKAGE computer program was utilized to compute means, standard deviations and correlations among the variables. Univariate regression was used to determine the relative contribution of each inde- pendent variable to the dependent variable, and analysis of variance was used to determine differences between campuses. When significant dif- ferences were found between campuses, Scheffe post-hoc comparisons were utilized to locate the differences. 79 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS l. The faculty member's perception of the degree of participation in initiating and changing policy is a significant predictor of support indicated for policy. 2. The faculty member's perception of administrative responsiveness to participation and to the professional concerns of the faculty is a significant predictor of support indicated for policy. 3. The degree of faculty cohesion is a significant predictor of support indicated for policy except for Campus 3. 9. The degree of faculty intimacy is a significant predictor of support indicated for policy except for Campus 3. 5. The degree of faculty control is a significant predictor of support indicated for policy for Campus 2 and the District but not for Campus l and Campus 3. 6. The degree of faculty stratification is not a significant pre- dictor of support indicated for policy. 7. The number of years employed in the District is not a signifi- cant predictor of support indicated for policy except for Campus l. 8. Total teaching experience is not a significant predictor of support at the campus level but it is at the district level. 9. Each campus differs significantly on the degree of support indicated for policy. That is, the mean for Campus 2 is greater than the mean for either Campus l or 3, and the means for Campus l and 3 are statistically equal. 10. There is a significant difference between campuses on the degree of perceived participation in initiating and changing policy. That Is, 75 the mean for Campus 2 is greater than the mean for either Campus I or 3, and the means for Campus 1 and 3 are statistically equal. II. There is a significant difference between campuses in the degree of administrative responsiveness. That is, the mean for Campus 2 is greater than the mean for Campus l, and the mean for Campus I is greater than the mean for Campus 3. l2. There Is a significant difference between campuses in the de- gree of faculty cohesion. That is, the mean for Campus l is less than the mean for either Campus 2 or 3, and the means for Campus 2 and 3 are statistically equal. l3. There is no significant difference between campuses in the degree of faculty intimacy. l9. There Is no significant difference between campuses in the degree of faculty control. l5. There is no significant difference between campuses in the degree of faculty stratification. 16. There is a significant difference between campuses on the length of employment in the district. That is, the mean for Campus 3 is less than the mean for either campus l or 2, and the means for Campus l and 2 are statistically equal. 17. There is a significant difference between campuses on the aver- age number of hours devoted to Campus committee work during l972-l973. That is, the mean for Campus 3 is greater than the mean for either Campus 1 or 2, and the means for Campus I and 2 are statistically equal. I8. There is a significant difference between campuses on the number of professional association meetings attended during l972-l973. That is, the mean for Campus 1 is greater than the mean for either Campus 2 or 3, and the means for Campus 2 and 3 are statistically equal. 76 l9. Theleis a significant difference between campuses in the age of faculty members. That is the faculty members of Campus l are older than the faculty members of Campus 2 and 3, and the faculty members of Campus 2 and 3 are statistically the same age. DISCUSSION The principle that is evident from the results of this study is that the faculty member's perception Influences at least his oral support of policy as evidenced In the questionnaire. Those faculty members who saw themselves as having greater involvement in initiating and changing policy also indicated the greater support of policy. Those faculty mem- bers who felt the administration was responsive to their involvement and to their professional needs, indicated the greater support of policy. Those faculty members who perceived the faculty as a unit rather than as a collection of individuals ”doing their own thing” (cohesion), indi- cated the greater support of policy. Those faculty members who consid- ered other faculty members as friends (intimacy) rather than as acquaint- ances or associates, indicated the greater support of policy. Those faculty members who considered their actions to be a reflection of the group's objectives and norms (control), indicated the greater support of policy. Therefore, the administrator who seeks support of policy, must be cognizant of the validity of the old saying, "actions speak louder than vwards," or in psychological terminology, “non-verbal cues refute verbal cuesfl' In terms of the findings of this study, if faculty members feel that nothing is accomplished by the many hours devoted to campus and 77 district committees, then it would be better to do away with the com- mittee system until such time as the faculty feels (perceives) the admin- istration is really interested in their advice and counsel. in other words, it is the quality of participation that counts and not the quantity. It is the feeling of influence that is important and not the number of faculty committees in existence. In order to influence anyone, there must be a certain degree of trust. But trust is a learned reaction resulting from interaction on a face-to-face basis. Therefore, the more opportunities the administra- tor and the faculty have to meet informally, the more knowledge each has of the other, which in turn might allow a feeling of trust to develop. The more trust, the more likely solicited and unsolicited advice will be valued by both parties. Likert's theory that an organization functions best when its personnel function as members of groups instead of individually, is supported by this study. The faculty that showed the greatest cohesion, which was defined as the degree to which faculty members function as a unit, also indicated the greatest support of policy. Therefore, It would seem that the more ”united" a faculty, the more supportive it ggg_ be. if this is true, then it would seem to indicate that both the faculty and the administration must promote a feeling of unity within the faculty. This could be done by extensive formal socialization (indoctrination) by the faculty senate to deveIOp commitment and loyalty to the group. Of course, the more one values membership in the group, the more one is willing to subjugate autonomy to the good of the group, and the greater the power of the group over the actions of its members. A very 78 cohesive faculty could be a threat to the administration under conditions of distrust or when it chose to move in opposition to the administration. Campus 2, the only campus where control was a significant predictor of support, also showed the highest degree of cohesion, intimacy and support in addition to perceiving the greatest amount of participation in initiating and changing policy and in administrative responsiveness. Therefore, the study seems to support the group theory that the greater the control the group has over its members, the more power the group has to influence its members' perceptions and the world outside the group. Therefore, if the faculty wishes to increase its influence on the district as a whole, it must increase its control over its own members. Although intimacy was a significant predictor of support indicated for policy for two out of the three campuses involved in the study, and for the district as a whole, there was no significant difference between campuses in the degree of intimacy. This is a peculiar finding consider- ing that: Campus I is ID years old and has a faculty of over 229, the majority of whom have been with the district for over 5 years. it is also a campus with no place for the faculty to get together informally. Conse- quently, most faculty members rarely see or know anyone outside of their department. Contributing to the anonymity of the faculty, is the fact that many prefer to eat in their office rather than in the public dining room. Little effort is made to promote social interaction among the faculty by either the faculty organization or by the administration. Campus 2 is 7 years old and has a faculty of over 82, the majority of whom have been with the district for over 9 years. Although Campus 2 at present has an informal area officially reserved for faculty and 79 staff in the dining room, the faculty members have always congregated wherever space was available. Even those members who bring their lunch, eat with the group. Several formal social gatherings are sponsored each year by the faculty organization. Campus 3 is in its second year with a faculty of approximately 26 most of whom have been with the district just under two years. its faculty members Spend more time on campus committees than do either of the other faculties. And, as one faculty member expressed It, they live in each other's pocket. Apparently, there can be too much togetherness which is just as bad as too little. Apparently from the above capsule descriptions, community college faculty members fit Warren's definition of a job specific peer group where interaction within the work context is more frequent than off-the- job associations and identification occurs only as a mutual recognition of shared status and not as a commitment or a sense of unity. This theory of recognition of shared status is supported by the findings of this study. Stratification, the degree to which the faculty orders its members into status hierarchies, was found to be constant for all campuses and for the district. Finally, the study found that demographic variables contribute little to the support of policy even though there was a significant difference between campuses on four demographic variables. Although not a hypothesis of this study, the study seems to indicate that perhaps there is an optimum size for a community college. Campus 2 seems to be optimum if one considers that all of the variables hypothe- sized as significant predictors of support were significant lODX of the time only for Campus 2 and the District. Therefore, it would seem that 80 for optimum support of policy, a conmunity college district should avoid either extreme in size. To summarize, the study: I. Supports the hypothesis that the more involved faculty members perceive themselves to be in the decision making process, the more support they would indicate for selected policies as implemented. 2. identifies a faculty profile that distinguished between those faculty members who are more supportive of policy and those who are less supportive of policy. 3. Refutes the theory that demographic factors, at least those used in this study, are co-related to support of policy. 9. Supports the theory that unique factors in each college influences the amount of support indicated for policy. RECOMMENDATIONS l. Community College administrators from department heads up should become more cognizant of the image they project to the faculty for it can be their greatest asset as well as their worst liability. Once a feeling of distrust creeps in, the effective days of the administrator are numbered. 2. Community College leaders should become familiar with the tech- niques of effective participative management and conversely with the limitations of participation. 3. Judicious use of committees should be initiated by the adminis- tration to limit the feeling of “what's the use“ and to encourage the feeling of really influencing policy. Possibly a few select committees inight be given policy making status rather than advisory status. 8i 9. Community College leaders should become familiar with the intricacies of social systems theory if they desire a harmonious and a well managed college. 5. Community College faculty organizations should be encouraged to develop into viable organizations, which will under conditions of mutual trust, encourage support of policy. To facilitate the development of the faculty organization, facilities should be set aside where the faculty may congregate informally and thus alleviate some ofthe feeling of anony- mity and Isolation. In addition, the president of the faculty organiza- tion should be given the time and secretarial facilities to perform his administrative responsibilities. 6. More attention should be paid to the formal process of socialization by both the administration and the faculty organization if faculty control, cohesion and intimacy are to be encouraged. 7. Further research of community college districts should be under- taken to determine whether the factors that were significant predictors of support for an urban based, arbitrarily selected, conmunity college district are also significant predictors for other types of community college districts. 8. Additional research might also include such variables, which were not included in this study, as: size of Individual campuses, location of district as well as location of each campus, financial base of the district, power base (whether it is an autonomous system or state controlled), power structure including tall versus flat organizations, rate of administrative and faculty turnover, faculty morale, degree of outside influences upon the district and each college, and legally recognized faculty organizations versus the unofficial organization. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Louis A. "Making Better Use of Committees,” ManagementJ Organi- zationsJ and Human Resources: Selected Readings, ed. Herbert G. Hicks, New York: McGraw-Hill, inc., I972. Back, K. “Influence Through Social Communication,” Journal of Abnormal 8 Social ngchologyJ 96:9-23, I9Sl. Barnard, Chester 1. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, I938: Bartley, S. Howard. Perception in Everyday Life. New York: Harper 6 Row, l972. Carveil, Fred J. Human Relations in Business. Toronto: The Macmillan Company, I970. Coch L. and J. R. P. French. ”Overcoming Resistance to Change,” People and Productivity. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, l963. Collins, Barry E. and Harold Guetzkow. A Social Psychology of Group Processes for Decision-Making, New’Yorki' John Wiley an ons, Inc. I969. Costello, T. W. and S. S. Salkind. Ps cholo In Administration. Engie- wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentlce-Hall, I963. Cribbin, James J. Effective Managerial Leadership. American Manage- Association, inc., I972. Donneily, James H. Jr., James L. Gibson and John M. ivancevich. Funda- mentals of Mana ement. Austin, Texas: Business Publications, inc., I97l. Drucker, Peter. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959; Fiedler, Fred E. "The Leader's Psychological Distance and Group Effectiveness," Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. Ed. by Dorwin Cartwright andFAlvinTEEnder. New York: Harper and Row, I960. Filley, Alan C. and Robert J. House. Mana eriai Process and Dr ani- zatlonal Behavior. Glenvlew, illlnols: Scott, Foresman ana ompany, . 82 83 Flippo, Edwin 8. Management: A Behavioral Approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, l97l. Forehand, Garlle A. and B. von Haller Gilmer, ”Environmental Variation in Studies of Organizational Behavior,” Psychological Bulletin. 62:36l-382, December, i969. Gregg, Russell T. "The Administrative Process,“ Administrative Behavior in Education as quoted in William R. Dill, "Decision Making,"’Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, 63rd Yearbook, NSSE, 278-280, l969. Halpin, Andrew W. Theory and Research in Administration. New York: The Machllan Company, I966. Havelock, Ronald G. Plann1ng for Innovation through Dissgmlnation and Utilization of Knowiedge. Ann Arbor: ihstitute Tar Social Research,The University of Michigan, l97l. Hemphlll, John K. Group Dimensions A Manual for Their Measurement. Research Monograph No. 87.4Coiumbus, Ohio: ‘The Ohio State University, l956. Herzberg, Frederick. Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, l966. Heyel, Carl. ”Changing Concepts of Human Relations,” Mana ement: A Book of Readings. Ed. by Harold Koontz and Cyril OiDSnnell. Neinork: McGraw-Hill Book Company, l972. Hicks, Herbert G. The Mana ement of Dr anizations: A Systems and Human Resources Approach. New Yor : McGraw-Hlll Book Company, i975. Humble, John William. Mana ement by Objectives In Action. London, New York: McGraw-Hili. i970. Hutchinson, John G. Mana ement Strategy and Tactics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., i97i} Lewin, Kurt. "Forces Behind Food Habits and Methods of Changing," The Problem of Chan in Food Habits. Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sciences, i953. Likert, Rensls. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, l96i. Lin, Man, 0. J. Leu, E. Rogers, and D. F. Schwartz. The Diffusion of an Innovation in Three Michigan High Schools: institutional Buildin FThrou h Chan e. Mic gan: institute for international Stuaies in Eaucation, Michigan State University, December, I966. Maslow, Abraham H. Eupsychian Mana ementi a Journal. Homewood, Illinois: R. D. irwin,’i . 89 Mayo, Elton. The Human Problems of an industrial Civilization. New York: Viking Press, l960. McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, l960. Miles, Raymond E., Lyman W. Porter and James A. Craft. ”Three Models of Leadership Attitudes,” Management of Human Resources. Ed. by Paul Pigors, Charles A. Myers and F. T. Malm. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, l969. O'Donnell, Cyril. ”Ground Rules for Using Committees,” Management: A Book of Reading_, Ed. by Harold Koontz and Cyril OTDbnnell, New YoFk: McGraw-Hill Book Company, i972. Pace, C. Robert and Anne McFee. “The College Environment," Review of Educational Research. 30:3ll-320. Pelz, Edith Bennet. ”Discussion, Decision, Commitment, and Consensus in 'Group Decision'," Human Relations. 8:25l-279, l955. Richardson, Richard C. Jr., Clyde E. Blocker, and Louis W. Bender. Governaloe for the Two-Year Colle e. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hfili, inc., l972. Ruch, Floyd L. Ps cholo and Life, 7th Edition. Glenview, illlnols: Scott, Foresman and Company, i967. Schein, Edgar H. "Management Development as a Process of Influence,” industrial Management Review. 59-77. May l96l. Schleh, E. C. Mana ement by Results. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I . Schultz, George P. ”Worker Participation on Production Problems: A Discussion of Experience with the 'Scanlon Plan',” Mana ement of Human Resources. Ed. by Paul Pigors, Charles A. Myers ana F. i. Malm. New YoFE: McGraw-Hill Book Company, l969. Simon, Herbert A. The New Science of Management Decision. New York: Harper and Brothers, i965. Soliey, Charles M. and Gardner Murphy. Develo ment of the Perceptual World. New York: Basic Books, Inc., i965. Strykker, Perrin. ”How 'Participative' Can a Company Get?" Fortune, LIV:I39-l36, September, l956. Vroom, Victor H. Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Partlcigation. Englewood—Cilffi, New Jersey: Prentice3Haii, inc., . Wadia, Maneck S. Hana ement and the Behavioral Sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, inc.,i968. 85 Warren, Donald i. ”The Effects of Power Bases and Peer Groups on Con- formity in Formal Organizations,” Administrative Science anrteriy. Ih:5hh-SS7, December, l969. Watson, Goodwin and David Johnson. Social Psychology--issues and insights. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, l977. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES Books Argyris, Chris. interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effective- Ness. Homewood, illlnois: Richard D. irwin, inc., i932. Baldridge, J. Victor. Power and Conflict in the University. New York: John Wiley and Sons, inc., i97l. Barton, Allen H. Organizational Measurement and its Bearin on the Sgudygof Colle e Environments. Princeton, New Jersey: College Entrance Examinat on ar , 96l. Berelson, Bernard and Gary A. Steiner. Human Behavior--An inventory of Scientific Findings. New York: 'Harcourt,iBrace and World, Tnc . , i9“. Blackwell, Thomas Edward. Colle e and University Administration. New York: The Center for Applied Research in_Education, inc., i966. Blau, Peter M. Bureaucracy in Modern Society, New York: Random House, i956. . "Structural Effects,” American Socioiggical Review. W: - 93, 1960. Blocker, Clyde E., et. al. The Two-Year Colle e: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: rent ce a A Social S nthesis. nc., 9 Blocker, Clyde E. and Clarence H. Schauer. The Formal and informal Structures of a Colle e and a Business Di anization: An Analysis. Harrisburg, ennsyivania, i935. Brumbaugh, A. J. Problems in Colle e Administration. Nashville, Tennessee: Division of* ucat onai institutions, Board of Education, The Methodist Church, i956. Bursk, Edward C. and John F. Chapman. New Decision-Hakin Tools for Managers. New York: The New American Library,’i . 86 Campbell, Donald T. Leadership and its Effects Upon the Bragg, Research Monograph No. 33, Bureau of’Business Research} The Ohio State University, I956. Campbell, Ronald F.,et. al. The Or anization and Cgptroi of American Schools. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1333':— . The Open Door Colleges. Highstown, New Jersey: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, i970. Cartwright, Dorwin and Alvin Zanders (Editors). Grou D namlcs: Research and Theory. New York: Harper and Row, i965. Cohen, Arthur M., et. al. A Constant Variable: NewIPerspectives on the Community College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, inc., i97i. Cohen, Arthur M. and John E. Roueche. institutional Administrator or Educational Leader? ERIC Clearinghouse iOr’Junior Colleges, American Association of Junior Colleges, l969. Crosby, Philip B. The Art of Gettinngour Own Sweet Way. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I975. Davidson, Sol M. The Power of Friction in Business. New York: Frederick Feli, inc.,i967. Oember, William N. The Psycholo of Perception. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, l969. Dively, George S. The Power of Professional Management. American Management Association, inc., l97i. Drucker, Peter F. The Effective Executive. New York: Harper and Row, inc., I967. Etzloni, Amital. A Com aratlve Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: The Free Press, i96l. . Modern Or anizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, inc., 136A. Feidman, Shel (Editor). Cognitive Consistency. New York: Academic Press, i966. Filley, A. C. "Committee Management: Guidelines from Social Science Research,” Mana ement: A Book of Readin 5. Edited by Harold Koontz and Cyril O'Donnell. New York: cGraw-Hill Book Company, i972. Fishbein, Martin (Editor). Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. New York: John Wiley and Sons, inc., '937. 87 Frankenstein, Cari. Psychodynamics of Externalization--Life From With- out. Baltimore: ‘The Williams and Wilkinsifompany, i968. Ghorpade, Jaisingh (Editor). Assessment of Organizational Effectiveness. Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear ubilshlng Company, inc., I97l. Gieazer, Edmund J., Jr. This is the Community College. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, l968. Gienny, Lyman A. The Anonymous Leaders of Htgher Education. Berkeley, California: Center’ior Research and Development in Higher Educa- tion, University of California, l97i. Gordon, Thomas. Group Centered Leadership. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, l9SS. Griffiths, Daniel E. (Editor). Behavioral Science and Education Admin- istration. The Sixty-third Yearbook ofithe National Society for the Study of Education, Part ii. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, l96h. Guardini, Romano. Power and Responsibility. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, l96l. Hemphlll, John K. Dimensions of Executive Positions. Research Mono- graph No. 98. The Ohio State university, Bureau of Business Research, l967. Hicks, Herbert 6. Management, Organizationsy_annguman Resources: Selected Readings. New York: McGraw-Hlll BookZCompany, inc., 1972. Jackson, Jay M. "Reference Group Processes in a Formal Organization," Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. Edited by Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin iander. New York: Harper and Row, l960. Jennings, Eugene Emerson. The Executive in Crisis. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, I963:— . Routes to the Executive Suite. New York: McGraw-Hili Book Company, i97l. Johnson, 8. Lamar. islands of innovation Expanding, Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, i969. . i972 Junior Colle e Director . Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, i975. Kahn, Robert L. and Daniel Katz. "Leadership Practices in Relation to Productivity and Morale," Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. Edited by Dorwin Cartwright and ATVihiiander. ‘New York: Harper and Row, I960. 88 Kaplan, Bernard and Seymour Wapner. (Editors). Perspectives in Psycho- gggicai Theory. New York: international universities Press, inc., 60. Katz, Fred E. Autonomyyand Organization. New York: Random House, l968. Kintzer, Frederick C. et. al. The Muiti-institution Junior College District. ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College information. Washington, D. C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, I969. Koontz, Harold and Cyril O'Donnell. Principles of Management: An Analysis of Managerial Functions. New YoFk: McGraw-Hill Book Company, l972. . Mana ement: A Book of Readings. New—York} McGraw-Hili Book Company, i972. Leavitt, Harold J. Mana eriai ngchoiogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, i955. Leavitt, Harold J. (Editor). The Social Science of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hail, inc., l953. Lewin, Kurt. Field Theory In Social Sciences. (Editor) Dorwin Cartwright. New York: Harper and Brothers, inc., I95i. . Resolvin Social Conflicts. (Editor) Gertrud Weiss Lewin. New York: Harper and Brothers, inc., l9h8. Likert, Rensls. The Human Or anization; its Mana ement and Value. New York: McGraw-Hill ook Company, l967. Medsker, Leland L. and Dale Tillery. Breakin the Access Barriers: A Profile of Two-Year Colleges in America. Neinork: McGraw- Hill Book Company, l975. Moore, William, Jr. Blind Man on a Freeway; The Communit Colle e Administrator. San Francisco: “JosseyeBass, inc.,iE’i. . Against the Odds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, inc., I970. 0diorne, George 5. Management Decisions by Opjectives. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Haii, inc., i959. Pigors, Paul, Charles A. Myers, and F. T. Malm. Mana ement of Human Resources. New York: McGraw-Hili Book Company, i969. Rappaport, Alfred. (Editor). information for Decision Makin . Engle- wood Cliffs, New Jersey: ‘Pientice Hall, inc., l970. Sarbin, Theodore R. et. al. Clinical inference and C nitive Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, inc., i968. 89 Schein, Edgar H. “Organization Socialization and the Profession of Management,” Management, Organizations, and Human Resources: Selected Readings. New York: McGraw-Hili’Bohk Company, i972. Shils, Edward B. and C. Taylor Whittier. Teachers, Administrators and Collective Bargaining, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, i953. Shuil, Fremont A., Jr. et. al. Or anizational Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hili Book Company, l970. Sinclair, Robert L. Environmental Studies: An_§pnotated Bibliography. Boston: Massachusetts State Department of'Education, l970. Sneiiing, Thomas C. The Strategy of Conflict. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, l963. Stogdiii, Ralph M. and Alvin E. Coons (Editors). Leader Behavior: its Descri tion and Measurement. Research Monograph No. 88. The Ohio State university, Bureau of Business Research, i957. and Carroll L. Shartle. Methods in the Stud of Administrative [eadership. Research Monograph No. 35. ihe Ohio State University. Bureau Sf’Business Research, l955. Strauss, George. ”Some Notes on Power-Equalization," The Social Science of Dr anizations. Harold J. Leavitt (Editor). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hail, inc., l963. Thompson, James D. Or anizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hiil Book Company, l963. Thornton, James W., Jr. The Community Junior Coiieg_, New York: John Wiley and Sons, I966. Titeibaum, Sydney. ”Faculty-Administrative Relations in the Junior College," Pers ectives on the Community-Junior College. Ogiivie and Raines Editorsi. New York: Appieton-Century-Crofts Educa- tional Division, Meredith Corporation, I97I. Warren, Roland L. Stud in Your Communit . Toronto: Collier-Macmillan, Canada, Ltd., i968. Williams, Glen D. ”Toward More Effective Junior College Districts,” Perspectives on the Communit -Junior Colle e. Ogiivie and Raines (Editors). Appleton-Century-Crofts Educational Division, Meredith Corporation, i97l. Wing, Dennis R. W. The Professional President: A Decade of Community_ Junior Colle e Chief Executives. ERiC Ciearlnghouse far Junihr Chileges, Topical Paper No. 53, January, i972. Young, Stanley. Mana ement: A Decision-Makin A roach. Belmont, California: Dickerson Publishing Company, inc., l968. 90 Yuzuk, Ronald Paul. The Assessment of Employee Morale. Research Mono- graph No. 99. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, l96l. Periodicals Assael, Henry. “Constructive Role of inter-organizational Conflict,” Administrative Science Quarterly, iA:573-583, December, i969. Corwin, Ronald G. “Patterns of Organizational Conflict,” Administrative Science anrterly, lh:507-52l, December, i969. Darkenwaid, Gordon 6., Jr. “Organizational Conflict in Colleges and Universities,” Administrative Science Quarterly, l6:hO7-Al2, December, i97l. Guetzkow, H., G. A. Forehand, and B. J. James. ”An Evaluation of Educational influence on Administrative Judgment," Administrative Science Quarterly, 6:h83-SOO, March, i962. Julian, Joseph. “Compliance Patterns and Communication Blocks in Complex Organizations," American Sociologleai Review, 3l:382-389, '9660 Kline, Bennett E. and Norman M. Martin. "Freedom, Authority, and Decentralization,” Harvard Business Review, 36:69-75, May-June, l958. Lazarsfeld, Paul F. ”The Sociology of Empirical Social Research,” American Sociological Review, 27:759. December, l962. Litwak, Eugene. "Technology, innovations and Theoretical Functions of Primary Groups and Bureaucratic Structures,” American Journal of Sociology, 73:h68-b8l, January, i968. McMurry. ”The Case for BenevOIent Autocracy,” Harvard Business Review, 36:82-90, January-February, i958. Moelier, Gerald H. "Bureaucracy and Teachers' Sense of Power," Administrator's Notebook, Vol. ii, No. 3. November, l962. Moore, Leo B. "How to Manage improvement,“ Harvard Business Review, 36:75-8h, July-August, i958. Peabody, Robert L. ”Perceptions of Organizational Authority: A Compara- tive Analysis,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 6:h6h-h82, March, l962. Pondy, Louis R. ”Varieties of Organizational Conflict,” Administrative Science Quarterly, ih:h99-506, December, l969. 9| Tannenbaum, Robert and Warren H. Schmidt. “How to Choose a Leadership Pattern,“ Harvard Business Review, 36:95-lOi, March-April, l958. Walton, Richard E., John M. Dutton, Thomas P. Cafferty. ”Organizational Context and interdepartmental Conflict,“ Administrative Science Quarterly, ih:522-5h3, December, l969. Unpublished Material Goud, Nelson H. ”A Social Systems Analysis of Junior College Student Personnel Programs.” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, i970. Muth, C. Robert. ”A Study to Develop a Decentralized Organization Model for Urban School Systems and to Demonstrate a Process of Decentralization of Decision-Making at the Elementary School Level.” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, i970. Nicholson, Roy Stephen. ”Organizational Structures and Curriculum Complexity of Public Two-Year Colleges.” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, i97l. Quible, Zane Keith. “Administrative Office Managers' Utilization of Participative Management in Supervising Office Employees. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, i972. Stanbury, Donald E. ”A Study of the Administration of Michigan Junior Colleges.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, l965. Tiliery, Dale. ”Variation and Change in Community College Organiza- tion, A Preliminary Report.” Unpublished report. University of California at Berkeley, i970. APPENDIX A 92 April 6, l973 Dear colleague There has been much discussion recently in the professional journals regarding faculty participation. On the community college level, though, little is known about the characteristics of the faculty who do or do not participate or their perception of how important their participation is. The purpose of the attached questionnaire is to try to answer these questions. The questionnaire is divided into three sections and will take less than thirty minutes to answer. The first part asks the degree to which you support policies as presently implemented and your Opinion of how much input (participation) the faculty had in initiating or changing the policies. The second part asks your perception of the faculty, and the third part requests personal data. Please mark all answers in the space provided on the questionnaire and return the completed questionnaire to the address printed on the attached sheet. Will you also sign the card and return it separately so that complete confidentiality may be maintained while at the same time allowing any necessary follow up. Your prompt response will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely Elizabeth Redstone NOTE: if you do not know what the policy is or how much participation the faculty had in initiating or changing the policy, please mark pg. polieylextant. 93 QUESTIONNAIRE Part l PERSONAL SUPPORT OF POLICY Please indicate the degree to which you support the following policies as currently implemented by circling the appropriate response. KEY: (5) Completely support (A) Mostly support (3) Some support (2) Little support (i) No support (0) No policy extant l. Recruitment and selection of faculty 5 A 3 2 l 2. Recruitment and selection of administrators S A 3 2 l 3. Non-reappointment of faculty 5 A 3 2 l A. Promotion of faculty 5 A 3 2 l S. Awarding of tenure to faculty 5 A 3 2 I 6. Method of arriving at faculty compensation S A 3 2 l 7. Method of assigning teaching reSponsibilities S A 3 2 l 8. Method of settling grievances 5 A 3 2 l 9. Determination of number of preparations per year 5 A 3 2 l lO. Determination of faculty load 5 A 3 2 I ll. Determination of committee assignments 5 A 3 2 l l2. Determination of committee responsibilities and authority 5 A 3 2 l l3. Hiring of spouses and blood relatives 5 A 3 2 l IA. Outside employment or consulting by faculty 5 A 3 2 l l5. initiation of new degree programs 5 A 3 2 I I6. Deletion and/or changes in existing degree programs 5 A 3 2 i l7. Experimentation or innovation in instructional methods 5 A 3 2 l i8. Determination of degree requirements 5 A 3 2 l 9A l9. Criteria for admission of students to specific programs 5 A 3 2 l O 20. Remedial or developmental assistance for students 5 A 3 2 l 0 2i. Academic probation and dismissal of students 5 A 3 2 l O 22. Student representation on college committees S A 3 2 l O iNiTiATiNG AND CHANGING POLICY Please indicate the amount of input (participation) the faculty had in your opinion in initiating or changing the following policies by circling the appropriate response. KEY: (5) A great deal (A) Fairly much (3) Some (2) Comparatively little (l) None (0) No policy extant 23. Recruitment and selection of faculty 5 A 3 2 l 0 2A. Recruitment and selection of administrators 5 A 3 2 l O 25. Non-reappointment of faculty 5 A 3 2 l O 26. Promotion of faculty 5 A 3 2 l O 27. Awarding of tenure to faculty 5 A 3 2 l O 28. Method of arriving at faculty compensation S A 3 2 l O 29. Method of assigning teaching responsibilities 5 A 3 2 i O 30. Method of settling grievances 5 A 3 2 l 0 3i. Determination of number of preparations per year 5 A 3 2 l O 32. Determination of faculty load 5 A 3 2 l O 33. Determination of committee assignments 5 A 3 2 l 0 3A. Determination of committee responsibilities and authority 5 A 3 2 l O 35. Hiring of spouses and blood relations 5 A 3 2 i O 36. Outside employment or consulting by faculty 5 A 3 2 l 0 37. initiation of new degree programs 5 A 3 2 l O 38. 39. 1.0. M. 1.2. 1.3. an. 95 Deletion and/or changes in existing degree programs Experimentation or innovation in instructional methods Determination of degree requirements Criteria for admission of students to specific programs Remedial or developmental assistance for students Academic probation and dismissal of students Student representation on college committees ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIVENESS A 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 Please indicate your Opinion of the following by circling the approp- riate response. KEY: (5) A great deal (A) Fairly much (3) Some (2) Comparatively little (i) None AS. What effect does faculty input (participation) have in determining policies for the campus? A6. What effect does faculty input (participation) have in KEY: A7. A8. determining policies for the district? (5) Extremely responsive (A) Very responsive (3) Responsive (2) Slightly responsive (I) Not responsive How responsive is your department head to the professional concerns of the faculty? How responsive is your dean to the professional concerns of the faculty? Part ii FACULTY DIMENSIONS 5 A 3 S A 3 5 A 3 S A 3 2 2 2 2 The following questions are intended to obtain your perception of the faculty. bers of the faculty who are eligible for membership in the faculty senate on your campus. Faculty, for this purpose, is defined as all full-time mem- KEY: A9. 50. Si. 52. 53. 5A. 55. 56. S7. S8. 59. 60. 6|. 62. 63. 6A. 65. 96 (5) Definitely true (A) Mostly true (3) Both true and false (2) Mostly false (I) Definitely false The faculty has well understood, but unwritten, rules concerning conduct Faculty members fear to express their real Opinions The faculty works under close supervision Only certain kinds of ideas may be expressed freely within the faculty group A faculty member has to think twice before speaking in a faculty senate meeting The members of the faculty are subject to strict discipline Each faculty member's personal life is known to other members Members of the faculty lend each other small amounts of money A faculty member has the chance to get to know all other faculty members Faculty members are not in close enough contact to develop likes or dislikes for one another Members of the faculty do small favors for one another Each member of the faculty knows all other members by their first names Members of the faculty are personal friends Certain faculty members discuss personal affairs among themselves The opinions of all members of the faculty are given equal weight by other members of the faculty The officers of the faculty senate hold a higher status than other members The older members of the faculty (in length of service) are granted special privileges 97 66. The faculty senate is controlled by the actions of a fewmembers SA32I 67. Every member of the faculty enjoys the same privileges 5 A 3 2 l 68. Certain problems are discussed only among the officers of the faculty senate 5 A 3 2 l 69. Each member of the faculty has as much power as any other member 5 A 3 2 l 70. There are two or three members of the faculty who generally take the same side on any group issue 5 A 3 2 I 7i. Certain faculty members are hostile to other members 5 A 3 2 I 72. There is constant bickering among faculty members 5 A 3 2 l 73. Certain faculty members have no respect for other faculty members 5 A 3 2 l 7A. Certain members of the faculty are considered un- cooperative 5 A 3 2 i 75. There is a constant tendency toward conniving against one another among parts of the faculty 5 A 3 2 I 76. Members of the faculty work together as a team 5 A 3 2 l 77. There are tensions between subgroups which tend to inter- fere with the faculty's activities 5 A 3 2 I 78. Certain faculty members appear to be incapable of working as part of the group 5 A 3 2 l 79. There is an undercurrent of feeling among faculty members which tends to pull the faculty apart 5 A 3 2 i Part iii PERSONAL DATA in answering questions 80 and 93 to 96, please circle the appropriate answer. For all other questions, please write in the appropriate answer. 80. Discipline area (please circle) I Humanities 6 Math and Science 2 Health and Physical Educ. 7 History, Geography, Political Science 3 Business 8 Counselors, Librarians, College Nurse A Language Arts 9 Nursing 5 Behavioral Sciences lO Technologies 98 8|. Length of service as a full-time member of the faculty 82. 83. 8A. 85. 87. 88. 89. 90. 9|. 92. Length of service as a full-time member of the faculty at another two-year college Length of service as a full-time member of the faculty at a four-year college or university Length of service as a full-time member of the faculty at the secondary level Total teaching experience Average number of hours Spent per week on campus committees and on senate work during l972-l973 Average number of hours spent per week on all-college committees during l972-l973 Average number of hours spent per week on campus committees and on senate work during l97l-l972 Average number of hours spent per week on all-college committees during l97l-l972 Average number of hours spent per week on volunteer, un- paid student activities such as sponsoring clubs, chaperonlng activities, etc., during the last two years (1971-1973) Number of professional association meetings attended during the l972-l973 academic year Number of offices held in professional associations during the last two years (l97l-l973) 93. Age (please circle) 9A. 95. (I) 2A or less (2) 25-3A (3) 35-AA (A) AS‘SA (5) 55-6A (6) 65 or more Sex (please circle) (I) Female (2) Male Education (please circle) 96. Professional license (please (I) Less than BA/BS specify if answer is yes) (2) BA/BS (I) Yes (3) MA/MS (A) EdD/PhD (2) No APPENDIX B 99 SCORING WEIGHTS FOR QUESTIONS A9 THROUGH 79 For questions A9‘57. 59-62, 6A-66, 68, 76: Response EEE£EUE Definitely true 5 Mostly true A Both true and false 3 Mostly false 2 Definitely false i For questions 58. 53. 57. 69. 70-75, 77'79: Response 11% Definitely true i Mostly true 2 Both true and false 3 Mostly false A Definitely false 5 APPENDIX C IOO MULTIPLE GROUPS PROGRAM Group Questions included Support of Policy l through 22 Participation in initiating and Changing Policy 23 through AA Administrative ReSponsiveness A5 through A8 Control A9 through 5A intimacy 55 through 62 Stratification 63 through 69 Cohesion 70 through 79 Experience 8i through 85 College Involvement 86 through 90 Professional Association Activities 9i, 92 Miscellaneous 30. 93. 9A. 95. 96 Cohesion (limited) 7i, 72, 73. 7A. 75. 77. 78, 79 impact on Campus A5 Impact on District A6 Responsiveness of Department Heads A7 Responsiveness of Dean A8 Administrative ReSponsiveness for Campus A5, A7, A8 Hours devoted to Campus Committees 86, 88 Hours devoted to District Committees 87, 89 Number of years Employed in District 8i Number of years Secondary Experience 8A Number of years Four-year College Experience 83 IOI STANDARD SCORE COEFFICIENT ALPHAS 88 90 60 65 65 65 87 3] 69 S9 ‘39 90 lOO lOO iOO IOO A8 5A 57 I00 IOO iOO GROUP Sll has a negative alpha; its communality has been set to I.OO. iOZ «a. fiI an. out h. man man o. o«0 na v ”H. 0.". Owl «do me Out Out ma. 0' mac val e- a a“. am. am- ma- .. an. m o n. e. um - an em «N k om an ow an n~ - a k on - nm «N a” a o . o~ km - aw an an em on na na o~ aw o «w we on «e ow am ow an am an o - ~a ov Nn an «a am A“ o~ k~ ad on ad ca on “N an aw on - on om to on am an an - «N ow on «w a on on an an A“ o~ o a~ on - n~ «A an am am an A" an an e« n« a. u out Van -u van x": «N: an on e. or .o« n vm nu \ Na Na nm em on KN ma nu an su nN an an on em um um aw on ~n mm «m «« ~ a N. nn ~e vv em “N am ow aw ow ow ow kn ca an on ma on am ca 9» «a on nu nu an an «N mm on an ow on «N aw sa on on nu on «N on on «N on on no em o~ on a~ nu om ow RN c~ an oa an gm ed ow a. an an an en um ~a «a o 0 «HI 0. ”O NH: 0 ca. o- . n- n”- ~.o ca. ma. 0.- a". ma- 5.- ea 0. n o". cm. can «a e a. «a on o v a n. km «N n. mm mm ca mm «N on on «a ~. ea c m ow m« cm «a va nu ma me o. ca ~ ~— om an a~ «m m eu on on .na me n n~ «N am .nw am em a «m an nu ea em aw on «N am an «m o~ N. «w o. on me n“ ma va a. ¢~ ea - «m cm - «N an an ad ca .~ «A an «a on «m «a nu an _- «N a“ - on ma k~ an on ma «N «a mm mm ea o~ «m e« a. um ow nn om «w - nn ca e~ ow on an at cm em on an on ow we n. v. «w u. m. an en oe KN on ow ow a. m v n Jazooann at N an .at out vm .m0 0H0 mm .oma «at um um «d0 an .n~l 00 an .m nu av .mw on at k“ Nu so nu on vv .aa nw me .ma ow ~v Kw cm at UN» 0 ac .a« o on .aa «w on flu on an mm~ ea an .a« an an an «N on .- om an ”~u «m mu and mm an .m» ow a» flu ow an “ma ow ow .mu v «a an «a as .mn «n nu .sm «N am .nu on nu .mn he «a ”nu an an .au ow aw ”~n an on .an om an .nu ow an .ma on on .ma ea mu .4» a” o» .su an nu “ma cm n» .a. km «a ..u «w .« aw am Q “~. mm a ..n o“ e .au «a o a. on n kw on 0 ..n a. n .mu an ~ an ow a ”~ A ma. 2_ >»_4¢z::rou x_m»<: oz~o>~44232tou x_m»‘z uz~accu oz< mzo~ccgm~¢oumwhz~ ”epoch H9 and at no um no «v «v co vm v. can cam mom «on can. mam van mam Nam «mm as 3 .mm 4' Nm .3. .nw .mo .: kw 4m .mv .o~ .3 A« ..~ .mw .m» ”me An 6» ”mm .m~. .: .3 2 .nw ..~ and an .3 En .mn Kw rm~ ..~ Aw an .3 A... .3 ..~ an can APPENDIX D l20 GROUP VARIABLE NUMBER, DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLE AND QUESTIONS INCLUDED IN GROUP FOR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Variable Number Description Questions l Support of Policy l - 22 2 Self-Perceived Participation in Initiating and Changing Policy 23 - Rh 3 Perceived Administrative Responsiveness A5 - #8 4 Faculty Control #9 - 5h 5 Faculty Intimacy SS - 62 6 Faculty Stratification 63 - 69 7 Faculty Cohesion 7O - 79 9 Length of Employment in District 8] 13 Total Teaching Experience 85 8 Discipline Area 80 10 Experience in Another Two-Year College 82 ii Experience in Four-Year College or University 83 12 Secondary Experience 84 lh Hours Devoted to Committee Work 86 - 89 IS Hours Devoted to Student Activities 90 i6 Activities in Professional Assns. 9i - 92 l2I _mm._m _o_u .m oom._m mm u _m mm:._m mm u _m ooo..m _o_u _m w. _mm._ an n o omm.~ on u o amo._ mN u o o.m._ mu u o m— omm.~ m: u o ooo.:_ o: i o mmm.~ m: u o omw.m m: i o :— K? m .. o .03.. m - o 8.2 m - o as: m - o 2 _::.m on a o omm.~ N. n o .mn.m mm i o _am.m on a o N— _m:._ m. u o omn.. w I o mmm. o. i o msw.. m. c o _— Nmz. mu .. o emu. N. u 0 m2. m ... 0 00¢. mN a o o— ooo.m o. i o oom.~ m i o moo.: o. n o omm.m o. i o m pom.: m n o oo_.m m a _ ww~.: m i o _m_.: m n o m www.0m :m u o. omo.mm a: u N. ~.o.:m am . ~— _:m.w~ o: u o. s ooo.~mq ~m:u Nm: ooo.~oa ~@:. No: ooo.~oa ~o:u Nw: ooo.~o: ~04- ~m: w mos..~ wm i o 0m_.- mm u N. mm:.- mm i o _mo._~ on i m. m nwm.m_ mm s o oom.m_ ow - m auo.m_ - i o mwm.m_ ow i m : _om.__ w. i o 00m.m :— u m _mm.N_ m. u o mmm.—_ m. u a m Nfim.mm _m u o cm:.om mm . w. mem.oo _m . mN mm~.m¢ aw i o N amm.mm mo. u n oom.wm om u m mm_.o~ mo. u - m—N.oo mm u _N _ coo: cocoa coo: oacmx cmoz occmx can: coca: 0.3mmcm> uu_cum_o m maccmu ~ mancu _ manEmu mMJm<_m<> «on mz 37539 M maaEmu N maaEmu _ 39:3 mm4m<_m<> u.xa<¢u0two a0; mz