r.- ERGEWED 43??? l' 1 V— .....w wnvwwwvvvv ‘1zwmwmqiqiv'yj— D.“ mefis ! ) S iv :4 ...... 1. ...;uurivh 1...th3....§:1 .... . .. ... . . . . . . . .. . _ 1.5:... . . . . .1.“ . . "P. A 'RSITIY: - .f ‘ELLHA'M um. .~ H , s 74- :0 ‘68 SAN? STATE A'RIHUR EL rs fer the Day Col 6‘5 ' . Th MI W .st . 9 . , . , . r .v . .5 I I. . . . . 1.1. . .. n, .. - . . ...... . u- .... 3.834;“... LIBRAR Y” 3 5 Michigan State 1.: University E“ J. '" This is to certify that the ’ thesis entitled — . A STUDY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AS PERCEIVED BY PRESIDENTS 0F PRIVATE LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE MIDWEST presented by SAMUEL ARTHUR SHELLHAMER has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for .2h..n.__degree in fisher— Education .4.. %~.L ; . Major professor ' -_ J ‘3- © 1974 SAMUEL ARTHUR SHELLHAMER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AS PERCEIVED BY PRESIDENTS OF PRIVATE LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE MIDWEST By Samuel Arthur Shellhamer The status of the private liberal arts institution of higher education has received considerable attention in recent years. Responsibility for the success of the private college or university resides in the president's ability to provide leadership and direction for the institution. The effective leadership of the president becomes even more critical during this period of stress and transition. A central element which determines the president's success in coping with these impending crises is his decision-making ability. It was anticipated that this study might provide a better understanding of the decision-making process within private liberal arts institutions. Since the presidency is the pivotal office in the hierarchy of administration within the private college or university, this study was undertaken ‘to gain the perceptions of the chief executive officer on ‘the decision-making process. The purposes of this exploratory study were: (l) 5‘ 934/ (2) (3) (A) (5) (6) Samuel Arthur Shellhamer To determine the role of presidential decision- making in the private liberal arts institution and to study the hierarchial structure of decision-making to ascertain whether decisions are made individually or by consensus. To determine the students' role in institutional decision-making in private liberal arts colleges and universities. To determine the president's role in fund— raising and institutional development in the small private institution. To determine the impact of the "accountability crisis" upon administrative decision-making in private liberal arts higher education. To determine the role of institutional research and computer applications in the decision-making process. To determine what types of activities the private liberal arts college president was participating in to enhance his knowledge of higher education and improve his executive decision-making skills. The study included fifteen presidents from private liberal arts colleges and universities from a three-state :region including Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. These insti- tLItions met the following criteria: accredited, co-educa- tixanal, church-affiliated or interdenominational, and Samuel Arthur Shellhamer enrollments between 750 and 2500 students. All of the fif- teen presidents were interviewed in person and the interviews were tape recorded for posteriori analysis. An interview guide was used which consisted of questions based on the purposes of the study. A descriptive approach was utilized to analyze and present the findings. (1) (2) (3) (A) The major findings of the study were: Presidents had considerable experience in admin- istration and teaching in higher education before assuming their role as chief executive. The average tenure of office for the presidents was 8.5 years. Shared or consensus decision-making was viewed by presidents as being the most effective approach to decision-making in the private liberal arts insti- tution. An administrative council or cabinet com- posed of the chief administrative officers of the institution was relied upon extensively by the president in making decisions. Governing boards of private liberal arts colleges and universities were assuming a more active role in the affairs of their institutions and in the decision-making process. Students were acquiring more representation in the governance structure and in decision-making at private liberal arts institutions. (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Samuel Arthur Shellhamer The president of the private liberal arts college and university expended considerable time in fund- raising activities and was viewed as the key individual in obtaining outside funds. Presidents believed they should be held accountable for their decisions and actions as chief executives, but also held students, faculty, and administrative staff accountable in the same manner. Private liberal arts colleges and universities were in the initial stages of implementing programs of institutional research and there was limited use of the computer as a decision-making tool. There was a need for presidents to gain more knowledge of the capabilities and applications of institutional research and computer programs to management. Activities sponsored by state or regional orga- nizations identified with private higher education were viewed by presidents as being the most bene- ficial in enhancing the presidents' executive skills. The success of the private liberal arts college was viewed by presidents as being contingent upon the institution's ability to emphasize human values and establish a well-defined institutional identity based on those values. A STUDY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AS PERCEIVED BY PRESIDENTS OF PRIVATE LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE MIDWEST By Samuel Arthur Shellhamer A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 19714 Copyright by SAMUEL ARTHUR SHELLHAMER 197“ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is grateful to the many people who made this research possible by their guidance, cooperation, and participation. To the chairman of the Guidance Committee, Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, apperciation is expressed for his valuable advice throughout the development and completion of this study. To Dr. Walter F. Johnson, gratitude is expressed for his support and encouragement. The writer also wishes to thank Dr. Richard L. Featherstone and Dr. James B. McKee for their service on the Guidance Committee. Special thanks is due to each of the pres- idents who participated in the study and who cooperated so fully in the research of this study. To my parents and my wife's parents, appreciation is expressed for their constant encouragement. And above all, greatest appreciation is extended to my loving wife, Carole, for her patience and encouragement. Her service as typist and critic was a major contribution toward the completion of this study. Her efforts will never be fully appreciated. ii Chapter I. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . Significance of the Study . . . Approach to the Design of the Study Scope and Limitations of the Study. . Assumptions of the Study . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Part I The Contemporary American College and University President . . . . . . . Management in Higher Education. . Management Training for the President Significant Research on the American College and University President . Part II Decision-Making in Higher Education Decision-Making as an Administrative T001 0 o 0 Student Participation in Decision- -Making. Models of Institutional Decision-Making . iii Page O\O'\10\U'ILA)I\)I—’ I—‘ I—' 12 13 1” 2O 22 3O 31 37 Al Chapter III. IV. Part III Current Status of Private Liberal Arts Education . . . The Future of Private Liberal Arts Education and Reform . . . Significant Research in Private Liberal Arts Education . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of the Sample . The Research Interview The Instrument . . . . . . . The Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . The Collection of Data . . . . . . . . The Method of Data Analysis . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS . . . . Experience and Tenure of Participating Presidents . . . . The Decision-Making Process within Participating Institutions . . . . Student Participation in Institutional Decision-Making . . . . Role of Presidential Decision-Making in Institutional Fund Raising and Development . . . . Impact of the "Accountability Crisis" upon Presidential Decision-Making Use of Institutional Research and Computer Data System in Administrative Decision-Making . . . . . . . . Presidential Professional Self- Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE LIBERAL ARTS INSTI— TUTION IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION . . . The Liberal Arts Approach . . . The Role of the Church in Private Liberal Arts Education . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 145 52 57 61 63 63 65 67 68 7o 72 7M 75 75 79 88 9h 99 102 112 117 117 123 Chapter The Presidency of the Private Liberal Arts Institution . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDA- TIONS O O O O O O O C O I O O O O O 0 Summary . Findings and Conclusions Experience and Tenure of Partici- pating Presidents . . . The Decision-Making Process within Participating Institutions . . Student Participation in Institu- tional Decision-Making . . Role of Presidential Decision—Making in Institutional Fund Raising and Development . . Impact of the "Accountability Crisis" upon Presidential Decision- Making . . . . Use of Institutional Research and Computer Data System in Admin- istrative Decision-Making . . Presidential Professional Self— Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Research BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. Interview Guide . . . . . . . . B. Introductory Letter and Reply Form . Page 126 127 130 130 132 132 13” 136 137 139 1A0 141 1A“ 1H6 1A9 160 162 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Distribution of Presidents by Previous Position and Experience Level . . . . . . 76 2. Activities Presidents Reported They Engaged in for the Purpose of Self-Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11a vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The plight of the privately supported colleges and universities has been a recurring theme in American educa- tional circles in recent years. Upon the collegiate president falls the responsibility for the success of institutional goals and a quality educational program. The president is the focal point of institutional leadership and his ability to manage each crisis he encounters is vitally important to the continued life and vitality of the institution. Speaking on the college president, Bergquist (197M) notes: The presidency, furthermore, is a leadership position of crucial importance, especially in this day of increasing public scrutiny where the efficacy of higher education is under considerable question. Under this kind of pressure, how the college or university pres- ident performs the Job tasks of his office deserves increasing study (p. 315). The problems of private higher education are numerous and varied, and many issues involve economic factors. Effective leadership of presidents becomes even more critical during periods of institutional stress and accelerated tran- sition. Chief executives are required to make significant 1 2 decisions which affect the future and survival of their respective institutions. Decision-making is an element basic and common to all levels of control, coordination, and organization of higher education. Concern and discontent with today's colleges and universities is leading to serious re-exami- nation of decision-making processes in institutions of higher education. It has become apparent that college and univer- sity presidents can no longer function by the "seat of the pants" method. Institutional goals must be critically exam- ined, and revised if necessary. The quality of the faculty and the curriculum must be continually re-evaluated. Fund raising and decisions involving fiscal operations demand time and priority of the small college president. The ability of a chief executive to make daily decisions is directly reflected in the overall educational program of an institution. The presidency is the "pivotal office" in the bureaucratic dimension of the university structure. Bolman (1970) affirms the need for study of the decision- making process within the college and university in order to gain a better understanding of the state of higher edu— cation. Statement of the Problem Much of the research and literature concerning college and university presidents has dealt with chief executives at public institutions. Few studies have 3 focused upon presidential decision-making at private in— stitutions. The lack of information concerning presidential decision-making in private higher education coupled with an interest and committment to the role of private higher educa- tion in America lead to the central question of the study: How g9 presidents of private liberal arts colleges and universities perceive the decision— making process in executing their administrative responsibilities? Significance of the Study A study of decision-making as perceived by private liberal arts college and university presidents is important for a number of reasons. First, private higher education is in a critical period of transition, and executive leadership and decision-making are the keys to the future of private institutions. Knowledge as to how presidents of private institutions are making decisions in order to cope with institutional problems and responsibilities may certainly be considered of significance. It may also be of interest to study the heirarchy of decision-making within an institution and to determine whether decisions are made individually or by consensus. Secondly, with such problems as declining student enrollments and escalating financial costs, it is important to attempt to determine the role of executive decision- makixm;and the impact upon the goals and direction of the 1n8titution. Criticism of the modern day president has I; focused very much on the fact that he is, more often than not, an administrative caretaker rather than an academic trail blazer in higher education (Dodds, 1962). Thirdly, there are a number of factors, both in- ternal and external, which affect the decisions of presidents in private institutions. The Board of Trustees, accredita- tion agencies, federal and state government, alumni, faculty, and students are a few of the forces which may influence decisions made by chief administrators. It might prove valuable to identify these factors and their impact upon the decision—making process. A fourth reason reflecting the need for this study is related to the increased emphasis which accountability is having upon higher education. The president is held account- able by various constituents for virtually everything which occurs within an institution. As Mayhew (1971) observes, the traditional role of the American college and university president is changing. While some incumbents in the past have denied it, the president did possess considerable power over institutions, their finances, faculties, and students. It is vital for the chief executive to be cognizant of how_ and why_he makes certain administrative decisions. The Study will attempt to ascertain what role institutional re- search, computer application, and data gathering methods play in the decision-making process of presidents serving in private liberal arts institutions. 5 Finally, the study could provide useful results for presidents of private institutions. Another meaningful utilization of the study applies to the education of future administrators in higher education. The findings could serve as a source of recommendations for graduate programs in ed— ucational administration and could also be helpful in content formulation of an in-service training program for college and university administrators. Approach §2_the Design of the Study The study of presidents' perceptions of the decision— making process within the framework of their respective insti- tutions may be characterized as being of an exploratory nature. The purpose of the study is to explore and analyze the decision— making process of small college chief executives, not predict results. While this researcher proposed no hypotheses to be tested, he did operate with the assumption that the pres— idents participating in the study would be concerned and involved with the study of decision—making in the area of pri- vate higher education. The primary research tool utilized for collection of data in this study was the structured interview. After examining current literature and conferring with university administrators, the researcher isolated key areas to be in- cluded in the interview format. A preliminary pilot study was conducted to test the interview questions, as well as to provide experience for the researcher in executing the interview. A final interview guide was established. After soliciting participation from presidents and conducting the interviews, the results were analyzed according to several dimensions to seek clarity of the president's perception of the decision-making process. Scope and Limitations of the Study This study was limited to a sample of presidents of private liberal arts colleges and universities in a three- state region in the Midwest including Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The sample consisted of presidents of private liberal arts institutions which are coeducational, fully accredited, and church affiliated or interdenominational. This study was further delimited by consideration of only institutions of higher education with enrollments between 750 and 2500 students. This range of student population was most repre- sentative of the institutions which the researcher was attempting to study since it excluded the very small colleges and the larger institutions which often tend to parallel some public colleges and universities. It was previously noted that this was an exploratory study. With this in mind, and due to the nature of a study of decision-making, it appeared best not to employ statistical analyses in summarizing the findings. The methodology of an interview with posteriori analysis places great reliance on the perceptions of the individuals being interviewed in the study. This reliance on the respondents perception must be cited as a potential limitation, but it was deemed that the benefits to be gained from the presidents' insights on the decision-making process outweighed the inherent bias of self-reporting. This means of data collection will be dis- cussed and expanded in Chapter III. The structured interview format cannot only be con- taminated by respondent bias, but also requires.the utmost in cooperation from the selected participants. This investi- gator, however, found that those presidents who were asked to participate in the study were very willing and cooperative in participating. Most of the presidents involved in the study agreed that there is a clear need for more research and evaluation in the area of private higher education. The structured interview was limited to the inves- tigation of seven critical areas of decision-making involving presidents of private liberal arts institutions. There were many areas which the researcher would like to have explored, but key parameters had to be established in order to delimit the study. Assumptions of the Study There were several assumptions and presuppositions concerning the study of private liberal arts presidents and their perceptions of the decision-making process. 1. The decision-making process as perceived by presidents serving in private liberal arts colleges and universities could be studied in a scientific manner, and the results of a structured interview method could be utilized for analysis purposes. It was assumed that the random sample of presidents participating in the study would be representative of institutions meeting the parameters noted above. The president, by virtue of his posi— tion as chief executive administrator of the institution, was the individual most qualified and capable to charac- terize and assess the decision-making process within the college or univer- sity. Even though there is divergence in the institutional environments of the colleges studied, as well as variance in the uniqueness of each president's personality, it was assumed that there was sufficient commonality in the pro- fessional skills of each participating president and a similarity in the nature of the mission and educational goals of each institution to make analysis of research both possible and significant. 9 Definition of Terms The following terms are defined in accordance with their special use and meaning in this study: President - The chief executive officer of a four-year college or university; the individual appointed by the governing board and charged with the overall ad- ministration and responsibility of operation of the institution. Private Liberal Arts College or University - A privately owned and operated institution of higher education with an accredited academic curriculum in the liberal arts (as distinguished from a professional or technical academic program). As used in this study, refers specifically to a four—year college or university affiliated with a church denomination or an inter- denominational institution with an enrollment between 750 and 2500 students. Decision-Making - A conscious process, involving both individual and organizational phenomena, which culminates with a choice of one behavioral activity from among alternatives with the intention of moving toward established goals or objectives. Structured Interview - In this study denotes the interview technique utilized by the researcher to obtain the perceptions and responses of the presidents interviewed. Questions which had been previously researched and devel- oped were presented to the respondent during the interviews. These questions provided a guide for the 10 interview and made possible the comparison and analysis of information elicited during the interview. Interviewer - Refers to the individual who originated the study, conducted the research and interviews, and completed the written results of the findings. In this study the interviewer is also referred to as the investigator and researcher. Respondent — The individual presidents who were interviewed by the investigator. May also be referred to as interviewee. Interviewer Bias - Refers to the possibility that the interviewer might influence or elicit preferrential responses by either verbal or non—verbal communica— tion from a respondent during a structured interview. May also refer to contamination of data by inaccurately or inappropriately recording or interpreting responses. Perceptions - A cognizance reflected in a particular view or attitude about specific persons, organization, situations, or concomitant factors. Perceptions may be influenced by one's knowledge, experience, aware- ness, and motivation. Overview The overall organization of this exploratory study includes six chapters. An introduction to the nature of the study, a statement of the problem, and an explanation of the significance of the study are presented in Chapter I. 11 The approach to the design of study and limitations of the study are also included, as well as definitions of terms pertinent to the study. Chapter II contains a review of related literature. Research and literature concerning the college president, decision-making in higher education, and liberal arts education are reviewed in this chapter. The study design and procedures employed in the research design are described in Chapter III. A discussion of the subjects in the sample and a description of the development of the structured interview are presented. The procedures followed in collecting the research data are delineated and the method of data analysis is explained in Chapter III. The basic questions which served as the foundation for the collection of data are also presented. Remarks and observations as expressed by the study respondents regarding the president's role and the future of private liberal arts education (which have great signi- ficance and relevance but were not included in the analysis of data) are presented in Chapter V. A summary of the study, conclusions, and recommenda- tions for further research are contained in Chapter VI. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to review literature and research which has significant relevance to the president and his executive role in decision-making at the private liberal arts college. The first major section of this chap- ter deals with the literature on the college and university president. The second section is devoted to a review of literature concerning decision-making within the context of American higher education. Literature and research related to the private liberal arts institution of higher education is reviewed in the third section. There are literally hundreds of books, monographs, periodical articles, and research studies dealing with the American college and university president. An exhaustive review of the literature on the role of the president would be impractical and too unwieldy. Therefore, the authors reviewed in this chapter were included because of their overall contribution to the understanding and original thought on the presidency in higher education. The views and findings reported in this chapter will also contribute to the basic understanding of the purpose of this study. 12 13 PART 1 The Contemporary American College and University President The role of the college and university president has undergone considerable transition in the last decade. The president in the early twentieth century was largely involved in academic concerns; the post World War II president found himself engulfed in institutional growth and expansion; how- ever, the present-day president has become a "crisis manager" and may be struggling with survival (McNett, 1970). Stoke (1959) notes the change in the president's role: The transformation of colleges and universities reflects itself in the position of their pres- idents, and has brought to that position men whose training, interests, and skills are far different from those of their predecessors. The college president as the Man of Learning has given way to the Man of Management, although the change has not taken place without strain and conflict (p. 3). Kerr (1970), while affirming the transitory state of the presidency, still refers to the president as "the most important single figure in the life of the campus" (p. 137). Demerath, Stephens, and Taylor (1967) made the following reference concerning the president: In the more bureaucratic dimension of university organization, the presidency is the pivotal office, . . . and is the university's principal link with the ultimate powers and resources of the larger society (p. Al). The events of the last decade have had significant impact on the role of the president. Some writers express their concern and reservation on the state of the presidency. 14 Stroup (1966) calls for more delineation of respon- sibilities: The president currently suffers from an unclear definition of his responsibilities . . . he has much that he is free to do. But he is not limited sufficiently as to what is expected of him. There are few standards to evaluate his effectiveness . . . (p. 81). McGrath (1971) expresses his view on the loss of presidential power as follows: Under existing circumstances the office of the president is the weakest element in the complex of organizational controls. The current status of the chief executive is an almost complete reversal of the position of his predecessors (p. 189). The power and authority of the American college and university president have received considerable attention which is evident by the quantity of literature published on the subject. However, one finding in Hodgkinson's (1970) study on the college president is rather conclusive. "Changes in the internal governance and authority structure of the institution" were found to be the most important changes in American higher education in recent years (p. 3). Management in Higher Education Rourke and Brooks (1966) identify the changes that have taken place in the administration of college and univer- sities as a result of a "managerial revolution" (p. 1). These changes have brought basic modifications in the admin- istrative structure of institutions of higher education. It is difficult to assess the long-range influence of management 15 on higher education, but Rourke and Brooks indicate the changes may eventually be as significant for education as they have been in the past for industry and government. In their study, Rourke and Brooks isolated several areas of change in university administration. The first is the shift from secrecy to publicity in the general conduct of administrative and academic affairs - a shift which has greatly altered the relationship between institutions of higher education and their environment. Historically, the basis for secrecy rested essentially on the notion that certain kinds of university and academic practices could not be satisfactorily explained to the outside world. In recent years, however, there has been a persistent trend toward a much more "open" style of administration. Rourke and Brooks note that this has been particularly true with respect to both the disclosure of information to the outside world and the modification or elimination of some of the traditional "information screens" that have existed within the academic community (p. 105). The chief force for change has been the growing pressure from outside organizations for more precise data on the way in which institutions utilize their resources. This change from secrecy to publicity has affected private institutions as well as the public colleges and universities. Private institutions are also subject to demands from agencies of the federal government and private donors and alumni. The new age of publicity is the product 16 of not only an increased demand for accountability, but also a result of the development of more efficient machinery and techniques for gathering information. A second major shift has been the development of a cabinet style of governance system in place of the presidential system of executive leadership that has traditionally char- acterized higher education administration. Rourke and Brooks explain: More and more the task of managing internal university affairs has been delegated to an assortment of vice-presidents in charge of such matters as business, student, or aca- demic affairs. As a result a new layer of top- level officials has become firmly fixed at the summit of the administrative hierarchy. Where once he reigned in solitary splendor, the university president has now come to share responsibility for governing his insti- tution with a variety of other executive colleagues (p. 109). A third significant change in administration in higher education has been the introduction of new forms of decision-making which are considerably less subjective than the purely intuitive styles of the past. The area of decision—making will be reviewed in the next section of this chapter. However, it is worth noting at this point that new instruments and approaches of decision-making have had a profound effect upon the routine day-to-day organizational decisions in colleges and universities. The traditional role of American college and university presidents is changing and its destination is unknown. As a result of this state of transition, l7 Mayhew (1971) has identified what he considers to be "emerging concepts of the presidency" (pp. 353-367). He observes that as presidents have become aware of changed conditions and mounting pressures they have attempted to adapt in a variety of ways. The most dramatic, of course, is to leave office or retire early. Another alternative is to try to slow the rate of yielding authority to new claim- ants. Mayhew illustrates how this approach is used: students'demands for participation in governance are met by allowing greater freedom in residence hall living. Faculty pressure for a greater role in the appointment process is relieved by a two-year study of academic governance. In a sense the creation of an ombudsman or the use of an outside consultant to help relieve tension is a technique of delay (p. 360). Other presidents have adopted the technique of divesting themselves of many of their previously held pre- rogatives and then insisting that other groups assume re- sponsibility and consequences. Some presidents have tried to create a dual system of administration on the ground that much power had been lost because the singular system placed an excessive burden on one person. The role of president at some institutions has been assigned to external affairs and a chancellor or provost has been placed in charge of internal affairs. Many presidents, according to Mayhew, have become more politically active in their personal styles. . they take pains to visit powerful pro- fessors in their offices, conduct many social events to build up rapport, cultivate previously 18 underrecognized groups in the campus community such as clinical and other non-professional workers, and of course, strengthen contacts with board members, alumni groups, and others who can become a governing majority (p. 361). Mayhew concludes by stating that the first step in reasserting power to the presidency is to make the president supreme arbiter of the budget. If the president is to be charged legally and morally with the conduct of the institu- tion, he must be allowed the powers to indicate possible objectives, allocate resources, and assess the outcomes (p. 367). The new role which is evolving for the college presidency has attracted attention from a number of authorities in the field of higher education. One of these is Keeton (1971) who presents the view in his study of campus governance that it is right and proper that presidents should lose power. He believes that in the end the loss may strengthen administration in its proper role. Keeton formulates his theorylin this manner: Three distinctions may be helpful in seeing why the sharing of some powers may actually strengthen the hand of administrators in their proper role. First, the sharing of legislative authority is not to be confused with a sharing of managerial powers, though legislative policy does set the purposes and policies within which management operates. Secondly, the management tasks in a college or university are partially carried by faculty and students, as in the faculty's man- agement of instruction and students' assumption of some tasks of dormitory management or control of social life. A division of labor on these tasks may facilitate the performance of adminis- trative functions rather than hinder it. Thirdly, the surrender or sharing of particular powers in policy making or management can strengthen the administrative leaders in other functions and in their capacity to achieve the overall goals of the institution (pp. 21-22). 19 The health of the independent institutions of higher education is considered by some authors to be one of the most important needs of our society. The private liberal arts college is capable of providing the diversity which is the single most important strength of our system of higher educa- tion, and this diversity is reflected in the fact that there are options and choices available. Drucker (1967) notes the contribution of the small college and the crucial role which the president assumes in directing the institution. He suggests there are three things which impair and threaten the effectiveness of the small independent college and its president in particular. First, an institution must be able to attract the type of students and faculty which it needs. Drucker notes that there is a growing number of young people who are disillusioned by the large university and may seek opportunities at smaller in- stitutions. Second, Drucker purports that one of the most dangerous things for a president to do is to shift the center of administration from the main functions to the support functions. One of the president's prime responsibilities is to recognize how support functions can be organized eco— nomically and efficiently. Finally, and most important as suggested by Drucker, the chief executive must not spend too much time on fund raising activities. If this becomes, as it is becoming, the first job and the most pressing of the president, then 20 the institution will suffer. Raising money makes it possible for the institution to operate, but it contributes nothing to the college's results according to Drucker. It often causes the good presidents to use their strengths to do the wrong things. The ultimate strength of the small independent colleges depends to a large extent upon the presidents who head them and their ability to meet the challenges and opportunities in American higher education. Management Training for the President One area of interest which the investigator is concerned with is the small college president's knowledge and use of management information systems. Presidents who enter office come from a variety of backgrounds, but few have extensive experience as professional administrators. Prator, in his book The College President (1963), notes the lack of adequate preparation for presidents. Henderson (1970) expresses this unique problem in the following manner: A major problem in governance is that the persons chosen for high administrative office seldom have any training for their roles or any knowledge of sociological concepts relating to organizational and institutional processes. Inadequately pre- pared presidents assume too much detailed decision-making responsibility, become serious bottlenecks, and use authoritarian methods (p. 248). The president who is an academician often has diff- iculty in solving the complex problems confronting him. Dr. Charles Fisher, program director for the Institute for College and University Administrators, American Council on Education, states that scholarship alone is not enough of a background for the presidency: 21 Recent years have seen a new administrative style emerging to meet the ever-mounting challenges to American colleges and universi- ties - factionalism; discord; competition for resources, influence and power; and so on. Today's academic leaders must have more than scholarship. They must have an apprecia- tion of the complex factors which enter into administrative decision—making and the formu— lation of academic policy. They must under- stand the basic principles of management by objectives, administrative efficiency and effectiveness, and personal leadership, and be able to apply these concepts with prudence and candor toward meeting the unique needs of each particular institution and of the distinctive enterprise of American higher education in general (1971, p. 28). Grassell (1971) reports that scholarship and a cha- rismatic personality are not enough for the chief executive of a college and university. When Grassell asked a small college president about how he viewed the successful management- oriented president of the future, he responded: If management is defined as "getting things done through people" the college president of the future must be a more effective managerian in two respects. He must constantly work toward spending a higher proportion of his time doing those things which only he can and must do. At the same time, the president must more effectively delegate responsibility, authority, and accountability to his administrative officers with the provision for seminars and in-service training to educate them in their assignments (p. 28). One organization which has responded to the need for presidential training is the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges. It has initiated Presidents' Management Seminars which are aimed at introducing college presidents to the basic principles and processes of planning, organizing, directing, staffing, controlling, and communicating. The seminars have also introduced the small college presidents 22 to styles of leadership and the art of decision-making and delegation of authority. Richard Whitter, assistant executive director of the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges, believes the chief executive must have appropriate training and become a professional manager. He states: For too long now the terms "management" and "manager" to refer to college administration have been dirty words in the lexicon of higher education. The chief executive off- icer of any institution of higher education today must be a professional manager. The crisis in which higher education finds itself today demands nothing less than our institu- tions being operated on the basis of sound management principles (1971, p.29). After conducting his research on the management training needs of college and university presidents, Grassell concludes that by applying the principles of professional management, the president and his administrative staff should be able to: 1. Increase participatory opportunities within the traditional organizational model. 2. Tap traditionally untapped "people" resources by encouraging more participation and decision— making as close as possible to the level in which decisions are implemented. 3. Share the risks of decisions with those par- ticipating in the decision-making process. A. Mutually establish result-oriented objectives that are realistic, obtainable, and measure- able. 5. Hold the faculty, staff, and others account- able to the predetermined objectives. 6. Measure the true accomplishments of indi- viduals rather than appraising people on the basis of their personalities. 7. Award salary increases according to results achieved (1971, p. 29). 23 It becomes very apparent from the literature that the college and university must equip itself with the appropriate management expertise in order to meet the im- pending administrative problems. The president must willingly initiate programs and changes to educate himself and his administrative staff if the overall operation of the institution is to become more effective and efficient. Significant Research 9n the American College and University President The last decade has brought forth several significant research studies on the American college and university pres- ident. Nelson (1960) conducted a study in 1960 in which be identified and analyzed the role expectations of presidents and governing board members for the office of president. Nelson's comparison of presidents' and board members' attitudes was completed in state institutions located in New England. Nelson identified 120 role expectations, and found that at the 5% level of significance, 19 of these expectation items were capable of producing conflict between presidents and board of control members. Noted in Nelson's study, were findings which in- cluded recommendations for graduate programs in administration in higher education. It is interesting to observe that since 1960, the following recommendations are still applicable to graduate preparation programs today: 2A 1. Graduate preparation programs for higher edu- cational administration should include ex- periences in the development of adequate competencies in verbal expression. Board member and president majorities expected a president to be a good public speaker and able to express ideas clearly. 2. Graduate preparation programs for higher edu- cational administration should aid the develop- ment of enthusiastic leadership abilities. They should also intensify their consideration of the area of human relations. Incumbent president and board member majorities ex- pected a president to be a dynamic leader and able to work well with people. 3. Graduate preparation programs for higher educational administration should encourage interested students to pursue advanced degrees. Both board member and incumbent president majorities expected a president to have a doctors degree. A. Graduate preparation programs for higher educational administration should promote the development of campus planning and edu- cational planning skills. Board of control member and president majorities expected a president to have on paper a long range cam- pus building plan and to have an educational development on paper. 5. Graduate preparation programs for higher educational administration should continue to emphasize the importance of a democratic philosophy of administration. Incumbent president and board member majorities over- whelmingly expected a president to be democratic and to not be authoritarian (pp. 128-130). Corson identified six critical functions of the academic president in a 1960 study. He found that the pres- ident's responsibilities evolved essentially around student affairs, educational programs, faculty selection, finance, physical facilities, and public-alumni relations. One of the first and most systematic studies of the contemporary college and university president was done by Hemphill and Walberg (1966). Their research was conducted 25 in conjunction with the New York State Regents Advisory Committee on Educational Leadership. Hemphill and Walberg focused upon the following facets of the presidency: allocation of time among activities; demands of the position; relative rank of important responsibilities; influence of the president on the institution; academic background; formal training; administrative and teaching experience; prior positions; roadblocks to most effective performance; and satisfaction of the position. The occupational mobility theory developed by Warner and Abegglen was used as the basis for a study of career patterns of college and university presidents by Ferrari (1968). The findings were later published by Ferrari in Profiles of American College Presidents (1970). Ferrari's study which included a national sample of presidents, included the study of such characteristics as age, tenure, previous positions, and time allocation. He developed several hypotheses on the career patterns of college and university presidents including such factors as the geographic origins of presidents in relation to their present location; the occupational status of presidents' wives; educational and occupational level of the presidents' parents; and the correlation of career patterns of presidents with those of business and government executives. In 1970 Hodgkinson reported his findings of an extensive and comprehensive study of chief executives and their perceptions of changes in higher education. The study 26 was completed under the auspices of the Carnegie Commission. Hodgkinson explained why presidents were surveyed in the 1,230 institutions participating in the study: Presidents were chosen as respondents for two major reasons: first, it was felt they were in a position to be better aware of the changes occurring on their campus and of having a broader perspective of the institutional scene than the other top administrators; and second, there was an interest in developing a profile of college and university presidents - who they were, what their mobility patterns looked like, and how they viewed the importance of various changes on their campus (p. 37). Hodgkinson postulated several assumptions on his findings of presidents in his study. He states: One gets the impression from this summary of materials that presidents of public institutions are by and large more pragmatically trained and perhaps should have developed skills more di- rectly relevant to their administrative tasks in the presidency. On the other hand, the pri- vate institutions - particularly in the sectarian area - have presidents whose academic work in the liberal arts should have inculcated in them a higher degree of responsiveness to humane values, to tolerance, and to understanding (pp. 27u—275). Hodgkinson did point out that these conclusions are assumptions based on his study, and that a separate study should be done to test the hypotheses. Another noteworthy study was Alton's (1971) disser- tation on the factors which motivated presidents to resign from office. Alton surveyed eighty-six presidents whose resignations were announced during 1969. He depicted the "average" pres- ident who resigned as follows: Male, average tenure of 9.2 years, fifty-four years of age, holder of the earned doctorate, better than even chance to have earned all 27 three degrees from private institutions, having no one specific discipline in terms of under- graduate or graduate training yet with greater possibility that it may have been in the social sciences, having come to his position from college academic administration or teaching and when leaving, entering nonacademic college administration, teaching, or foundation or government administration (p. 8“). Alton reported that there appeared to be no common theme dominating the resignation of the presidents who cited twenty-one reasons motivating their resignations. He ranked the ten most prominant reasons in order of their importance. Reasons given for exiting the chief executive position were: 1. A new opportunity that appeared more favorable. . Completion of objectives. Physical or emotional exhaustion. Perceptions of filling the position longer than normal. A desire not to remain past the point of effectiveness. An evaluation in the presidential role since he took office due to changes in society. Perception of his role differs from the president's role as perceived by his con- stituencies, including trustees, faculty, students, other administrators and alumni. 8. Political and bureaucratic stifling, such as budget cutbacks; limiting the kinds of actions he would like to carry out. 9. Tired of raising money to operate the institution. 10. Growing mistrust within the community environment hampering his freedom to function. N 0\ U1 zoom Alton also concluded that generally college presidents rarely feel anxiety about finding another position after re- signing from the presidency. College and university presidents are very mobile and possess talents which are in demand and have no difficulty in finding other employment. 28 A study of incidents which new and experienced college and university presidents reported as having had an impact upon their effectiveness as presidents was completed by Peterson (1972). Each of the twenty-six presidents (twelve "new presidents" and fourteen "experienced presidents") were asked to report four incidents which affected their role as president. Staffing was found to have the greatest impact upon new presidents and campus unrest was identified by experiences presidents as having had the most impact upon their responsibilities. Financial considerations and govern- ance ranked second for new presidents, and finance ranked second for experienced presidents. Peterson reported the following observations con- cerning the state of the academic presidency: l. Presidents see their effectiveness or lack of it as being determined in their own institutional setting. 2. New presidents are not afraid to take strong positive actions. 3. Presidents cannot be stereotyped easily. 4. Presidents are more involved in termi- nating than hiring faculty. 5. Presidents believe in what they are doing. 6. Presidents are both coping with and precipitating change (pp. 202-205). One of the most recent and significant studies on chief executives was done by Bergquist (1974). He assessed the influence of certain variables upon how the president approached his administrative duties. For this study, the variables were the years of experience as a president; the position held by the president immediately prior to his appointment to his present post; the type of advanced degree 29 held; the type of advanced professional schooling achieved; and the size of the institution over which the president presides. Some of the results of the Bergquist study were very revealing. In budgetary matters, 53% of presidents from a sample of 115 with at least ten years experience listed the budgetary tasks as a very great problem, while only 31% of presidents with the least experience responded similarly. Another question considered was: What were the professional positions held by the presidents prior to their appointment? Of the total responses, 62% of the presidents had occupied a position as either a vice-president or as a college dean. Bergquist noted that a pattern did appear that grooming for the presidency occurred in other top-level administrative positions. Bergquist concluded that the results of his study indicated that a college president can no longer rely on his years of presidential experience to assure the easy completion of defined job tasks. Regardless of the size of the institu- tion or the type of advanced degree held, the president's responsibilities became increasingly complex, troublesome, and difficult to complete. Presidents who had specialized educational administration training, on the average, performed better on some crucial presidential tasks than their academic counterparts. Yet, the fact that presidents with advanced training in educational administration still had considerable difficulty in major job task categories may be suggestive of 30 the need for additional specialized training. Bergquist concludes that a presidential role change is taking place. He feels that the modern college president must first be an ed- ucational manager, then an educational leader. PART I ”an—— Decision-Making in Higher Education The colleges and universities in the United States have been experiencing a dual revolution. Internally, a new pattern of decision-making procedure has emerged. Externally, more and more authority affecting the operations and admin- istration of colleges and universities has been exercised by agencies of state and federal government. Historically, the patterns of decision-making in most American colleges and universities from the time of the Civil War until World War II were very similar and conventional. Millett (1968) depicts decision-making during this period: The prevailing pattern of authority emphasized the special role of the president. To be sure, legally, the authority to make final decisions about matters of educational policy, financial management, appointments and other personnel actions, and physical facilities was vested in the board of trustees . . . Faculty members for the most part in these years had only modest influence upon the operations of the institu— tion. Only gradually, as the concept of academic freedom developed, did some standards of conduct and procedure in these instances emerge. In this period before World War II, students were generally expected to abide by the rules of conduct imposed by their elders . . . Ideas about student government were limited, student publications were bothersome but carefully scrutinized, and student social organizations were mostly individualistic in orientation. 31 Student "power" was impossible to imagine under these circumstances (pp. 3-4). However, patterns of decision—making in institutions of higher education have changed drastically since World War II. Institutional growth, student dissent, and the innovation of management information systems have been con- tributing factors toward an emphasis upon the decision—making process in higher education. Many colleges and universities have staggered through this period of transition. Moran (1972) made the following observation concerning the short-term ineffectiveness of many of our universities in dealing with change: The difficulty in campus decision-making is simply that on one occasion the university is obliged to respond with the precision of a Panzer division while on another appropriate decision process may be a meeting of faculty and students not unlike a New England town meeting. It is possible for organizations to shift from one structure to another. In a modern university it is not essential for one of the structures ultimately to dominate the other. What is crucial is that the decision rules by which a university shifts from one decision structure to another - say, from hierarchy to faculty senate - should be well understood and agreed upon by most members of the organization. This is very close to the heart of the matter, and it is not simple to arrange (p. 8). Decision-Making as an Administrative Tool The increased emphasis upon the decision—making process in higher education has produced considerable litera- ture on the topic. Gore (1964) sees decision-making as a tool to accommodate change. He writes that administrative decision-making becomes a strategy for: 32 l. Accommodating change within the limits of mission conception and instrumental goals. 2. Accommodating change beyond the limits of mission conception and instrumental goals by: a. Diverting or dissipating the pressures for change through reinterpretations, aggressive attack upon sources, or waiting until conditions evolve. b. Inducing changes, basic or otherwise, in structure as a strategy for attaining goals (p. 174). The advent of management information systems has had a profound effect upon decision-making in higher education. The goal of the new techniques of management has been to enable colleges and universities to make more rational de- cisions about the use of their own resources and the direction of the institution's development. Since this process of im— plementing the systems approach to the academic environment is still in its infancy, it has been difficult to appraise its effectiveness. However, several authors have voiced their opinions. Hammelman (1972) notes that the application of the systems approach to higher education and its usefulness as an administrative tool requires cooperation. He suggests: A systems approach to planning the campus takes legislative and alumni bodies, and even towns- people, seriously. It means keeping them reason- ably informed about campus plans and operations and even sharing the planning process (p. lO—ll). As stated by Hammelman, some very important steps have been taken in explaining institutional objectives and accounting for university resources: Development of management information systems, standardized accounting procedures, space 33 utilization data, and comprehensive personnel information is taking place. This has come about largely through probes from the outside rather than through the anticipation of information requirements by campus leaders - but it is happening (p. 11). There are many positive benefits of the management systems approach. Rourke (1966) points out that the new methods generate a good deal more information on university operations than was previously available, thus alerting administrators to critical situations where decisions may have to be made. Another advantage of using the quantitative methods is that administrators will have more time to devote to priority items. One interesting by-product of the changes in administrative operations has been that top-level admin- istrators themselves have become more quantitatively oriented and knowledgeable in the area of management information systems. There are, however, a number of factors which have adversely affected the decision-making process in many insti- tutions of higher education. Kronovet (1972) purports four factors which have had an impact upon decision-making: l. Sudden expansion without adequate planning. Short-term plans continue to evolve without sufficient reference to guidelines for long-range goals and planning. 2. Long continued practices of smaller institu- tions continue to dominate procedures and frequently become "tradition" when expansion takes place. There should be periodic anal- ysis of office responsibilities and job specifications in relation to administrators and sub-administrators. Otherwise, patterns of decision-making and job-related behavior are perpetrated without reference to pro- ductivity and efficiency. 3. Many institutions in rapid change from college to university continue to apply unchanged 34 approaches to job responsibilities, problem- solving activity, and decision-making adequate for a smaller institution but out-moded in university functioning. 4. As new individuals with identical titles are brought into a rapidly changing scene at the same administrative level competition rises for authority and final decision-making power (p. 173). If colleges and universities are to rescue themselves from such self-defeating practices, Kronovet views that it is imperative that academic priorities, management practices, and decision-making processes be examined. Such self-evaluation is difficult because of the need for objectivity, but due to the complexities of institutions of higher education today the need to assess administrative procedures is even more critical. There are widely divergent views concerning the degree to which the management process can and should be applied in an academic setting. Brien (1970) suggests that much of the fanfare about management information systems is a myth: There is an undeniable and perhaps unfortunate vogue in management terminology for attempting to make analysis more scientific by borrowing extensively from other disciplines. While the rate of change in fashionable phraseology may be taken as a crude index of the vigor of the discipline, the new terms often bring an intim- idating mystique along with their fresh con- tribution (p. 275). There has been a similar reaction to the concept of accountability. Cooper (1972) in his writing reacts to the emphasis placed on accountability. He feels that account- ability is advertised as a "cure-all" for the administrative 35 problems of colleges and universities. He states that pre- occupation with detail and accountability take the vitality out of administration. Cooper supports the view that decision- making is the key to successful management and effective leadership. The development of administrative theory in higher education, its concomitant decision-making models, and the growth of data production relating to college and university management have combined to increase the flow of routine decision-making. Meeth (1971) expresses the view that these developments have to some extent relieved the pressures upon central administrators, who in the past had to concentrate most of their energies on routine rather than on critical nonrecurring decisions. Routinizing much administrative decision-making has allowed major administrators to concen- trate their energies on long range plans, formulation of institutional goals, and implementation of these goals in new programs and design. Administrative practices have a profound effect upon the learning environment of a college or university. If the environment is fragmented, characterized by suspicion and dissension, it is difficult for any part of the institution to function well. In considering decision-making as an administrative tool, there are guidelines which can facilitate communication and decision-making. Pullias (1972) recommends several principles which if consistently applied can improve admin- istrative operations and morale. First, in any decision-making 36 process, those who will be affected by the decision should be informed, and if possible, consulted. The goal is to help all who are involved in the institution to feel that the "institution's business is basically their business" (p. 95). Second, the faculty, the student body, and the staff - the campus community - should be the first to hear about important decisions and developments. Often information about signifi- cant decisions are presented via the news media, thus insiders come to feel alien and an atmosphere develops which is condu- sive to hostility and destructive dissension. Pullias suggests a third principle in making deci- sions. The people who are consulted when a decision is being sought should be helped to understand the way in which their advice will be used. A failure to understand how the decision- making process works, who is involved, and who makes the final decision is a source of much misunderstanding. Perhaps one of the key guidelines to follow is that generally the responsible person nearest to the situation should make the decision. Sometimes it is necessary to bring in more people and thus broaden the base, but in most cases, the person nearest the problem should handle it. The farther the decision is from the persons immediately involved, the greater the likelihood of error and poor decisions. There is, however, an increasing tendency for joint decision-making and consensus resulting from administrators' desire to avoid final decision—making. While different per- ceptions and points of view on an issue are valuable, it 37 becomes impossible to consider each opinion and option as equal. Kronovet (1972) states very succinctly and simply how decisions should be made: . a single administrator should make a personal decision if he has the necessary information and experience. His reluctance to act well may be a function of insecurity within his decision-making network, not infrequently perpetrated by lack of clarifi- cation as to decision—making responsibilities. The end result can be only inefficient use of energy, unnecessary time lag in decisions, and added cost to the institution (p. 174). Student Participation ih_Decision-Making As students have become more involved in academic concerns, they have become more interested in meaningful involvement in institutional governance and decision-making. Considerable literature has been written on the pros and cons of student participation in the decision-making process in higher education. Taylor (1971) sees student participation in decision- making as a means of facilitating communication and thus reducing the probability of voilence on campus. He believes that when students are in a position to see their ideas taken with the same degree of seriousness as those of the adminis- tration and faculty, strong-arm tactics become both unnecessary and undesireable because they interfere with the decisions and policies of students themselves. Henderson (1967) claims that group participative theory seems to answer certain psychological and sociological needs. People like to have a feeling of belonging and to see 38 themselves as important members of a group. He believes that the morale of the total institution is affected by participation and that good morale is essential for se- curing the optimal results in education. Katz and Sanford (1968) suggest several points to be considered in students' involvement in institutional de- cision—making. Colleges and universities should overhaul their decision-making machinery so the students can see the effects of their recommendations. Presidents need to be more sensi— tive to students and become more aware of student attitudes. Drucker (1966) also postulates the need for presidential sensitivity and argues that perhaps the greatest shortcoming of the present generation of presidents is the alienation of students. McGrath (1970), who has done considerable study on student participation in academic governance, summarizes the arguments developed for giving students a formal role in institutional decision-making. Firstly, since education is essential to individual and societal well-being, higher ed- ucation should reflect the social and political practices of the larger society where people involved help make decisions. Secondly, expanded social consciousness - a more serious and informed interest in societal problems - of contemporary students qualifies them for participation in the reform of higher education. Thirdly, the declared objective of colleges and universities to prepare students for responsible partici- pation in a democratic society requires that the academy 39 open its own deliberative bodies to students as a means of preparing them for citizenship. Fourthly, students are as well qualified as faculty to correct deficiencies in current curriculum offerings by helping bring instruction closer to student interests and needs and the conditions of modern life. Fifthly, decision-making with respect to academic policies as well as personal conduct is an essential aspect of education. And lastly, McGrath states that students are uniquely qualified to render certain judgements about the teaching-learning process, particularly the quality of faculty classroom instruction. Not all of the literature, of course, has been in support of student participation in decision-making. Stroup (1964) lists several reasons why it may not be desirable to involve students in decision-making Included are: (1) student populations are continually changing; (2) the incompetence and lack of expertise of students; (3) the immaturity of students; (4) the limited free time of students; (5) the law often requires the trustees, administration, and faculty to take the responsibility for the operations of the institu- tion; and (6) the student being a client not an employee. Foster (1970) found in a survey of college and university trustees that the concept of student power was generally disagreeable to them. Wicke (1969) purports that until there is more evidence regarding the nature of the student move- ment, it would be unwise to include students on the boards of trustees. 40 One of the most vociferous opponents of student participation in the decision-making process has been Ker- linger (1968). He states his views in very precise terms: The answer is clear, simple, and direct: Students should be given no university or college decision- making power on educational matters . . . The final large consequence of student participation in educational decision-making is the most obvious: weakening of curriculum, programs, and courses of study and instruction . . . The university is not a political institution. To make it a political institution will deflect it from its basic goals and values. The inevitable result will be to undermine the integrity and professional compe- tence of faculty, to create a dispiriting mediocrity, and to damage students and their education (p. 51). As Mayhew (1969) justly notes, student participation is not an "intrinsic right." Students must be willing to work and become actively involved in the decision-making process. Eble (1972) observes, however, that some colleges and universities have experienced a lack of student interest and involvement in the decision-making process after they have won committee assignments and representation. The area of student participation in decision-making and university governance has generated considerable interest in the last ten years. Although there is a body of literature presenting arguments opposing student involvement, the major- ity of the arguments published are in support of a broader role of student participation in institutional decision- making. 41 Models pf Institutional Decision-Making A number of models of decision-making and university governance have surfaced in recent literature due to the de— mands of increased efficiency in administrative practice. Three models of university governance have been proposed by Henderson (1967). The first model is a vertical hierarchy of power and authority. The second model is by mediation among subgroups. The third model, which Henderson recommends, is a model of governance through group participation. Sturner (1971) recommends a bicameral legislature, with students in one house and faculty in another. Deegan (1970) further supports a model in which areas of responsibility are more clearly defined or a model consisting of an all- college senate. For the purpose of this research study on the decision-making process in private liberal arts higher edu- cation, there is one particular study which merits close attention. Helsabeck conducted a study in 1971 at four mid- western liberal arts colleges in which he examined the degree to which administrators, faculty, and students participated in institutional decision-making. A report of Helsabeck's study was published in The Compound System: A Conceptual Framework for Effective Decision-Making in Colleges. It is crucial, first of all, to explain the con- ceptual framework which Helsabeck used to characterize the four institutions which he studied. Labels were used to iden- tify these institutions. In order of their decreasing 42 participation in decision-making, they were labeled Political College, Consensus College, Brotherhood College, and Conserva- tive College. Helsabeck describes the four colleges as follows to communicate a sense of the institution's character, which itself becomes a variable: Political College This highly political, highly participatory college demonstrates how conflicts in the allocation of authority can result in legitimacy problems; the advantages and disadvantages of high participation in decisions about resource allocation; and the institutional resources that are gained as a result of high participation in over- all decision-making (p. 29). In general, Political College exhibits a moderately high decision-structure variance and very high decision- structure clarity. Faculty satisfaction with performance under the constitution is low, although satisfaction with the constitution itself is high. Goal formation is weak, as evidenced by the continued discord over the future direc- tions of the institution. Consensus College This college provides an example of a fairly high degree of participation in decision- making with one major difference from Political College: decisions here are made by consensus. One can see evidence that suggests both the importance of shared cultural norms for con- sensus decision-making, and the high degree of effectiveness of organizations able to operate on this basis (p. 30). Consensus College exhibits high consensus and de- cision-structure clarity, and moderately high decision-structure variance. The faculty, students, and administrators are highly satisfied; resource acquisition is fairly high; goal 43 formation is excellent; and goal attainment is good. Brotherhood College This institution provides a graphic example of the effect of cultural homogeneity on both the decision-making structure itself and the effectiveness of cultural homogeneity on both the decision-structure itself and the effectiveness of that structure. Because of what is evidently the reciprocal trust of faculty, students, and administrators, insti- tutional effectiveness is not strongly related to any formally prescribed manner of partici- pation. Legitimacy is extremely high and clarity is not an issue (p. 32). Brotherhood College exhibits high trust; satisfaction is quite high; and decision-structure variance is moderately high. The entire process of decision-making is highly legit- imate; goal formation and attainment is high. Conservative College The evidence from this college suggests that certain benefits can accrue from a system of concurrent regimes; that oligarchic decision- making about resource acquisition has a mixed effect; that the control of information is an effective weapon in the struggle for decision- making prerogatives; and that the clarity of the decision-making structure affects members' satisfaction (p. 33). Conservative College manifests a semi-legitimate structure with variable clarity - high at times, and low at other times. Decision—structure variance is low. Membership satisfaction is medium, but improved, and goal formation and goal consensus is medium low. After constructing four conceptual models which served as a framework for the study of decision—making, Helsabeck reported several findings which emerged from his research. It is clear from his research that "participation", in the sense of including more people in existing 44 decision-making bodies, is a concept which does not adequately reflect the variations in the decision-making process. The centers of decision-making authority must be included, as well as the distribution of participation with these centers. A second major finding of Helsabeck's study revealed that criteria such as external costs, decision-making costs, and the costs of ineptitude should be considered in determining the best arrangement for varying levels of decisions. In varying the decision-making arrangement for different types of decisions, priority must be generated in an attempt to minimize the costs imposed on those left out of the decision- making process, minimize the costs of time and energy ab- sorbed in decision—making, and maximize the use of persons with relevant expertise. A very crucial factor is the evaluation of the insti- tutional environment and expectations that exist before a change in decision-making practices is contemplated, and the expectations that are likely to be engendered by a change in the decision-making process. Helsabeck suggests an additional consideration is the necessity for balancing the multiple dimensions of organi- zational effectiveness which represent sometimes mutually reinforcing and sometimes competing values. 'In structuring a decision-making hierarchy for an institution, consideration must be given to the probable impact on resource acquisition, goal formation, goal attainment, and membership satisfaction. A final focus of attention must be devoted to institutional 45 members' attachment to groups outside the college or univer- sity. It would be impossible to fully understand the internal decision—making dynamics of an institution without an appre- ciation of collective bargaining, professional associations, and governmental agencies. PART III Current Status gf_Private Liberal Arts Education The plight of the privately supported colleges and universities has been a recurring theme in American educa- tional circles in recent years. Private institutions of higher education, especially the smaller liberal arts colleges, are experiencing increasingly serious problems as they attempt to mount viable programs in the face of rapidly escalating costs, competition from public institutions, and multi- directional pressures from high schools, graduate schools, and society at large. It has been the custom to point to some future date when the private colleges and universities will have their moment of truth, although in the meantime most private insti- tutions have continued to survive by gradually increasing their tuition and fees, by cutting back on maintenance and equipment, and by intensifying their efforts to raise funds from foundations and alumni. It is now evident that the dark future so long predicted has finally arrived and has been intensified by economic conditions and declining public confidence in higher 46 education. American private higher education appears to be in a very critical period as evidenced by the volume of commentary in both the public and professional press dealing with some factors such as competition and finance. Jencks and Riesman (1968), for example, have noted that even pres- tigious private colleges are experiencing problems while the "real crisis in private higher education today is among those private institutions that cannot boast any more academic dis- tinction than nearby public universities" (p. 289). The authors feel that over the long run these colleges have very bleak futures. Jencks and Riesman also point out that the small rural private colleges with no particular claim to distinction are in very serious trouble. Chickering conducted a five year Project on Student Development in Small Colleges from 1965 to 1969, in an effort to discover what impact different kinds of colleges had on their students. Chickering (1971) offers some very revealing results from his study: Although many undergraduate colleges no longer act "in loco parentis", for many of their stu- dents they still act "in loco uteri". Like wombs, most colleges, offer a warm and cozy setting where the organism can exist protected from out- side influences until parturition sends him or her screaming into the world (p. 48). This environment has been one factor leading to the demise of some private institutions. They neither accelerate nor retard the development of students. They simply provide a safe haven where it can occur, and do so in the name of education. 47 Writing in the press, Harris (1974) theorizes that the small private liberal arts institutions often seal their own doom. He states that many institutions have brought difficulty upon themselves by trying to be all things to all people, and by vainly competing with the larger and lavishly endowed colleges. Harris suggests that these institutions have thoughtlessly squandered educational resources. Vast sums have been expended for marginal and decorational activities, while such crucial areas as libraries and laboratories have been relatively neglected. Harris explains the problem in the following manner: The school has tended to become a showpiece, a boutonnierre for lapels of the administrators and trustees; and intellectual activity has too often been subordinated to physical gran- deur. One melancholy reason for this is that it has been far easier to raise money for a second athletic field than for the first piece of expensive scientific equipment, for twelve tennis courts than for one comprehensive re- ference library. . . . Now all these academic chickens are coming home to roost. The schools can't pay their heating bills, much less replace the tattered tennis nets. Like the old English ducal estates of the late 19th century, they are land-poor and can't find revenues to keep up with their expen- ditures. It's a crying shame, but those of us who have been crying about it for years, never succeeded in shaming them into scholas- tic sanity (p. 19). Businessmen and efficiency experts have been taking a hard look at liberal arts colleges, in an attempt to find out what is wrong with their operations and why they are so far in the red. A number of them have come up with the same conclusion: measured by business standards and efficiency 48 formulae, the liberal arts colleges are simply bad business operations. Linowitz (1973) postulates that private liberal arts colleges have had the financial crunch coming for a long time. A lot of these institutions have regarded "economy" as a nasty word, and they have been reluctant either to tighten their budgets or to hitch up their braces. He goes on to state the only solution to this impending crisis is simply this: "If colleges want to make ends meet, they will just have to get on a sound, businesslike, efficient operating basis, precisely as in the case of any other organization which is having financial problems (p. 12)." Jellema reports in his book EEQE.§EQ.EQ.§1§EK3 (1973) on the financial status of institutions of higher education. The total deficit reported by 507 colleges and universities in a study in 1969 was ninety-three million dollars. They expected to run additional deficits in the next two years totaling one-hundred seventy-three million dollars or roughly one-hundred four thousand dollars per institution. A study that followed in 1973, revealed that in actuality these same institutions had an average deficit of one-hundred thirty-one thousand dollars - twenty-seven thousand dollars (or twenty-six percent) worse than anticipated (pp. 11-13). Some private institutions, however, continue to evade the whirlpool of current fund deficits. An attractive academic program, an identifiable constituency, favorable geographic location, good administration, and good fortune, all seem to 49 play a role in the precarious condition of these institutions. Similarly, those institutions that are making a comeback are working on as many of these fronts as possible. They are becoming better managers of both income and expenditures; they have attempted to identify specific student markets; and they are presenting attractive academic programs. They are achieving a balanced budget by some expenditure cuts com- bined with continuing income and stable enrollment. After completing a follow-up study on his original sample of institutions, Jellema reports the following: Numerous campus visits, spot checks, and regional meetings undertaken since the first of these data were gathered require this current appraisal: while finances appear generally better in the short run, the prospects show no significant improvement in the long run. A few institutions that rode above the sea of current fund deficits in the late sixties and beginning of the seventies are now experiencing their first deficit years. These are not badly managed institutions; their administrations, moreover, looked carefully at the assigned courses of the plight of their neighbors. But they have still been unable to avoid experiencing the same difficulties . As a reviewer of the financial status of pri- vate institutions, I feel most uneasy about their financial prospects when looking at current and anticipated enrollments (pp. 28-29). There are other problems concerning private liberal arts education which are noted in the literature. One author preposes that there is a "myth of smallness". Poston (1972) eXpresses the view that "uncritically perpetrating the view Ifluit little colleges are better colleges ignores a less thELn idyllic reality (p. 12)." He purports that small insvtitutions are financially strapped; at many the numbers C“‘.faculty have been frozen or reduced; salary lines are 50 being abolished at the upper levels upon retirement and at the lower levels upon nonreappointment of the nontenured. The result is a frightened faculty, a defensive administration, and a demoralized student body. And in some private insti- tutions where there is a lingering but still potent denomi- national influence, the environment is one of paternalistic meddling. In the past half dozen years, some private institu- tions have resorted to promotional gimmicks in an effort to attract money and students. One of the less imaginative but immediately effective remedies for a drop in enrollment is to reduce the standards for applicants. As noted in an article in the National Observer (1971), with this approach affluence or privilege are the deciding factors rather than merit, and the college has eroded the ideal of quality education. There have been "drummed up programs" for minority and disadvantaged students, which often are a subtle attempt to emulate special programs at large universities. Geiger (1971) mentions that even more serious in its consequences for the private colleges in the long run is a proposal now gaining attention that undergraduate programs be reduced from four years to three. This type of approach w