fl-fi SELECTED“. ORIENTATiGN‘ Am EN-SERViCE EDW‘NQN OF EEFARTMENT CHAERMEN BR SELECTED SCHGOLS N45 COLLEGES OF EDUCATEON “was {or Hm Dogma 0? pk. D. MECEEGRN STATE WHERE“ Tho-mas 1H. Euglund 1967 “’1 Lots 0-169. LIBRARY l"? Michigan State a U ' ~«-'~ _‘a‘ mvtuiuzhy (Fl; .imnwnt‘-msmr (a, n:- t u :11 um; lflzfllillflllltl H» 11: mun fl! "nan"; lfllj I11 ll L This is to certify that the i thesis entitled ' _ ; 4'. The Selection, Orientation, and In-service Education of Department Chairmen in Selected Schools and Colleges of Education i '_ V 5 presented by Thomas Howard Englund has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Administration and degree inJigheLEJUCation fix/M / Major professor Ph.D. Dam August 17, 1967 ABSTRACT THE SELECTION, ORIENTATION, AND IN-SERVICE EDUCATION OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRMEN IN SELECTED SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES OF EDUCATION by Thomas H. Englund The purposes of the study were to identify current procedures for the selection, orientation, and in-service education of department chairmen, and to solicit suggestions for ways in which these activities might ideally be conducted. Deans and department chairmen of schools and colleges of education at seven Midwestern state-supported universities were interviewed; where applicable, members of faculty search committees were also included. n In one school of education, chairmen are elected for three year terms by their respective departments; this was the simplest selection procedure. At another institution, departments ballot to indicate preferences for chairmen; the dean consults with the chief administrative officer before making an appointment. Three of the colleges of education select chairmen through the use of search committees composed of several faculty members and appointed by the dean. The committees Thomas H. Englund generally conduct a broad search for candidates and for information about them. Those seeming to have the greatest potential, if they are "outsiders," are brought to the respective campuses for interviews. Ultimately, the search committee makes a recommendation to the dean who, if he accepts the nomination, seeks approval from the chief aca- demic officer and the president, and final appointment from the board of control. The other two institutions select chairmen by methods falling between a simple election and a nationwide search in complexity. It was found that virtually all selections are made within the schools or colleges, with approval of upper- echelon administrators and the board of control being for the most part a formality. In many instances, the dean also plays only a small role in selection, so that it can almost be said selections are made by the departments. None of the chairmen interviewed had initiated their own candidacies for the position. They generally claimed to have had very little interest in being a chairman. The study bore out an assumption derived from profes- sional literature that the role of the chairman influences the method of his selection. At those institutions where the chairmen are key administrative leaders of their depart— ments, selection procedures are comprehensive and involve Thomas H. Englund much time and effort on the part of many individuals. Where the chairman's role is more that of a presiding officer for departmental functions, the selection process tends to be less involved. The attribute which seems most necessary for a new chairman is an ability to work with a variety of types of people; e.g., faculty, students, and other administrators. The other attribute mentioned several times was his competence; the chairman apparently does not have to be the leading scholar in his field, but he must at least be able to command the respect of his colleagues. Orientation and in-service education programs tend to be handled in an informal manner. The former, if conducted at all, often consist of sessions between the dean and the new chairman to help the chairman understand university procedures and the programs of the college. At two insti— tutions, secretaries were given credit for playing a signifi— cant part in orienting new chairmen. The most frequent in-service education program is for the dean to hold regular meetings with his staff and the chairmen. Usually, the meetings deal with long—range plan- ning and the programs of the college rather than daily operational concerns. A conclusion of the study was that all chairmen need some orientation to their positions, and that the dean is Thomas H. Englund ultimately responsible for providing it. Also more effort and resources should be devoted to in-service education programs to allow the chairmen, individually and as a group, to become as effective as possible in their positions. THE SELECTION, ORIENTATION, AND IN-SERVICE EDUCATION OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRMEN IN SELECTED SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES OF EDUCATION By 5 < 00’ Thomas HE Englund 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 1967 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author owes a debt of gratitude to many people who have been instrumental in bringing him to the completion of this dissertation. Among them are: Dr. Richard Featherstone, a warm, sensitive person who gave much assistance and encouragement throughout the past three years; Dr. Van Johnson, Dr. Walter Johnson, Dr. James McKee, and Dr. Maurice Seay, each of whom contributed advice and professional expertise whenever called upon; Mrs. Lorraine Scarborough who willingly tolerated many interruptions and inconveniences to make life easier for a perplexed graduate student; Dr. Roger Shuy who took time from his busy schedule to read the manuscript and offer suggestions; My wife Sue without whose many long hours of work and patient, loving encouragement this project might never have been completed; Mon and Dad who have always given generously of their love, their sustenance, and their prayers. ii CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM. . I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. II. REVIEW I. II. III. Statement of the Problem. Definition of Terms . . Objectives of the Study . Research Questions. . . The Proce dure . . Limitations of the Study. Overview of the Study . OF THE LI The Chair Selection TERATURE man. . o Orientation and In-service Education. III. CASE STUDIES . . I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. Alpha Uni Beta Univ versity. ersity . Epsilon University. . . Gamma Uni Kappa Uni Phi Unive Sigma Uni versity. versity. rsity. . versity. IV. THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ANSWERED. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. Research Research Research Research Research Research Research Research Research Chapter S Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question ummary . iii One . Two . Three Four. Five. Six . Seven Eight Nine. 44 45 50 56 60 69 75 80 88 88 95 97 100 101 105 105 107 109 TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued CHAPTER Page V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . 110 I. General Principles for Selection of Department Chairmen. . . . . . . . . . 111 II. General Principles for Orientation and In-service Education of Department Chairmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 III. Recommendations for Further Research . 117 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 iv LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX Page A. Letter to Deans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 B. Lists of Interview Questions . . . . . . . . 131 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM As American institutions of higher education have grown increasingly more complex, they have been faced with finding new and better ways to administer their affairs effectively. Brubacher and Rudy have placed the evolution of administra- tion in higher education within an historical perspective and, in doing so, have discussed the proliferation of admin- istrative officers since the era when "instructional and administrative duties were united in one person, the president-"1 Tutors were the first additions to college staffs, with professors coming at a later date; the role of these new staff members was to assist the president in in- structional responsibilities and in handling administrative affairs. President and faculty exercised legislative, executive, and judicial functions; they decided academic policies, executed them, and sat in judgment on their infringe- ment. . . . The smaller the college remained, the longer it was possible for president and faculty to preserve this democratic organization. The larger the college grew, especially the larger its faculty grew, the more it became necessary to specialize and delegate duties.2 1‘John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education in Transition (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 19587, p. 553. 21bid., p. 554. One result of such specialization was the development of academic departments. Initially, compartmentalization served merely as a convenient means of organizing academic instruction, but with the impact of German research methods and the development of the elective curriculum, both of which allowed for increased specialization, departmental organization became an established way of life in American higher education. Contemporary colleges and universities find themselves faced with increasingly difficult problems related to insti- tutional size and academic specialization. With respect to size, the 1960's have Seen the influx of great numbers of students, both because the post-World War II "baby boom" came of age and because a greater percentage of high school graduates is now going on to college. Consequently, insti- tutions have had to expand rapidly in order to cope with the numbers of students desiring admission. Likewise, specialization has continued apace. Lucrative research opportunities, new fields of knowledge, and greater complexity in traditional fields of study have all contribut- ed to the isolation of academic areas from each other. Such forces of growth and specialization have brought academic departments greater status within colleges and uni- versities, and one consequence is that policy formulation and implementation is no longer carried out only by the central administration. Corson has analyzed the problem as follows: Since Prof. George Ticknor proposed that Harvard be organized by departments early in the last century, American higher education has had a growth character— ized not only by a tremendous increase in students, but also by a concomitant increase in academic sub- jects. These subjects have become highly specialized and complex as man's increasing grasp of his physical and cultural environment has taken amazing strides unheard of in previous centuries. The result is that departments not only enjoy a large degree of administrative autonomy, but are highly specialized in subject. The specialists who comprise their staffs tend to be the only ones who have sufficient grasp of their content for intelligent decision making. Indeed, some departments include a number of specialists who are unable to communicate with one another! Central institutional leadership faces a very effective barrier imposed by the inability of administrators to comprehend the work of individual departments sufficiently to impose policies and personnel.3 Assuming, then, that the department is a viable, dynamic unit in higher education, it seems appropriate also to assume that the department chairman is in a key position to provide leadership for the academic enterprise carried on therein. Patton, in an editorial from the Journal of Higher Education, leaves little doubt about how highly he rates the chairman's functions: No one plays a larger part in determining the character of higher educational institutions than the department chairman. At least this is true in large institutions. The chairman is not often conspicuous as chairman in the public image of his institution unless he is also 3John J. Corson, Governance of Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960), pp. 86,87; c.f., Neal Gross, "Organizational Lag in American Universities," HarvardtgducationalyReview. 55:58-75 (Winter, 1965) and David Fellman, "The Departmental Chairman," unpublished paper prepared for the annual conference of the Association for Higher Education, Chicago, March 6, 1967. conspicuous as an individual regardless of his chair- manship. But that does net alter the fact that to those in a position to know, department chairmen collectively do more to establish the inner quality of an institu- tion than any other element in the composite institu- tional structur . If metaphors can be mixed and if all chairmen who read this will be more than humanly toler- ant, the chairman can be likened to a combination of housemother, queen bee, and departmental midwife.‘ Hughes is more restrained when he states, "I would estimate that a first-class department head can increase the efficiency of a department from ten to twenty per cent or even more,"5 but even this milder statement supports the posi- tion that chairmen are vital elements in an institution's administrative structure. If one accepts the above argument, it then must be im- portant for administrators and faculty members to be con- cerned about the selection of chairmen and about the process of preparing new chairmen to be as effective as possible in their positions. Because these do seem to be concenns worthy of attention, the current dissertation will be related to the problems of selection, orientation, and in-service education of department chairmen. With respect to the selection of chairmen, Woodburne has made the following statement: ‘Robert D. Patton, "The Department Chairman," The Journal of Higherggducation, 32:459-61, November, 1961. 5Raymond M. Hughes writing in Problems of College and University Administration, authored by Frank L. McVey and Raymond M. HughesITAmes, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1952), p. 108. One of the most crucial of all the decisions made by a college concerns the selection of the executive officer or chairman of each department of instruction. If a dean cannot perform this responsibility with success and judgment, a lot of his other efforts will necessarily come to nought.6 Patton, after reviewing the importance of having highly qualified department chairman and noting the current inade- quacies in selection procedures, states, It may be time for colleges and universities to give greater recognition to the importance of department chairmen and closer scrutiny to the conditions of their appointment.7 Furthermore, evidence from fields such as business and industry indicates that there is a need for orientation and in-service education of administrative personnel; a great leap of the imagination is not required to conclude that this is also true for the preparation of effective department chairmen. Merely learning to cope with a maze of adminis- trative policies, forms, and other minutiae may be a signifi- cant undertaking for a newcomer. Even if one had been familiar with such procedures at another institution, insti- tutional eccentricities will probably dictate that he begin learning anew. Additionally, a new chairman could perhaps learn much about interpersonal relations, personnel manage- ment, and other tools of effective leadership from other eLloyd S. Woodburne, Principles of College and Univer- sit Administration (Stanford, California: Stanford Univer- sity Press, 1958 , p. 44. 7Patton, 93. cit., p. 461. resources within his institution if his academic and/or professional background had not prepared him for an admin- istrative position. On the basis of the preceding, it is possible to make an explicit statement of the problem for the current study. I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The problem to be dealt with in this study is to dis- cover and analyze procedures for the selection, orienta- tion, and in-service education of department chairmen in schools and colleges of education at several large Midwest- ern state universities. The procedures are studied both from the perspective of how they are actually conducted and of how they might be improved. Before moving from this very general statement of the problem to the more specific objectives of the study and the research questions, it is necessary to define explicitly several terms to be used throughout the remainder of the study. II. DEFINITION.OF.TERMS In order to make very specific the meanings of certain terms as used in the current study, the following defini- tions have been adopted: Department. "An administrative subdivision of a school or college giving instruction in a branch of study. . . ."8 Chairman. In general, "chairman" will subsume officers designated as "chairman," "head," "director," or any other title used for the chief administrative officer of an academic department. When reference is made to a Specific individual not designated by his institution as "chairman" or to a source in the literature using designations other than "chairman," the appropriate title will be used. Selection process. This term will include those steps which begin with knowledge of an impending vacancy in a chairman- ship and which lead up to, and terminate with, the appoint- ment of a successor to the position. Orientation. ."Orientation" will designate any short term program which is carried out by individuals other than the incoming chairman to prepare the latter for assumption of the responsibilities of his office. Short term program. Included herein will be programs con- ducted in the period of time between a new chairman's appointment to office and the completion of his first month in the position. In-service education. This will denote any long term program carried out to assist chairmen in gaining skills and aCarter V. Good, editor, Dictionary of Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Incorporated, 1959), p. 162. knowledge which will lead to more effective performance of their duties. Longgtermgprogram. Any program continuing beyond a chairman's first month in office will be considered long term. Program. Any and all efforts, regardless of the degree of formality or informality, which are conducted by individuals other than new chairmen to provide orientation and/or in- service education for the latter will be considered "programs." The terms defined above, with the problem statement pre- sented previously, make it possible to list the objectives of the study and then to present the research questions. III. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The above discussion has indicated that the current dis- sertation is concerned with three areas--the selection, orientation, and in-service education of departmental chair- men--and that these concerns are approached from two view- points--actual and ideal programs. The objectives of the study may then be summarized as follows: 1. To collect and report information relative to pro- grams of selection, orientation, and in-service education of chairmen in selected Schools and Colleges of Education. 2. To obtain and report suggestions from the respondents regarding ideal programs of selection, orientation, and in-service education of department chairmen. 5. To draw from the collected information principles and/or programs of selection, orientation, and in- service education which may have some degree of general application, These objectives readily lead to the research questions which were deve10ped to guide the collection and analysis of information. IV. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Because the current study is primarily exploratory in nature , research questions rather than hypotheses were used to guide the collection and analysis of information. The following questions were studied: 1. 10. What processes are used for selection of departmental chairmen in the Schools and Colleges of Education studied? What individuals and/or groups are involved in the selection? To what extent is each involved? How is the selection process influenced by an insti- tution's appraisal of the chairmen's role? What are the critical questions of concern when selecting a new chairman? What kinds of qualifications and background are brought to their positions by new chairmen? What suggestions can be elicited for ideal selection procedures? What programs of orientation and/or in-service edu- cation are provided for chairmen? Where do the chairmen feel their orientation and in-service education for the position were weak? What suggestions can be elicited for ideal orienta- tion and in-service education programs for department chairmen? What general principles and programs of selection, orientation, and in-service education, if any, can be drawn from the information? 10 The next step in developing background for the current study is to describe the procedure used to gather information relating to the above research questions. V. THE PROCEDURE Letters were written to the deans of Schools and Colleges of Education at eight Midwestern state-supported universities.9 The deans were asked to provide lists of chairmen who had acceded to their current positions within the past five years and names of faculty members who served on selection committees where these were active in selecting the chairmen; the deans were also asked to send, by return mail, any departmental, college, or university documents relating to selection, orien- tation, or in-service education of department chairmen (see copy of letter in Appendix A). Seven of the eight deans re5ponded; subsequent contact with the eighth revealed that certain administrative problems caused him to decide not to participate in the study. Three sets of questions were developed for use in inter- viewing the deans, chairmen, and members of search committees (see Appendix B). When the questions had been reviewed by 9The eight universities are large, complex institutions, each having an enrollment in excess of 25,000 students. The Schools and Colleges of Education offer only one segment of their reSpective curricula. Historically, training and re- search in the field of education have not been the major focuses of these universities. (A list of the universities is available from the investigator.) ' 11 members of the author's guidance committee and had been given a trial in interviews at the author's institution, appointments were made for interviews at the other six insti- tutions. The decision was made to interview the dean of each School or College of Education, two department chairmen from each School or College, and two members of search committees at each institution using such committees. Although all deans had provided names of more than two chairmen, it was felt that the desired information could be obtained from two interviews. The criteria utilized in selecting the chairmen to be interviewed at each institution were quite simple: 1) to arrange schedules convenient to the interviewees and to the author; and 2) to obtain a miscellaneous sampling of chair- men from various types of departments or "disciplines" within the Schools and Colleges of Education. This latter was done to learn if there are differences in selection procedures by type of department or if the differences are largely among institutions, not departments. The author traveled to each of the seven institutions to conduct the necessary interviews; these were tape-recorded and later transcribed for use in analyzing the data. The individuals interviewed were: Deans of five of the Schools and Colleges of Education; an associate dean at one institution where the dean was recuperating from major surgery; and a 12 director of a School of Education (see the case study of Beta University in Chapter III). Two department chairmen at each of the seven institutions. Representatives of two selection committees at each of the three institutions utilizing such committees. (At two institutions, the interviewees were faculty members. At the third, the Associate Dean and one of the chairmen discussed procedures of the selection com- mittees; the Associate Dean and the chairman were also included in the above two categories.) Lest too much be assumed from the information gathered and reported in succeeding chapters of this study, it is important to consider some of the limitations imposed by the procedure adopted. VI. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Because of the restricted sample used for this study, interpretation of the results must be kept in proper perspec- tive. Certainly there would be differences in procedures utilized at institutions other than these studied and even within other divisions of the seven included in the current study; and since the suggestions for "ideal" programs are merely opinions given by the interviewees, other opinions would undoubtedly be elicited in a more extensive study. Therefore, it is not claimed that the data obtained represent a broad cross-section of institutional practice or of personal Opinions. Nevertheless, the principles and procedures derived from the interviews and documents may be useful as guidelines in settings other than those studied. Problems of personnel 13 selection, orientation, and in-service education bear a degree of similarity from department to department and from institution to institution. To some extent, therefore, the findings of the current study may have broad application. Local circumstances and individual preferences will dictate when and where modifications are desirable. VII. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY In this first chapter, the author has attempted to sub- stantiate the assumption that chairmen are important figures in the administration of higher education and to indicate the resultant need for adequate procedures of selection, orientation, and in-service education. To prepare a founda— tion for the study, the problem to be dealt with has been stated, terms have been defined, objectives outlined, research questions raised, the procedure described, and certain limi- tations suggested. In the second chapter, the professional and research literature relating to the chairman and to his selection, orientation, and in-service education is reviewed. Case studies written from interview data are presented in the third chapter. The fourth chapter contains answers to nine of the ten research questions developed for the study; the answers are summaries of information gathered from inter- views and documents. The fifth and final chapter presents conclusions and recommendations drawn from the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In the previous chapter the author has attempted to develop the assumptions that departmental chairmen are vital functionaries in the administration of higher educational institutions and that careful consideration needs to be given to their selection, orientation, and in-service educa- tion. In this chapter the current literature regarding chairmen is reviewed; general information about the chairman and his functions is summarized in the first section, and the remainder of the chapter considers the areas of concern to the current study. I. THE CHAIRMAN A major portion of the extant literature relating to the departmental chairmanship is drawn from individuals' observations and/or biases about what the job is, or what it should be, with a smaller body of material being derived from empirical studies on various aspects of the chairman's position. ’ It has been noted above under "Definition of Terms" that the current study uses the term "chairman" in a general manner to include all chief administrative officers of 14 15 departments except when a particular individual or piece of literature is referred to. This practice will be followed fpr the sake of convenience in writing, but it does not deny the existence of debate about whether departments should have "chairmen" or “heads," with the distinction being essentially related to the administrative philosophy of a particular institution. "Head" generally implies appointment by, and responsibility to, the upper echelons of administra- tive authority, and "chairman" connotes selection primarily by faculty members of the department and an increased degree of accountability to them.‘ It has been suggested that the chairmanship is a diffi- cult position in that the chairman is too often squeezed between supposedly conflicting pressures: he may face dif- fering demands from upper level administrators and from faculty; he may desire to pursue scholarly matters but not have time because of administrative duties; or he may sense a need for aggressive leadership within the department and a simultaneous need for faculty members to have a substantial J'See Ned W. Bowler, "Who Should Be in Charge of the Department-~Head or Chairman?" Journalgof Higher_§ducation, 55:515-518 (June, 1962); Kirk H. Porter, “Department Head or Chairman?" American Agsociation of University Professors Bulletin, 47:559-42 (Winter, 1961); Frank L. McVey and , Raymond M. Hughes, Problems of College and University Adminis- tration (Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1952), p. 108; Richard C. Richardson, Jr., "Departmental Leadership in the Two-year College," paper presented at the annual confer- ence of the Association for Higher Education, Chicago, March 6, 1967, mimeographed. 16 2 Fellman summarizes the situation as degree of freedom. follows: "Thus, the chairman has one foot in administration while keeping his other foot in teaching and related activi- ties. In_a.very real sense he stands at the point where administrative powers impinge upon the professors.“3 He may attempt to become all things to all people but end up not satisfying anyone. Several writers have attempted to define the character- istics and functions of departmental chairmen. One such attempt consisted of listing eighty-five items which would, it was suggested, "describe the ideal department head."4 Less ambitious undertakings have dwelt on characteristics such as professional attitude, the ability to solve inter- personal problems, an awareness of change and the need to cope with it, and other general attributes. The functions of the chairman have been described in terms of his relation- ships to students, to faculty (in his own and in other depart- ments), to other administrators, and to the institution‘s 2Bowler, 22, cit., and Neal Gross, "Organizational Lag in American Universities," Harvard Educational Review, 55:58-73 (Winter, 1965). 3David Fellman, "The Departmental Chairman,“ paper pre- sented at the annual conference of the Association for Higher Education, Chicago, March 6, 1967, mimeographed, p. 4. 4I. David Satlow, "Profile of the Successful Department Head," Business Education World, 45:14-16 (April, 1965). 17 5 In light of the chairman's varied responsi- various publics. bilities and allegiances, one author suggests that he (the chairman) has very few absolutes by which to operate: "Tradition is probably a great factor in defining his prerog- atives in any given institution."6 It is not surprising that some persons have reacted to the vicissitudes of the chairmanship by expressing no desire to hold such a position. One faculty member has gone on record as believing that being a chairman would necessarily 7 and another--an ex- have a bad effect on one's character, chairman--has stated that the "first degredation" to fall upon a creative scholar "is to become a department chairman" (and "his ultimate degradation is to become a dean").8 5See Elmer R. Browning, "The Ideal Department Chairman," The National Business Education Quarterly, 50:42-47 (May, 1962); Lars G. Cromdall, "The College Department Chairman," The National Business Education Quarterly, 29:55-58+ (May, 1961); Harry Jasinski, "What Is Expected of a College Depart- ment Chairman?" The National Business Educationgguarterly, 29:39-45+ (May, 1961); Edward V. Stanford, "Functional Faculty Units," 2E9 Catholic Educational Review, 61:78-84 (February, 1963): John D. Millett, The Academic Community (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962), pp. 82-89. 6Ralph E. Heiges, "Functioning Department Heads in Colleges of Medium Size," Peabody Journal of Education, 55: 154-59 (November, 1955). 1H. L. Creek, "Head of a Department," American Associ- ation g; University Professors Bulletin, 56:81-96 (Spring, 1950). 8Robert B. MacLeod, "Confession of an Ex-chairman," American Association of University Professors Bulletin, 40:424-51 (Autumn, 1954). p- 427. 18 Some authors have endeavored to study in depth particu— lar aspects of the chairmanship rather than attempt to cover all phases of its responsibilities. One researcher showed that a department may have "a campus reputation with respect "9 another to the quality of departmental administration, indicated that chairmen almost always are the initiators of requests for promotions,10 and another concluded that chair- men may become mere "spectators of a separate operation" with respect to the handling of research grants within their departments.11 Several doctoral theses have been focused on phenomena related to the chairman. Some of these are McKenna's study of "power" and its affect on interpersonal relationships,12 Patterson's study of administrative styles,13 Shuart's study 9John K. Hemphill, "Leadership Behavior Associated with the Administrative Reputation of College Departments," The Joggnal of Educational Egychology, 46:585-401 (November, 1955), p. 592. loJohn W. Gustad, "Policies and Practices in Faculty Evaluation," Egucational Record, 42:194-211 (July, 1961). 11Ross L. Mooney, "The Problem of Leadership in the Uni- versity," Harvagd Educational Review, 55:42-57 (Winter, 1965). laDavid Loren McKenna, "A Study of Power and Interpersonal Relationships in the Administration of Higher Education," unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Michigan, 1958. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, 19:1275 (December, 1958). 13Laura Marguerite Patterson, "Preferences in Adminis- trative Styles Based on an Inquiry into Perceptions of the Ideal Structure of the University Department and the Ideal Role of the Department Chairman," unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Texas, 1966. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, 27:504-A (August, 1966). f',‘ I 19 14 and Gunter's study of differing of value-orientations, responsibilities at large versus small institutions.15 Doyle's dissertation, which later was published in book form, is the most comprehensive study of departmental 6 The chairmen surveyed were from thirty— chairmen to date.1 three private liberal arts colleges; data were solicited about their place in the college organization, their duties, and their relationships to the administration, the faculty, and the students. An early chapter deals with the selection process for chairmen; this will be discussed in a later section of the current chapter. II. SELECTION With the growth of a highly technical society and the complex organizations which are important aspects of that society, individuals repreSenting many fields of endeavor have been concerned about the selection of qualified personnel to carry out the work of their organizations. In this section 14James M. Shuart, "Some Value-orientations of Academic Department Chairman: A Study of Comparative Values and Administrative Effectiveness," unpublished doctoral thesis, New York University, 1966. Abstract and Bibliography pro- vided by'the author. “m”- 15Craig Glenn Gunter, "The Role of Departmental Chairmen in the Governance of State Universities," unpublished doctoral thesis, Washington State University, 1964. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, 25:2826 (November, 1964). 16Edward A. Doyle, The Status and Functions of the Eeparppgntal Chairman: A Study of the Status and Function of the Departmental Chairman in Thirty-three Selected Colleges under Private Auspices (Washington, D. C.: Catholic Univer- sity of America, 1955). 20 of the literature review therefore, attention will be given to the writings of administration Specialists, first from fields outside of education, then from the realm of adminis- tration in higher education, and, finally, from those con- cerned specifically with department chairmen. Contripgtions from outside Education In a book first published in 1916, Henri Fayol described management as being "concerned with drawing up the broad plan of operations of the business, with assemblying personnel, [and with] coordinating and harmonizing effort and activity."17 Assuming some parallels between the concerns of management as Fayol defined them for business and industry and those of higher educational administration, it may also be assumed that writers in the field of management can contribute insights to education in the matter of selection procedures. Fayol himself wrote that selection is one of the “most important and most difficult of business activities." He saw one of the managerial duties of an organization being to "arrange for efficient selection [because] each department must be headed by a competent, energetic man, each employee must be in that place where he can render greatest service."18 Urwick, another early writer in the field of adminis- tration, suggested that an administrator will spend extensive 17Henri Fayol, General and Industrial Management (London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd., 1949). Pp. 5, 6. 18Ibid., pp. 78, 54. 21 periods of time evaluating the respective strengths and weaknesses of two machines before buying one of them, but in selection of personnel he will rely upon "a rough check of written applications which are usually meant to make the most of the truth, and half an hour's interview with each of three selected candidates." The usual process of selection and placement is described as being very inadequate in light of the impact which individuals have on an organization. In Urwick's opinion "the lighthearted and frequently irrelevant processes through which these vital tasks [of selection and placement] are performed often defy comment.“19 A paper prepared by Flanagan for a conference on industrial research outlined the steps in selection procedures for research personnel as being: (1) "to obtain a precise definition of the job"; (2) to list critical requirements for the worker; and (5) to locate or develop instruments which will measure an individual's potential for meeting the require— ments.20 This process reflects the position taken by Miller and Form when they say, "The problem of matching men and women with jobs becomes a problem of identifying the salient 19Lyndall F. Urwick, The Elements, E Administration (New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1954), p. 82. 20John C. Flanagan, "Selection Techniques for Research Workers," in Selection, TrainingL and Use of Personnel in Industpial Research, David B. Hertz, editor (New York: King‘s Crown Press, 1952), pp. 45-61. 22 qualities of the worker, the work position, and the group in reference to each work situation.“21 The American Management Association has published a two- volume set entitled Selection of Management Personnel in which there is an extensive review of selection processes, both from practical experiences gained by various companies and from a number of empirical research studies. In attempt- ing to appraise the problem of selecting managers, the editors state: Acquiring management talent is an altogether dif- ferent matter from acquiring physical assets. Physical assets can easily be duplicated, management talent not so easily. Moreover, a mistake is not quickly mended. The problem, therefore, is how to improve selection methods, not whether it should be done.22 With this statement setting the tone for the remainder of the two volumes, four basic principles "that must guide policy formulation" in selecting management talent are given: 1. The field of potential candidates must be surveyed as widely as possible. The local arena is often too restricted. 2. The complexity of the qualifications leading to managerial success must be recognized. This, in turn, will make apparent the need to analyze the particular job which is open, to use a battery of evaluation methods, and to provide extensive train- ing for even the best-qualified candidate. 21Delbert C. Miller and William H. Form, Industrial Sociglogv (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951), p. 412. 22M. Joseph Dooher and Elizabeth Marting, Selection of Management Personnel (New York: American Management Associ- ation, Inc., 1957), vol. I, p. 17. 25 5. The selection program must be administered in a way which will lead to confidence in the final choice, will eliminate "one-man" judgments, and will enhance company morale. 4. Emphasis in selection needs to be on the skills, abilities, and personal characteristics of the candidate, not on rigid experience or education requirements.23 The foregoing general considerations drawn from writers primarily concerned with management in business and industry provide a background for looking more specifically at selec- tion of administrators in higher education. Selection 0; Academic Administrators other than Chairmen There is evidence to indicate that concern such as has been reviewed with respect to personnel from business and industry also exists in the matter of selection processes for administrators in higher education. U.C.L.A. Chancellor Franklin Murphy says that "'attracting high-quality academic administrators is the biggest problem in American universi- ties today.”24 Bolman has discussed the unsophisticated ways in which academic personnel are recruited and states that it may cost an institution $10,000 or more "to find the right man to do the right professional job."25 23EEEQ., p. 18. The principles have been summarized for clarity and emphasis. 24Anonymous, "The Pursuit of Presidents, Time, vol. 89, no. 15, p. 74 (April 14, 1967). 25Frederick dew. Bolman, Jr., "Placing America's Highly Skilled Manpower: College Faculty and Administrators," Educational Record, 45:295-500 (October, 1962). 24 Some myths surrounding personnel selection in higher education were ridiculed by Shimkin in a letter to the editor of Science.26 He suggested that openings are often kept semi-secret because publicizing them openly "is thought to be beneath the dignity of the institution, and to limit in some way its independence and freedom of choice,“ and he went on to state, "Direct application by candidates appears to be a mark of unseemly aggressiveness, not worthy of a person of high, self-evident merit." In Shimkin's opinion, selection ought to be more open and honest, both for the sake of the institution and the candidate. He recommended that open announcements of positions be made, and that candi- dates be invited to apply for positions on the basis of stated qualifications. Bolman described a plan which he has used in the search for academic personnel. The basic steps are these: 1. Opening--recognize that there will be one. 2. Scouting--prepare a job specification sheet; obtain suggestions of candidates from all available sources. 5. Screening--a "paperwork" step including application forms, professional contacts, dossiers from place- ment agencies, recommendations, etc. 4. Interviewing—-by the department involved, faculty committees, the dean, the president, etc. 5. Selection--involving appropriate individuals and/or committees. 26.Michael B. Shimkin, "Personnel Selection in Academic Institutions," Science, 145:657 (February 14, 1964). 27Bolman, pp, cit. 25 The University of California at Berkeley makes use of "academic-administrators" in posts which include department chairmen, directors of research units, deans, vice-Chancellors, and all other administrative officers holding faculty appoint- ments. The hyphenated title implies that the individual is a part-time administrator and is expected to maintain some activity in teaching and research for the period of time dur- ing which he holds an administrative responsibility. The selection process seeks to locate those individuals who com- bine effectively "the facultative and the administrative“ elements.28 The American Council on Education, sensing the unique considerations arising in the selection of college presidents, has sponsored a study related to that problem. Frederick Bolman conducted the study using a questionnaire survey of 116 newly appointed presidents and interviews with a number of board members, professors, alumni, administrators, new presidents themselves, and officials of educational organiza- tions, government agencies, and foundations. Perhaps the following paragraph best summarizes the situation which A.C.E. perceived to be in need of correction: The absence of rules, of a planned procedure for going about the business of finding and selecting a president, seems to account for the principal problems encountered by boards of trustees, faculties, and their search committees. And, by inference, one can conclude 28E. W. Strong, "Shared Responsibility," American Associ- éfiion of University Professors Bulletin, 49:109-115 (June, 1965). 26 that it accounts, also, for at least some of the bad presidential choices that, on occasion, colleges and universities have made.29 In making his final recommendations, Bolman presents a check- list of fifteen points which, when modified to fit specific institutional needs, includes the elements of a selection program. The procedure begins with appointment of an acting president; proceeds through appointment and meetings of committees, review of candidates, and steps necessary for final appointment; and ends with a review of the procedure used.30 Following a systematic procedure such as that described by Bolman may reduce the anxiety level expressed in an article written for Time during a period when three hundred American colleges and universities were in need of presidents: . . . a college's pursuit of a new president frequently becomes a panicky, yearlong canvass for the right man that involves trustees, alumni, administrators, pro- fessors, and even students, who are increasingly being invited to submit recommendations. "The labor pains of the search," says Columbia Administrator Clifford Nelson, "are just holy hell.“3l Another administrator about whose selection there has been concern is the academic dean. Gould, in a study of 166 deans at a variety of types of institutions, found that only .in approximately one-third of the cases was the faculty 29Frederick dew. Bolman, How College Presidents Are Chosen, (Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1965), pp. 47-51. 3°Ibid. 31Anonymous, "The Pursuit of Presidents," Time, loc. cit. 27 officially involved in choosing the new dean.32 In his doctoral thesis, DiBella studied the selection of deans of graduate professional schools.33 Of the sixty- seven deans who responded, thirty-two had been chosen from within the parent institution, and 55 from other institutions. Consistent with Shimkin's comments noted above, only two had initiated their own candidacies for the appointment. DiBella found that a candidate from within the searching institution focused on certain questions more than did an individual from outside the institution; this phenomenon seemed to be related to the degree of familiarity a candidate had with the institution-—if he was an "insider" he already knew the answers to some questions. The study found a variety of practices utilized by the various schools. Different individuals were involved, the length of the process varied, the resources utilized were not the same, and so on. A few of the deans indicated that they could see some need to revamp the selection process, whereas institutional representatives other than the deans made no suggestions for change. 32John Wesley Gould, The AcademicgEeanship (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univer- sity, 1964). PP. 85, 94, 95. 33Edward Engel DiBella, The Graduate Professional_pean-- Selection, Role, and Relationships (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, Inc., 1965). 28 Selection of Eepgrtment Chairmen Much of the literature's discussion relating to the selection of department chairmen centers about the attitude an individual or an institution holds regarding the appro- priate role of the chairman once he assumes his office. Although several writers have discussed this situation, the following statements from Patton’s editorial summarize:it well: The chairman may be appointed by senior administrative officers and serve at will. In such situations, the powers noted as deriving from the chairman become in fact secondary derivations from the powers of higher administrative echelons. . . . At the other extreme, the chairman may be elected by the departmental staff and serve for a definite term, perhaps three to five years. In such situations, the power, prestige, and responsibility of the depart- ment become dispersed. The department becomes virtual- ly a collective enterprise. A chairman who knows when the end of his period of service will arrive can have little incentive to make of his departmental duties a project in personal fulfillment. . . . More of the work is likely to be spread among committees and delegated to office staff. Such continuity of policy as a department may achieve will be the result of collective rather than individual judgments.34 In the former case, authority may be more centralized, the incumbent is almost certain to hold the rank of full pro- fessor, and there is probably a significant differential be- tween the chairman's salary and that of other high-ghnking departmental staff members. In the latter, the chairman possibly acts only as a spokesman for the faculty, with 34'Robert D. Patton, "The Department Chairman," Journal of Higher Education, 52:459-61 (November, 1961), p. 461. 29 authority being distributed among several faculty committees, and the man holding the chairmanship may not necessarily be the outstanding individual in the department.35 Richardson has said that departmental chairmen in two- year institutions are more likely to be appointed and hold office at the pleasure of the administration than are their counterparts at four-year institutions. The appointment is most often made without consulting departmental faculty, and the chairmen are usually viewed by administrators as members of the administrative team.36 The practice of using departmental committees for policy formulation may be particularly wise when chairmanships are rotated periodically; the committees may then provide a de- gree of continuity for departmental programs.37 But for such a procedure to be effective, Woodburne cautions that there is a necessary prerequisite, that being the presence of a "first-class senior staff so that it doesn't make too much difference who signs the departmental communication."38 Similarly, Euwema has taken the position that the policy for selection of a chairman ought to be related to the 35See Bowler, pp, cit., Porter, pp, cit., McVey and Hughes, pp, cit. 36Richardson,pp_. cit., p. 4. 37Cromdall, pp, cit. 3.aLloyd S. Woodburne, Principles of ColEegg and Univer- sity Administration (Stanford, California: Stanford Univer- sity Press, 1958), p. 45. 50 quality of the department: In the best departments,the entire procedure of selec- tion may quite safely be left to the department itself. In the worst departments, the decision had better be made by someone else (dean or president or general faculty committee) with no more than a polite ggsture in the direction of the department membership. But he concludes, "Normally the selection will result from a joint decision," an Opinion with which Millett concurs when he says that appointment of the chairman by an adminis- trative officer after careful consultation with department members seems to be the "preferable practice."4O With respect to the length of time a chairman ought to serve, opinions differ, but there is general agreement that some rotation is beneficial. Stanford recommended a yearly appointment by the president, with the only criterion for selection being ability to do the work, not rank, seniority, degrees, or other variables which may not be related to effectiveness as a chairman.41 Fellman also supports having an annual review of chairmen but does allow for reappoint- ments.42 Other writers have suggested longer terms, but still advocate periodic change to bring fresh ideas to the department and to allow chairmen to return to research and teaching. 3936“ Euwema, "The Organization of the Department," Educational Record, 54:58-45 (January, 1955), p. 41. 4°Millett, pp, cit.,.p. 89. 41Stanford, pp, cit. 42Fellman, pp, cit., p. 5. 51 Committee T on College and University Government of the American Association of University Professors has drafted a statement regarding selection of chairmen; the statement is a part of the Association's attempt to define the faculty's role in institutional governance: The chairman or head of an academic department if not directly elected by the members of the department, should be appointed after consultation with, and normal- ly in conformity with the judgment of, the members of the department. He should serve for a limited term, subject to renewals by the same procedure.43 Woodburne's book, Principles of College and University Administration, includes a section headed "Department Execu- tives" in which are described a number of selection procedures 4 The situations used in institutions across the country.4 vary from the possibility of departmental veto of administra- tive appointments, through rotating chairmanships where the chairman is hardly more than an errand boy, to cases of high- level cooperation between faculty and administration in locat- ing a suitable chairman. Woodbfirne’also alludes to an article written some years ago describing a procedure which he once utilized where a 43Committee T on College and University Government, "Faculty Participation in College and University Government," American Association ogpgniversity Eppfessors Bulletin, 49: 255-257 (Autumn, 1965). By 1966, this statement had been accepted by the A.A.U.P. Council, but it was still being con- sidered in conjunction with the American Council on Education and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. See A.A.U.P. Eulletin, 52:220-222 (Summer, 1966) and 52:526 (Autumn, 1966). 44Woodburne, pp, cit., pp. 44-47. 52 top-flight individual was sorely needed.45 The situation involved a search for a chairman of a science department, and those involved began by reviewing the entire list of members and fellows in that professional field. After elimi- nating some names, the committee developed complete biograph- ies and bibliographies for each of the top candidates, solicited information from colleagues at their then current institutions, conducted interviews, and consulted with the top people in the field who, for one reason or another, would not themselves be candidates. Admittedly, this was a compre- hensive approach which may not often be required, but in crucial situations, it may be the only truly adequate pro- cedure. Doyle found in his study of chairmen that twenty-six of thirty-three institutions (all of which were liberal arts colleges under private auspices) followed the practice of hav- ing department chairmen appointed by the president, with approval by the board of control. In one college, the dean made appointments, and each of the following practices was used by two additional institutions: direct appointment by the board; appointment by a teaching staff committee; and 8 election by the departmental faculty.4 Doyle's conclusions 45Lloyd S. Woodburne, "An Administrative Responsibility," Journal of Higher Education, 14:155fi159(March, 1945). 46Doyle, pp, cit., pp. 22, 25. 55 regarding selection of chairmen are summarized as follows: Although there is no evidence of unanimity in the methods of channeling recommendations for appoint- ment of departmental chairmen to major officials, it is clear that all the colleges employ some type of staff consultation preliminary to the final selection of the chairman. There is evidence of preliminary screening of candidates through departmental commit- tees, followed by referral to college committees transcending departmental levels, and acted upon by an administrative council. . . . The academic dean is the official most frequently consulted by the president and/or appointing body preliminary to the appointment of the chairman. 7 Summary The literature indicates little agreement on appropriate methods for selecting a chairman. The author of the current study hoped to delve more in depth in matters relating to selection so as to provide new insights for a common concern. Perhaps some of the eccentricities of practice at the seven institutions studied will provide suggestions applicable in other situations. III. ORIENTATION AND IN-SERVICE EDUCATION Similar to concerns about the selection of top-level administrative, executive, or managerial personnel, there is widespread consideration of the need for orientation and in- service education of personnel in contemporary organizations. In fact, Fayol suggested the latter may be more trying than the former: “Moreover, however difficult the choice of 47Ibid., p. 24. 54 employees, it is probably not so great as that of their "48 Consequently, "The employer's educational training. responsibility should operate at all levels and be constantly on the alert."49 In the following pages, there are no references pertain- ing specifically to department chairmen; the author simply was unable to locate any. Nonetheless, many of the concerns discussed have application for the preparation of chairmen. An objective of the current study is to develop general guidelines for their orientation and in-service education. General Conpgdgpations Literature in the fields of education, business, and industry indicates that training programs may serve many functions: Training may supply the trainee with the facts neces- sary in dealing with . . . decisions; it may provide him a frame of reference for his thinking; it may teach him "approved" solutions, or it may indoctrinate him with the values in terms of which his decisions are to be made.50 Leedy, writing with his focus on training of young research personnel, stated that the goal of a training program is to instill the following aptitudes or personality traits: 48Fayol, pp, cit., p. 81. 49Ibid., p. 95. 5°Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), p. 16. 55 Imagination, perseverance, experimentalism, optimism, ability to cooperate, curiosity, courage, aggressive- ness, capacity for effective expression, scientific integrity, ability to sell ideas to superiors, and good business judgment.51 In the planning of training programs, it is important to keep in mind two kinds of "needs": i.e., that of the individual being trained and that of the organization train- ing him. ,With respect to the former, Newman has stated, "Executive development should be done on an individual basis and adapted to the need of the particular person."52 On the other hand, every organization has its own unique aspects, and staff members need to be aware of these and to be pre- pared to c0pe with them adequately. An organization, of course, relies on more than one type of program to prepare its personnel. "Pre-service training" is that which an individual brings to this position; Barnard has said that one of the most important functions of this training is "to help the student learn how to continue to educate himself."53 A second type of training is often termed "on-the-job" training involving supervision and/or 51H. A. Leedy, "Training of Young Researchers," in Selection, Tgaininq, and Use of Personnel in Industrial Research, David B. Hertz, editor (New York: King's Crown Press, 1952), pp. 62-77. 52William H. Newman, Administrative Action (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965), p. 557. 53Chester I. Barnard, Organization and Management (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 195. 56 instruction while the trainee performs job-related tasks. Finally, there are formal job-related programs which are designed for staff participation and have as their goal increasing individuals' capacities to do their respective jobs.54 In education, the reliance on the three types of train- ing programs is particularly notable in the preparation of teachers. Hollenbach and Garrett are two of many authors who have focused on this situation, the former in a journal article and the latter as a basis for his doctoral thesis.55 Their basic premise is that orientation and in-service edu- cation become more important with increased scarcity of qualified instructors in educational institutions. Hollenbach suggests that if the small liberal arts institutions are to survive, they must make teaching and continued learning so exciting that young instructors will want to remain on their staffs. Garrett summarizes the need for in-service education in the opening chapter of his study: The rapid expansion of teaching staffs to keep up with enrollments will probably mean that less—qualified persons will be employed. It seems necessary, in the face of this problem, that colleges and universities. . . initiate or expand their programs of inservice educa- tion for faculties.56 54Simon, pp, cit., p. 169. 55John W. Hollenbach, "The Administrator's Role in Faculty Development," Eiberal Education, 50:517-525 (December, 1964); Cyril D. Garrett, "A Study of the In-service Improve- ment Programs of Eight Liberal Arts Collegesfl unpublished doctoral thesis, Michigan State University, 1957. 56Garrett,pp. cit., pp. 11-12. 57 An important factor in the success of any program of orientation and in-service education is the motivation of the learners. In discussing this, Simon suggested that in— stilling "an attitude of receptivity" in the group being trained might-be the greatest problem in the use of formal training methods. He believed that the problem is minimal when a new employee first enters a work situation and then becomes greater after he has performed the job for some time.57 Hollenbach reported a similar conclusion having been reached at meetings of the North Central Association in 1962 where "the consensus was that professional knowledge made most impact at the time of the student's embarking on his first real teaching venture."58 In an attempt to provide guidelines for in—service edu— cation programs which will be attractive and educative, many authors have prepared general lists of important considera- tions which would be applicable to most programs of in- service education; several of these are found in rather comprehensive works which discuss various facets of in-service 9 education.5 For illustrative purposes, the following is taken from an article by Wilson: S7Simon, pp, cit., p- 170. 58Hollenbach, pp, cit., p. 518. 59See especially In-service Education for Teachers, Supervisors, and Administrators (the Fifty-sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education), Nelson B. Henry, editor (Chicago: The National Society for the “UL 58 In-service training must be continuous. In-service training must be adapted to varying levels of professional readiness. In-service training must be multi-disciplined. In-service training should make broad use of the literature in the field. In-service training must recognize personality needs of the staff. In-service training should utilize community resources. In-service training should be planned by the group. In-service training must be integrated and modified in terms of situational needs.60 All of these guidelines have application to most, if not all, in-service programs. It is now appropriate to consider programs designed for specific groups of personnel. Programs for Specific Groups of Personnel One group which has received much attention in in-service education literature is that of teaching personnel, both at the public school and at college levels; several of the sources already cited were written as aids in planning in- service education programs for teachers. Therefore, it will be sufficient merely to summarize key points here. Hollenbach, discussing the need for improved programs of faculty development, provided some ideas for administra- tive personnel having responsibility for such programs. ,Study of Education, 1957); Richard F. Gross, "A Study of In- service Education Programs for Student Personnel Workers in Selected Colleges and Universities in the United States," un- published doctoral thesis, Michigan State University, 1965; Garrett, pp,‘p;p.; the Journal of the National Association of Epans ofigWomen, January, 1955, issue; and Robert Bayless Norris, "Administering Inservice Education in the College," School and Society, 77:527-529 (May 25, 1955). 6°Francis M. Wilson, "What Makes an Effective In-service Training Program?" Journal of the National Association of Deans of Women, 16:51-56 (January, 1955). 59 His cryptic appraisal characterizes the usual training ap- proach for faculty as having been: a matter of giving the young instructor plenty of rope and large teaching assignments so that he would have ample opportunity to proceed in his own education as a teacher by the rule of 'by-guess-and-by-gosh.‘61 The importance of defining goals for the training pro- gram and of involving staff in planning was stressed by Hodges.62 He also stated that a necessary condition to the success of a program is to have "leaders capable of holding groups to good problem-solving procedures." In his doctoral thesis, Garrett provides a comprehensive review of the literature relating to "Inservice Improvement of College Teaching" from 1905 through 1957.63 After complet- ing the research, Garrett concluded that there were many similarities, and yet many "qualitative and quantitative differences" in the in-service programs at the eight liberal arts colleges studied. He found that the administration had a key role to play in the planning and provision of in- service activities and that there was no general pattern of financing such programs (the budget items most often included covered faculty leaves, faculty travel, activities of pro- fessional organizations, and pre-school workshops). 61Hollenbach, pp, cit., p. 519. 62J. B. Hodges, "Continuing Education: Why and How?" Educational Eeadegghip, 17:550-551+ (March, 1960). 83Garrett,pp. cit. 40 Other studies less comprehensive than Garrett's have shown that administrative officers bear heavy responsibility for orientation and in-service education programs.64 McCall and his associates polled a sample of first- and third-year faculty members of North Central Association institutions to identify those problems which the faculty members encountered in their teaching positions and the ad- ministrative practices which new faculty perceived to be helpful in alleviating the problems. As in Garrett's study, it was concluded that the existing orientation and in-service programs vary in quantity and in "degree of helpfulness in resolving problems of new faculty."65 The in-service education of administrators is a matter that has not received as much attention as that of teaching personnel. Yet the problems of increased enrollments, com— plex organizational patterns, and accelerating professionali- zation certainly/iddicate the need for ongoing development of administrative personnel. Henderson suggests that part of this need must be met on the administrator's own initiative. a: fi’ 84Norbert J. Tracy, "Orienting New Faculty Members in Colleges and Universities," North Central Associationgguarter- l1, 56:214—21 (Fall, 1961); and John W. Gustad, "Orientation and Faculty Development," EducationaEgRecord, 44:195-215 (July, 1965). 6SHarlan R. McCall pp p;., Problems o§_New Faculpy Members in Cpiieges and Universities7(East Lansing, Michigan: Center for the Study of Higher Education, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1961). 41 One may be heavily engaged in routine affairs and fail to realize that "the solution for his personal problems relat- ing to his administrative effectiveness may lie precisely in taking the time to inform and train himself better in professional techniques for the job."66 Fayol, in a fatherly- sounding bit of advice, said, "Your professional work will not entirely consume your time; you will always find the time required for study. Aim at perfecting your professional knowledge, but do not neglect your general education."67 Gross, in his doctoral thesis and then through collabora— tion with Truitt in preparation of a monograph, has been interested in in-service education for college student person- nel workers.68 The thesis involved study of a stratified random sample of colleges and universities holding membership in the National Association of Student Personnel Administra- tors. The author saw in-service education to be a necessary facet of the professionalization of student personnel workers, especially because of the many relatively untrained practi- tioners holding staff positions. 66Algo D. Henderson, Policies and Practices in Higher Education (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1960), p. 222. 67Fayol, pp, cit., p. 91. 68Gross, pp, cit.; John W. Truitt and Richard F. Gross, Professional Development in Student Personnel Work Through In-service Education, Bulletin No. 1, Division of Profession- al Development and Standards, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (June, 1966). 42 Gross' conclusions sound very familiar when compared to many of the considerations discussed heretofore. Some of them were the following: There are general principles applicable to the organization and functioning of all in-service edu- cation programs. Inservice education is a low priority item in the professional life and practice of student person- nel workers. The development and success of an inservice edu- cation program is primarily dependent upon the leadership of the chief student personnel administrator. Common problems face student personnel adminis- trators in developing and carrying on a professional betterment program. Among these are lack of time and budget, failure to recognize the importance of im- provement activities, and insufficient knowledge of basic principles and techniques applicable to inservice education.69 Gould, in his study of academic deans, asked about the 70 Several types of training that seemed important to them. replied that their best assistance came through watching other deans operate, by attending institutes and seminars with them, and by talking with them informally about common problems. Another important educative device was to read the literature of higher educational administration, both from the point of view of practicing administrators and that of critical faculty members. 69Gross, "A Study of . . ." pp, cit., pp. 111-112. 7°Gould, pp. cit., pp. 87-90. 45 A final group of administrators whose in-service edu- cation has been discussed involves those who need to be trained to carry out programs of in-service education for other staff members.71 As has been suggested, administrators play key roles in such programs, and it is, therefore, im- portant that they be prepared to carry them out effectively. 71Arthur J. Lewis pp pi., "The Role of the Administra- tor in In-service Education," in In-service Education for Teachepp, Supervisors, and Administrators (Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education, 1957), pp. 155-175; and Matthew B. Miles and A. Harry Passow, "Training in the Skills Needed for In-service Education Programs,“ same volume, pp. 559-567. CHAPTER I I I CASE STUDIES Each of the seven Schools and Colleges of Education studied is unique in many aspects of its selection, orienta- tion, and in-servfce education of department chairmen. In this chapter, therefore, seven case studies are presented, each of which attempts to describe that uniqueness. To preserve the anonimity and confidentiality of the interview- ees, institutions are identified only by names of letters from the Greek alphabet. The format for each study is as follows: 1. The study opens with a summary description of that School or College's administrative structure and the role of the departmental chairmen. Quite early in preparing for this study, the author became aware that the method for selection of chairmen is usually related to the organization- al patterns of the institution and the responsibilities of the chairmanship. Consequently, to understand selection, it is important to know something about organization and func- tion. 2. The selection process is described. Included are general procedures established by the institution and/or the School or College; a description of how these procedures are 44 45 applied; illustrative situations where these seemed worth- while; and significant suggestions for change. 5. Programs of orientation and in-service education are reviewed. Reactions to these programs and suggestions for change are included. 4. A brief summary of selection procedures and orienta- tion and in-service education programs completes each study. I. ALPHA UNIVERSITY The College of Education at Alpha University is one of several included in this study which have undergone major reorganization in recent years. Until about one year before the current study, the College operated as a single large department; it is now organized under seven divisions. When the Dean was asked to distinguish between his con- cept of a department and a division, particularly as the lat- ter exist in his College, he indicated the College of Edu- cation's divisions are not yet fully developed departments as compared to those in Alpha's other Colleges (and in other institutions). For example, at Alpha a department conducts its business with the Graduate College directly, without pass- ing through the respective college dean's office; in the College of Education, relationships with the Graduate College are still channeled through the dean's office. Another distinction cited by the Dean was that the College of Education budget remains as a centralized operation 46 rather than as one administered by the divisions; division chairmen are involved in preliminary budget formulation, but responsibility beyond that step rests with the Dean. A third distinction is that the dean's office still handles much paperwork and other routine administrative tasks which may some day be delegated to the divisions. In the Dean's opinion, the primary responsibilities currently delegated to a chairman are: 1) to be the in- structional leader for his division in matters of curriculum, scheduling, courses, degree requirements, and so on; and 2) to be involved in the recruitment of new divisional per- sonnel. One chairman reflected that even in these areas routine detail work could be handled by "less expensive personnel," yet he acknowledged that even menial tasks such as scheduling staff time or writing catalog material helped him gain perspective on the division's operation. Currently personnel in Alpha's College of Education sense a progressive transition from previous unitary organi- zation to some other structure which will evolve as new ideas are given a period of testing. The future may well see more autonomy in several administrative areas delegated to the divisions. For the present, however, the divisions operate in a quasi-departmental manner. Selection o; Chaipmen During the recent reorganization a method for selecting divisional chairmen was developed. In essence, the process 47 is an election by the divisional staff, with approval of the College dean, the chief academic officer, the president, and the board of control. A staff handbook describes selection procedures as follows: The chief administrative officer of each division shall be designated as chairman of the division. The identification of prospective academic division chair- men shall be the joint responsibility of the faculty within each of the divisions and the Dean of the College. The Dean shall nominate the division chairman following receipt of a recommendation from the faculty of the division. In the event the Dean's recommendation dif- fers from that of the majority of the divisional member- ship, the Dean shall report his reasons to the division and to the [chief academic officer]. Appointment shall be for a term not to exceed three years. Appointments will be made by the [Board of Control] on recommenda- tion by the President. Division chairmen may be re- appointed. Nonreappointment or failure to accept re- appointment shall carry no implication whatever as to the quality of the work of the chairman. The Dean recalled that during the first round of selec- tion the typical pattern for a division was to have a pre- liminary ballot which identified the leading candidates for the chairmanship; a second ballot then selected a single in- dividual who was recommended to the Dean. In all cases, he accepted the division's recommendation and followed the required channels leading to the actual appointment. The Dean discussed provisions for refusing a division's recommendation but added, "I don't presume this is ever very likely to happen." Similarly, the nominee needs approval by other upper-echelon administrators, but in the Dean's opinion, "I can say that it would have to be a very unusual occasion [when] the nomination of the Dean would not be taken 48 by the [chief academic officer] and the President." The Dean also felt that approval by the board of control "gives some dignity and status" to the chairmanship. The two chairmen interviewed at Alpha claimed they were selected somewhat against their own desires. The first had been one of the few staff members to criticize the reorgani- zation and had told his colleagues he "would not under any circumstances" accept the chairmanship. The other, because of several commitments to state and regional educational agencies, was not at all interested in assuming additional responsibilities. Nevertheless, in both cases, members of the respective divisions looked to the two men as potential chairmen, talked to them about the position, obtained their agreement to serve, and selected them for recommendation to the Dean. One chairman felt that the initial selections had been handled too hastily. He suggested the process could be made more thorough during the review of current chairmen two years hence; a divisional search committee might be employed to screen all on-campus candidates and also to look nationwide for potential chairmen (the latter might be an especially important consideration if individuals assuming chairmanship can be offered additional remuneration and some released time from other obligations). 49 Orientation and In-service Education Reorganizing Alpha's College of Education has had an impact on orientation and in—service education programs. Because all new chairmen were selected from within the College, it could be assumed they were familiar with some basic procedures; thus certain types of orientation could be eliminated. On the other hand, the chairmen, as well as all College staff members, have needed to develop new role definitions and new assignment of responsibilities during the first year under the revised structure. The major vehicle for orientation and in-service educa- tion has been a Council of Divisional Chairmen which meets monthly with the Dean and his staff. One chairman described these sessions as important in moving from the previous structure wherein all staff members reported directly to the Dean to the new divisional organization: A number of our meetings . . . are devoted to kind of sparring, defining our respective roles, seeing what those areas are in which we may have some autonomy, seeing what he [the Dean] is willing to delegate. I suppose this is orientation of sorts, or in-service education--for both of us. The Dean reported one goal of these meetings has been to review day—to-day operational concerns; but a more im- portant goal has been to develop policy as it relates to the College's ongoing programs. He agreed that a more complete orientation may someday be necessary if chairmen are hired from outside of the University, but he believes their pro- grams are adequate for the present: 50 An orientation probably best takes place when you cope with problems that are live and are there, and you get in-service training through this kind of thing rather than trying to set up more formal meetings for it which may not be quite as direct, quite as real. Summary Every three years, division members ballot to select a nominee for the chairmanship. The nominee must be approved by the dean of the College, the chief academic officer, the president, and the board of control. The nominee may be re- jected.atany of these levels, but this is unlikely to happen under current practice. The only orientation or in-service education program has been a monthly meeting of divisional chairmen, the Dean, and his staff. Current problems and long-range needs are discussed in the~meetings. II. BETA UNIVERSITY At Beta University, training and research in profes- sional education take place in the School of Education which is only one of several units in the College of Education. Within the University's administrative structure, the School is treated as a department of the College, yet the operations of the School itself fit to a certain degree the adminis- trative pattern of other institutions described in the cur- rent study. The School of Education has a director who performs many of the functions typically delegated to the dean of a School 51 or College Of Education, although in many situations the director must seek approval from the dean Of the entire College before making decisions. Illustrative of this is the statement (from a faculty handbook) that the director is "TO have general administrative responsibility for its [the School of Education's] program, subject to the approval of the Dean of the College." Included are matters such as budget preparation, program planning, evaluation Of staff and program, and recommendations for promotions and appoint- ments; the dean's office may be involved in each Of these areas, but the director carries a major share Of the re- sponsibility for each of them. Four divisions, each headed by a chairman whose responsi- bilities are in some ways similar to those normally conducted by departmental chairmen, Operate under the director's Office. Chairmen are involved in "developing, coordinating and imple- menting programs through which the Division contributes to the overall program of the School," in identifying staff needs, in making staff assignments, and in providing data for budget purposes. One chairman characterized his authority to accomplish these tasks as being that Of a staff, not a line, Officer. He sees his major tasks as being to increase the amount of dialogue among staff members of the School and between the School and the field; he stressed the importance of building dialogue through the work Of the divisions rather than allowing administrative procedures to create sharp dis- tinctions among groups of staff members. 52 Because staff members are given the Opportunity to choose which Of the four divisions they wish to work with, the divisions do not represent strictly disciplinary or "major" groupings. Most staff members involved in prepara- tion of teachers would probably select the Division of Teacher Education, but an individual having a particular interest in planned change within educational institutions may elect to be in the Division of Educational Development (or in the Division of Organization and Service if interest- ed in organizational theory as it applies to educational organizations or in the Division of the Study of Education if interested in bringing "together the perceptions Of various disciplines on the phenomenon of education"). Selection of Chairmen The School of Education's faculty handbook covers the selection Of divisional chairmen as follows: Appointmentgm Appointed by the Director in consultation with members of the Division for a period Of two years. The two chairmenyigterviewed were selected for their positions when the School reorganized about two years ago. The Director had suggested that the members of each division review the personnel available in the division and submit to him the names Of "three persons that you think could best lead you." Then, on the assumption that the divisions were saying, in effect, that they could work with any Of their respective three nominees, the Director picked the one individual in 55 each case whom he felt could work with him and with whom he could work. TO establish a list Of three names, one division ap- pointed two men from its membership to talk with the other divisional members about whom they wished to have as chair- man. The name Of one of the interviewers was among the three most frequently mentioned, and when the other two made it known they did not wish to serve, he was appointed by the Director. The second chairman presides over a smaller group, and because there were few staff members expert in the division's concerns, he became a logical choice for the position. He was of the Opinion that the Director might have located a better chairman by searching outside Of the University; but this was not done, probably because it seemed desirable to have a chairman who knew the School and the goals of the reorganization. The administrative structure of Beta's School Of Educa- tion is currently being evaluated in preparation for a University-wide reorganization. The divisions' functioning, including selection Of chairmen, is being reviewed during the evaluation. Staff members say that current arrangements, including the selection procedure, have served a purpose for two years and that decisions can now be made about future procedures. 54 Orientation and Ep-sppvice Education. One responsibility charged to the Director Of the School of Education is "To see that adequate supervision and training are given to those members of the staff who may profit by such assistance." Orientation and/or in-service education for divisional chairmen would certainly be in- cluded under this provision. For the past two years, the Director has held a weekly meeting with the two Associate Directors and the four di- visional chairmen. The Director commented on the purposes Of these meetings: . . . It's not a business meeting in the sense that these people meet together to make decisions about what things should be done. . . . It's a . . . meeting to talk about . . . how well is our organization working? and what kinds Of problems do we have as they work with their divisions, or as they try to relate tO the central administration, or as they try to relate to Operational areas, and so forth. The diversified backgrounds of the group's members (adminis- tration, systems analysis, organizational theory, philosophy, history, and so on) provide insights from several viewpoints for a given problem. On occasion, resource persons "from other organizational units where they are grappling with somewhat the same kinds of problems" have been invited to attend the meetings. These individuals may be from within the University, or they may be from outside organizations. They are invited not to lecture but to listen to the discussion and are asked, "'What do you think is either right or wrong; give us some analysis.‘ 55 Agenda ideas for these meetings represent the combined interests and/or needs of the chairmen and of the administra- tion Of the School or College. The two chairmen interviewed at Beta indicated they had been satisfied with the current orientation and in-service education. Both had been staff members for some time and consequently were familiar with many procedures necessary to do their jobs. Their greatest concern was for continual definition of the School's organization and Operation. The weekly meetings seem to have met that need: "We had an on- going orientation session, of sorts; you might also call it an ongoing therapy session of sorts, too." The chairman who made the preceding statement commented on what has been done and what may be the future need: But a formal in-service situation was not done. I don't think it could have been done, given the fact that it was a new organization which had been created. In the future, I think such orientation sessions would be not only helpful, but could be held, because I think we've shaken down enough to know some expectations we didn't know a year and a half ago. Summary Divisional chairmen were selected for two-year terms by the Director of the School of Education from a list of three candidates provided by each division. All chairmen were selected from.within the School during a period of major reorganization. The basic vehicle for orientation and in-service educa- tion has been a regular meeting of the Director and his staff 56 with the chairmen. This meeting has provided opportunity to discuss broad concerns about the School's program. III . EPSILON UNIVERSITY Epsilon University has a strong tradition Of faculty participation in University affairs. Much emphasis is placed on scholarly pursuits by individual faculty members, and the faculty tends to minimize the importance of administrative functions. Perhaps an extreme statement of this attitude is the following from an interview with a department chairman: The staff members of [Epsilon] have status and so on in terms Of their being good teachers and good scholars, and When they become administrators it's because some- one has twisted their arm and said, "You owe your colleagues some service; you do these nasty jobs for a while . . . and then you can go back and become a man again, not a mouse." The faculty disposition toward administration is seen in the activities of the departments and of department chairmen. Chairmen are viewed by their colleagues as being first and foremost professors, and secondarily as administrators. And the administrative tasks they perform are assumed to be under— taken temporarily to assist in developing the department's program; after a period of time, the responsibilities are generally passed on to someone else. Most Of the chairmen's activities are carried out con- sistent with decisions made by the faculty of their respective departments; a chairman stated, He [the chairman] is expected to go in to make de- cisions in light of policy. . . . We do expect that all major policies which are administered by the chair- man will be dealt with in faculty meetings. 57 In addition to general departmental meetings, a number Of standing committees are active in each department to take some burden from a chairman and to allow faculty members' active participation in decision-making. One chairman, considering ways in which a chairman's typical responsibilities are carried out by the faculty at Epsilon, suggested that his major responsibilities are in dealing with personnel matters (including current staff needs and the recruitment Of new staff) and in administering the departmental budget. This latter function includes teaching schedules, research time, quarters, equipment, and so on, and is handled quite autonomously at the department level (although the dean becomes involved if he believes expendi- tures are out Of line). Selection of Chairmen At Epsilon, each department conducts an annual preferen- tial ballot to nominate a candidate for the chairmanship,‘ with the results Of the balloting going to the dean. He re— views the results and appoints a chairman after consultation with the chief administrative Officer. The appointment procedure differs from a simple election in that the dean is not bound to appoint the individual re- ceiving the most votes from the balloting of his department; lDetails regarding date of the balloting, elimination of least popular candidates, and so on, vary from department to department but do not affect the overall process. 58 but rarely, if ever, does the dean reject the top candidate. A chairman who has been at the University for more than 20 years could not recall an instance where this had occurred. On the other hand, the Dean of the College, having been in office only one year, said that he considered rejecting the nominee in a recent election involving a split between two factions Of a particular department. The usual practice in the College Of Education has been for a chairman to keep his position for about three years, at which time the department elects a new chairman. The attitude seems to be that three years is long enough to ask a man to give up some of his scholarly pursuits and also that a longer term may begin to give the chairman the idea that he is running the program, not the departmental faculty. The two chairmen interviewed are generally satisfied with the selection process, but the Dean pointed out some potential problems, several of which center on the possibility that partisan interests may result in not selecting the best person for a particular chairmanship. The Dean is also of the opinion that the system may be set up for manipulation by himself in spite of other appearances; he feels that the relatively rapid turnover Of chairmen may put departments at a disadvantage when a new person not knowing procedures and personalities is faced with the necessity of negotiating with the Dean on behalf of his department's program, especially on budget matters. By the time a chairman becomes thoroughly 59 familiar with his position, his term Of Office may be nearly over . Orientation and In-service Education At present there are virtually no programs of orienta- tion or in-service education for department chairmen. Both chairmen interviewed indicated that this is the case and did not see any particular problems because of it; chairmen are generally long-time staff members and have participated in departmental and College activities so that, as one chairman asked, "What is there to being trained?" Because each departmental faculty takes pride in its autonomy and adopts certain procedures unlike those used in other departments, the Dean feels it would not be easy tO Offer a general orientation program: "Basically under our system it's difficult for us to intrude into this private enclave." With procedural differences among departments, the most effective means Of orientation has been for the outgoing chairman to spend time with the new chairman discussing matters about which the latter should be informed. The Dean also noted that the departmental secretary is Often a key person in assisting a new chairman; one chairman even claimed he received pl;_of his orientation from his secretary. The secretaries hold civil service appointments and tend to stay on the job for extended periods Of time. In the Dean's words, 60 They know the ropes. They know all the routine details, the operation. In many cases, it's like the Army Officer who has a sergeant who's been there for years. . . . They become loyal to the organization, not to the man. They're concerned with the department. . . . They want it to succeed. The Dean reported that he is relatively content with the unstructured system of orientation for chairmen. He does not want tO demand that a rather independent faculty act uni- formly on issues where uniformity is not essential; he would rather maintain the good will Of the faculty on trivial matters so that he is able to Obtain cooperation on more im- portant concerns. Summary Chairmen are selected on the basis Of a preferential ballot cast by department members. The dean reviews results of the balloting and makes an appointment after consultation with the chief administrative Officer of the institution; the leading candidate is virtually always appointed. A chair- man normally serves three one-year terms. Orientation and in-service education are carried out at the departmental level, usually between the outgoing and in- coming chairmen and Often between the new chairman and his secretary. IV. GAMMA UNIVERSITY Several years ago, the College of Education at Gamma University reorganized from thirteen "interest areas" to six departments. Each Of the areas had had a chairman and an 61 advisory committee Of faculty from the area; the chairman and the advisory committee were expected to make a limited number of decisions regarding their program, but the real power figure Of the College was the Dean. Under the new organization, members Of the faculty have "primary identification with one department,“ and each de- partment has a chairman whose role is to facilitate the departmental functions. This arrangement was designed to improve the communication process within the College and to provide clear-cut channels for decision-making. According to a faculty handbook for the College Of Edu- cation at Gamma, the chairman has four "chief responsi- bilities": A. To plan and develop teaching, research, and service activities with the department faculty and with the assistance Of the Directors Of [the graduate and the undergraduate units Of the College]. B. To translate program plans into staff assignments and facility needs, with the approval and assistance of the [Assistant Deans]. C. To develop with each faculty member a career plan, to be revised annually. Evaluation, performance systems, and faculty development will be a part Of each year's plan. D. Recommend to the Dean, through the [Assistant Deans] pertinent information and recommendations for salary adjustments and promotions of staff. The handbook specifically notes that chairmen are not involved in budget matters except to provide advice to the Dean "on performance of faculty, as related to salary 62 adjustments and promotions."2 The chairmanship calls for a person who can lead the faculty in decision-making and in planning departmental programs; a chairman who had been in his position only for a few months described his role as follows: I think there may be a role that could be called a managerial role in relationship to curriculum, procedures such as personnel procedures, recruitment, etc., but I don't really believe it's going to be a leadership role in the sense Of industrial leadership where the depart- ment chairman makes decisions without referring to faculty. He had already begun the practice Of raising questions about departmental programs for the faculty to consider: The department will examine it, and they will decide. I initiate it, and I have every right to initiate it. And it is expected that I will initiate some of these things. However, it is also expected that the depart- ment members will initiate these things. Another individual who is chairman Of a department en- compassing four nearly distinct Operations has a coordinator or director for each of those areas. TO one of the directors, he sees himself acting as an advisor "in technical questions Of personnel appointments, salaries, etc., etc.," with matters of curriculum and other specialized problems left to the area director. Because the chairman's own specialty falls in the other areas, he takes a more active leadership role in their 2A University by-law approved by the board Of control states that the chairmen Of departments shall be re5ponsible for budgetary matters. Special approval for a different pro- cedure in the College of Education was sought by the Dean and approved by the chief academic Officer of the University. The Dean sees this as an opportunity for more flexible admin- istration Of the College budget. 65 concerns. Additionally, he sees his responsibilities as including interpretation of administrative decisions and policies to faculty, to know what to delegate and what to retain, and to work with a variety of faculty committees. The Dean contrasted the current role of chairmen with those who had no administrative authority or responsibility under the Old interest-area organization: They [the faculty] didn't know to whom they went to get problems solved. But now we have it set up so that the chairman [is] both the academic leader and the adminis— trative leader. Of course, the boundary lines in which they can move are pretty well set up by the department in terms Of the things that the faculty will agree on in the long haul. But there are a lot Of things they can do to improve Operations just by virtue Of their title. Selection of Chairmen The selection process for departmental chairmen reflects the significant leadership role assigned to them. It provides for a complete review of departmental needs and of the candi— dates who might be able to meet those needs. When the Faculty Advisory Committee began to define this process, it had a University by-law within which it was re- quired to work: The chairman of a department is appointed by the [board of control] upon recommendation of the President of the University, after nomination by the dean of the college. The University by-law also provides that the dean must "review the desirability Of renewing the term of appointment of the department chairman" at intervals not to exceed five the 593 be: If, 64 years. The review must include consultation with the voting faculty of the department and with the chairman. If the chairman is interested in continuing, and the dean agrees that it would be desirable for him to do so, he may be re- appointed to any number of terms as chairman, the only limit being the University's rule on retirement from administrative positions. If the chairman does not desire to continue, or if the dean does not believe it wise for him to do so, the dean is required to consult with the entire voting faculty of the department concerning a replacement. Within the general provisions of the University by-law, the Faculty Advisory Committee recommended four steps to comprise the consultation process; these steps were approved as a part Of the College's by-laws: Step I--The Dean notifies the faculty of the department concerned Of the impending vacancy. A pro- cess is then developed so that the faculty can provide suggestions to the Dean relative to the desired character- istics of the position along with recommended minimum qualifications for persons considered for the position. Step II--The faculty then lists persons (from [Gamma] University or any other university) they believe have the personal and professional characteristics to serve. This list is consolidated and turned over to the Dean. Step III--The Dean notifies the faculty Of the final three candidates being considered. The faculty is given a reasonable time to react to the names proposed. Step IV--The Dean makes the selection after careful consideration Of the faculty's comments. One of the chairmen interviewed was selected when chair- men were needed for the newly organized departments. It hap- pened that the man appointed as temporary chairman by the Dean 65 became, through the process described above, the permanent chairman. In his case, the specific procedure took place as follows: The Dean asked the temporary chairman to appoint three faculty members as a review committee. He did so and charged the committee with the responsibility "to work on the problem of criteria for a permanent department head and proceed as rapidly as possible with recommendations for him." The committee began its work by soliciting criteria for the chairman from the faculty Of the department; four were ulti- mately adopted: The Chairman of the Department of should be an educator who possesses the following aptitudes and/or achievements: 1) a successful background of experience in the field. 2) has demonstrated democratic administrative leader- ship. 5) has demonstrated creative ideas in the field Of through writings, teaching, research or other scholarly activities. 4) merits reSpect from the total profession of education. Having communicated the criteria to the department, the committee then sought recommendations Of persons who would meet the criteria. Eleven Of about fifteen eligible faculty members responded, with the temporary chairman Of the depart- ment being nominated by all eleven, and five other individuals (three from Gamma University and two from outside) each re- ceiving one nomination. 66 A session of the departmental faculty, from which the acting chairman was asked to absent himself, resulted in the recommendation of only one name—~that Of the temporary chairman--to the Dean. The Dean in turn completed the se- lection by asking the temporary chairman to assume the chairmanship and by referring the nomination through proper administrative channels. At Gamma University, almost all appointments need formal approval by top administrative officers and the board Of control. As noted in the University by—law, this applies to departmental chairmanships. The Dean stated that he has always discussed such appointments with the chief academic Officer and the president, although he did agree that the decision, for all practical purposes, is made in the College, "but if I would appoint a chairman without talking to the [chief academic Officer] about it, or without discussing it with the President, I'd be possibly incurring their dis- pleasure." Orientation and Ep-spgvice Education The College has a limited program of orientation and in-service education for departmental chairmen according to the individuals interviewed. One important activity is a biweekly meeting which the Dean holds with the AssiStant Deans and the chairmen; the session provides Opportunity for discussion Of current issues, long—range plans, personnel needs, and other items calling for attention. 67 Last fall, the administrative staff of the College spent two or three days together "working intensively on programs and problems and challenges" prior to the regular faculty workshop. These sessions provided Opportunity to establish some perspective for the coming year. Another activity taking place early in each academic year is a meet- ing Of the top administrators of the College with individual chairmen; the Dean said these meetings are held “so he can tell us what his problems are and what things need atten- tion, what his aspirations are. . . ." One chairman reported that he has received much aid from the Openness Of the Dean, Assistant Deans, and other chairmen. He characterized this as "a spirit Of helpful- ness" which has assisted him in working out problems through personal consultation with other administrators: "certainly individual conference time from knowledgeable people is an in-service education activity." A comment by the Dean was perhaps a reflection of this spirit. He said that about once each month he suggests to chairmen that they write him a note outlining problems that they believe his Office should be informed about or taking care of. As yet, he has not received a single note, a phenomenon for which he offered no explanation but which might occur if communication channels prove adequate so that "notewriting" becomes unnecessary. 68 The chairmen interviewed noted that there had been little or no orientation to their new jobs when they assumed them. Both individuals had been on the College staff for some time so that there may have been an assumption that they needed no such program. But one Of them, not having been previously involved with much of the routine paperwork carried out in the College, found that, "It tOOk me several weeks just to get through these little details about What are the procedures." In his case, even the previous secretary had departed before he moved in, leaving him and his secre- tary tO start with problems as basic as understanding the preceding chairman's filing system. It was this chairman's feeling that the Dean's Office should have made an effort to provide a minimal orientation to basic procedures. Summary When a chairmanship becomes vacant, the Dean appoints a search committee consisting Of faculty members from that department. The committee works with the faculty to estab- lish selection criteria and to review a list of candidates for the position. After screening the candidates, the com- mittee submits its recommendation(s) to the Dean. After a final reaction from the faculty, the Dean makes his selection and seeks approval from the chief academic Officer, the President, and the Board Of Control. Orientation has been a more or less forgotten item, apparently because most new chairmen are hired from within 69 and are assumed to be informed about procedures. In-service education takes place most consistently through a biweekly meeting of the Dean's staff with the chairmen. Also utilized have been a fall workshop for chair- men; consultation involving the Dean, his staff, and indi- vidual chairmen; and Open Opportunities for problem-solving sessions with other administrators. V. KAPPA UNIVERSITY The School of Education at Kappa University makes a distinction between its Undergraduate Unit and its Graduate Unit, with its departmental organization pertaining only to the faculty of the Graduate Unit. According to the School's by-laws, "staff members teaching a graduate course in a department shall be considered a member Of that department," and "those who teach only undergraduate courses in the field represented in a department may serve as associate members and meet with that department." A by-law of the board Of control delegates executive functions for the School to the Dean and an Executive Commit- tee; six faculty members appointed by the board on recommen- dation of the president compose the Committee. Responsibili— ties Of the Committee include "investigating and formulating educational and instructional policies for consideration by the faculty" and acting "for the School in matters related to the budget, promotions, and appointments." 70 Additionally, the School utilizes a complex structure Of other committees, among them being the Graduate Committee, "the administrative body Of the Graduate Unit." The delegation of many typical administrative functions to various faculty committees has meant that departments are not given many major responsibilities to carry out auto- nomously. Consequently, a departmental chairmanship is per- ceived as less of an undertaking than at other institutions. One chairman Opined that the whole School Operates through the Dean's Office somewhat as a single department with only limited responsibilities [left to the departments]. There are some, but they are limited, and this means that . . . department chairmen's duties are not as great as would be the case if the departments were more autonomous. A second chairman emphasized the chairman's role as a co- ordinator rather than as a decision-maker: "The department gets together and someone has got to be the chairman or moderator." He indicated that his chairmanship meant only several additional tasks "tacked on to everything else," with no time released from prior responsibilities. Some typical resPonsibilities which the chairmen do have include scheduling of courses, working with the department on requests for additional personnel, screening potential new staff members, and developing programs of instruction within the department. In all of these areas, the chairman and his departmental faculty are involved in preliminary .stages Of policy formulation, with final approval coming from 71 an all-School committee and/or from action Of the general faculty Of the School. Budget matters are handled strictly by the dean's Office; as needs arise, the chairmen submit requests to the dean who then makes a decision about grant- ing or denying funds. Selection of Chairmen The matter of selecting departmental chairmen in Kappa University's School of Education is covered by the School's by-laws: Staff members teaching graduate courses in a department shall be considered members of that department and shall elect a chairman for a three-year term. The Dean summarized the procedure almost as succinctly: Well, you see, our chairmen are elected by the members Of the department. The dean has nothing to say. If the department elects, that's it. The Dean did note that larger departments have had, on occasion, ad hoc committees to nominate candidates, but usually the selection simply consists of balloting by depart- ment members. The election most Often is conducted within the department although the Dean's Office has been requested to handle mechanics Of the election in some situations. One chairman interviewed at Kappa was elected when department members became disenchanted with the leadership of an incumbent chairman who had been in Office for a number of years. The new chairman did not initiate his own candidacy for the petition, but he was approached informally by various colleagues prior to the election. His election was one 72 instance in which ballots were sent by faculty members directly to the Dean's Office. The second chairman acceded to his position by virtue Of being selected Director Of another agency in the School of Education. For the latter position, a nationwide search was conducted, and he was selected from outside the University. He replaced the previous agency Director who had been brought to Kappa in 1950 to begin a teaching program in the depart- ment's area of concern and subsequently founded the agency alluded to. Orientation and En-service Education Because departmental chairmen tend to be elected from current staff members, the orientation and in-service educa- tion Of these individuals is minimal. The Dean evaluated the need for such services: First, as a philosophy, we have much faculty involve- ment in practically everything that's done. . . . In that sense, everybody is being prepared to take over quasi-administrative Operations such as the chairman- ship On short notice. And since they don't manage budgets, they don't need to know too much about the accounting side Of the Operation. The chairman who was elected from within the membership of his department reacted as follows when asked if he had needed orientation to the position: I don't think so. I'd attended meetings before. I knew what the pressures were. I suppose I was almost like a vice president taking over the presidency. I knew what the demands were, what the concepts were, so I really didn't need anything of that sort. 75 In a sense, he created his own orientation program by schedul- ing individual luncheon sessions with the faculty members in his department "to talk over what his [the faculty member's] ambitions were, how he saw the growth and development of the department." The new insights gained, when added to the chairman's accumulated knowledge about the department, aided him in trying "to get Off on a new tack." This same chairman had in mind one innovation which he felt would give chairmen a better feel for ongoing policy formulation and execution. In his Opinion, making the Execu- tive Committee of the School a committee Of departmental chair- men, rather than selected faculty members, would improve channels for decision-making and would keep chairmen better informed about all programs of the School. Presently, the chairmen have no such contact with each other or with the Dean except as they seek it out on their own. The second chairman, having come to his position from outside Of Kappa University, was particularly concerned about the lack Of an orientation program. He had problems in even locating the files for his department, and he found others were not inclined to give meaningful assistance. And when I tried to sit down with people and get sys- tematic information about what was going on and what stage things were in, I got kind of a quizzical look, a smile, and, "Oh, you know what's going on around here. The same thing that always does." He sought "systematic orientation to procedures, policies" from the Dean and Associate Dean and "received some random 74 comments that they happened to be able to pull out of their minds at the moment." He was told he would get a newly re- vised policies manual at the same time other faculty received it, but when it arrived four months later, it was filled with rules andlregulations which he already knew were not followed. Most Of the useful information which he ultimately received came from discussions with a member Of the department who is "an astute Observer Of administration." This chairman would like to see the School's entire ad-' ministrative structure updated. He feels that long-range planning, communication of goals and the means for achieving them, and well-defined procedures for Operation are needed. Out of such changes, it could be expected that orientation of new personnel would become a more readily accomplished task. Summary Chairmen are elected by departments for a three year term; the Dean and other individuals have no involvement in the selection. Chairmen may be elected to any number of consecutive terms. There is virtually no orientation or in-service educa- tion carried on, largely because chairmen are almost always selected from within the College and have been active participants in departmental and College affairs. 75 VI. PHI UNIVERSITY The past six to eight years have seen a gradual change in the organizational structure of the College Of Education at Phi University. At the beginning Of this period, the College Operated as one big department; then for a period Of two or three years, some administrative responsibilities were carried out through several divisions. About six years ago, the first departments were formed. The major functions Of the departments at this time are related to the undergraduate programs Of the College, staff recruitment, and a number Of miscellaneous administrative tasks. In the organization Of graduate programs at Phi, the College of Education is still looked upon as a single depart- ment, with the College rather than the departments officially having veto power over who is named to the graduate faculty, which students are admitted to programs, who the graduate students' advisors are, and so on. But even in these areas, the departments are developing as autonomous units for grad- uate as well as undergraduate affairs; three of the seven departments now Operate more or less as graduate departments. With this gradual evolutionary process taking place, it is difficult to state exactly what the role Of the chair- man is in departmental affairs. Because the various depart- ments are at different levels of development, the chairmen are apt to be doing different things in each of them. To the extent that generalizations can be made at all, it can be 76 said that chairmen are responsible for the undergraduate curriculum in their departments, for appointing committees within the departmental structure, for determining which areas need attention in their fields, and for making recom- mendations for staff and supplies to meet the needs. Selection Of Chairmen The first step in Obtaining a department chairman is for the Dean to consult with the College and the departmental Executive Committees regarding appointment Of a search com- mittee. The committee is generally made up with a majority Of its members from the department concerned and with some representatives from other departments or even from other colleges Of the University. Once appointed by the Dean, the committee reviews candi- dates who may be available internally and those located throughout the country. When the committee decides who ap- pears to be the best prosPects, the Dean is consulted, and if he approves, the individuals are brought to the campus for interviews. In a search conducted within the past year, the commit- tee worked with department members tO obtain names Of prospective chairmen and to define criteria to guide the search. Candidates' research output and contribution to the programs at their current institutions were evaluated, and peOple who knew the candidates were invited to meet with 77 the committee to discuss their potential. This process of information-gathering continued until the field was narrowed to three candidates. When contacted by the committee, one candidate turned them down and two expressed an interest and were subsequent- ly invited to the campus for interviews:' Each visited for about two days during which he took part in several informal discussions with the search committee and other members of the department, had lunch and/Or dinner with faculty person- nel, met with graduate students for about an hour, and was interviewed by the Dean. The candidates were also given opportunity tO study enrollment records, staff lists, and other data pertaining to the department. As time passed, the committee gradually became aware of the abilities possessed by an individual who had joined the department's teaching staff during the search process. His potential as a chairman was evaluated, the department faculty was consulted, and the committee finally recommended that he be appointed to the position. The screening process described above gives many people in the College an Opportunity to meet candidates. Conse— quently, by the time it is ready to make a decision about an individual, the search committee is expected to have a feeling for the departmental Executive Committee's and the department staff's attitude toward that individual. 78 The Dean has an opportunity to approve or reject the recommendation made by the search committee. If he does approve it--as happens’in virtually every case--he then sends it to the chief academic Officer Of the University, the president, and the board Of control for approval. These latter steps are, according to the Dean, "a very nominal review. . . . Officially it has to be done, but we have had no suggestions; I mean as to changes in people, or rates of pay, or anything of this sort." Once the chairman takes office, his appointment is re- viewed every two years, but it is generally expected that the appointment is for an extended term. The Dean noted that the faculty had taken a firm stand against rotating chairmanships based on experiences during the period of divisional organization. Orientation ang_;p-service Education Two types of activities make up the major portion of the orientation and in-service education for chairmen in Phi University's College Of Education. Whenever a new chairman assumes his position, the Dean spends some time with him, "talking about College problems as I see them." In these conferences, which may also involve the Associate Deans, the Dean wants to be sure the new chair- man understands certain basic procedures, is familiar with the budget, and generally "knows about where he stands and what room he'd‘have to maneuver." 79 The ongoing in-service education takes place through meetings Of all department chairmen; these sessions are particularly helpful to a new chairman in allowing him to learn what the concerns Of other chairmen are. After the first several meetings, the Dean again tries to sit down with a new chairman "to go over what it is that we are try- ing to do in the department chairmen's meetings; make sure that he knows how this affects his department." Because most chairmen have been hired from.within the College and have had long periods of service on departmental and/or College Executives committees, they are usually quite familiar with many procedures necessary tO function effec- tively. The newest chairman in the College, having been on the staff for only a few months before being appointed chairman, found that reading bulletins and asking questions helped him to learn about many procedures. Neither he nor the other chairman interviewed see a need for extensive train- ing of department chairmen other than to orient a newcomer to basic Operations of the College and University. Summary _Department chairmen are selected through a thorough screening of candidates by a search committee composed of departmental staff members and some faculty members from out- side Of the department; the committee is appointed by the dean. After screening candidates and obtaining reactions from as many staff members as possible, the committee makes 80 a recommendation to the dean. Approval must come from the chief academic Officer, the president, and the board Of control. Orientation is primarily a matter of the dean's having conferences with a new chairman. Meetings Of all department chairmen with the dean provide some in-service education. VII. SIGMA UNIVERSITY Growth in numbers Of students and staff members has caused the College Of Education at Sigma University to under- 90 a continual period of reorganization over the past seven or eight years. From operating as one large "Education Department," the College has developed about ten departments, and next year plans to incorporate three large divisions, each of which will encompass several departments. One goal Of the reorganization has been to reduce the "abnormally heavy load Of administrative trivia" carried out by the Dean's Office and "to decentralize more and more of that to the departments." An Obvious consequence is that much responsibility for decision—making and administrative activity rests in the departments, eSpecially with a series Of standing committees and with the chairman, the latter being expected tO provide direction for the total Operation. Among the chairmen's responsibilities are the following: to take an hctive role in curriculum planning for the depart- ment; to be heavily involved in recruitment of new staff members; to use "a good deal Of discretionary authority in 81 budgetary matters"; to promote long-range planning by the departmental staff; to make certain administrative decisions such as scheduling Of courses and faculty loads. In several Of these areas, the chairman may have a departmental commit- tee working with him, but he is expected to provide signifi- cant leadership and initiative for all departmental activi- ties. Perhaps it is in the area Of the budget where the chair— man's "power“ to influence the department becomes most Obvious. Included in his budgetary reSponsibilities are the following: his recommendation_is quite influential in set- ting faculty salaries; he has a supplies and maintenance budget for travel, hiring consultants, Operational contracts, and so on, all Of which is disbursed almost autonomously by the department; he frequently is given a sum of money which may be used at his discretion to upgrade salaries for current personnel, to increase the salary being Offered to fill a vacancy, or to hire additional part time assistants. Being able to make these kinds Of decisions gives the chairman a significant role in building his department's program. In addition to their other responsibilities, most chair— men carry a number Of student advisees, especially at the doctoral level, and attempt to do some teaching. The Associate Dean indicated that chairmen are "faculty leaders in the best sense,“ yet he also said that the chairman is more of an administrator than a professor in terms of his time commitments: 82 [The chairman's] administrative assignment is con- sidered to be either a full-time job or very nearly that. . . . Some of them want to do more [teaching and advising] than they really can, but we do View it as pretty much a full-time job. Selection Of Chairmen The selection Of all full-time professional personnel for the College of Education is an involved, exhaustive process designed to Obtain the best people available. Consequently, the machinery described here for selection of chairmen is given frequent use by the College to fill a variety Of vacancies. The College's constitution, a document developed in the College and approved by the board Of control, provides that "The Dean shall have final authority to make recommendations to the President for appointments Of faculty and Of College and departmental Officers. . . ." This provision establishes the Dean as the predominant figure in selection procedures, but it also allows him to arrive at his recommendation as he sees fit. An "informal agreement" within the College provides that the faculty will be significantly involved in selection of staff members. Whenever it becomes known that a chairmanship will be vacated, the Dean appoints a search committee to assist him in filling it. Generally, the committee is composed Of several senior faculty members from the department and one or two chairmen from other departments of the College, mak- ing a committee of five to seven members. The chairmen of 85 the other departments are included to give an "all-College" perspective to the search and to provide a degree Of Objectivity or neutrality. In the Dean's letter appointing one search committee, he urged the members to establish "suitable lines Of communication with faculty" from the department and from other departments "so that you can identify qualities which should be sought in the new chair- man" Which would characterize "suitably strong candidates." Development of a position description then becomes the first committee responsibility; the description includes information about the College and the department, the chair— man's responsibilities, and the general criteria for selec- tion. When the description has been develOped by the com- mittee and approved by the Dean, it is sent to as many in- stitutions and individuals around the country as the commit- tee feels may be able tO suggest candidates. Information about the nominees is solicited from any and all available sources including people at Sigma who know them, colleagues at current institutions, placement papers, and so on. Using this information, the search committee attempts to narrow the field to two or three good possibili- ties. Having done this, the committee generally invites the top Off-campus candidates to the University for about two days. During the visit, the candidates meet with the committee as a whole and with individual members of it, with other members of the departmental faculty, with other 84 departmental chairmen, and with representatives Of the Dean's staff, the Graduate Dean's staff, and the chief aca- demic officer's staff. NO formal vote is taken to select a nominee at the end Of the screening process, but it is expected that there will be a general concensus about what action seems appro- priate. Two groups-—the search committee and the tenured faculty Of the department-—typically must "have a feeling the guy can do the job" before an Offer is made. If there are major reservations on the part Of "even a large minority" about a candidate, the search will usually continue until someone more acceptable is lopated. Once the committee feels satisfied that it wants to recommend a man, the Dean is informed of this and given an Opportunity to react. He, of course, has the Option of re- jecting the recommendation, but the traditions of the College would be seriously violated by such action. The Dean must, in turn, make his recommendation to the chief academic Officer, the President, and the board Of control, with the appointment being made by the board. If the candidate is being brought from the outside and will be given the rank Of associate or full professor, he must also be approved by the Graduate Dean who reviews all tenure appointments. An interesting phenomenon over the past two years has been a resistance to hiring chairmen and other College staff 85 members from "inside." The College's Faculty Personnel Committee made a study which showed that better than 60% of the staff held doctorates from Sigma, and this led to queries about the dangers of inbreeding the staff. Thus, in a search conducted a year ago, the search committee looked nationwide and had at least one Offer rejected before it seriously con- sidered a strong candidate who was on the staff and holds a doctorate from the College; he eventually received the appointment. ppientation apg_En-servicp_Egucation According to the Associate Dean interviewed at Sigma, orientation and in-service education for chairmen are carried out mainly on an individual basis. Members of the Dean's staff spend large amounts of time with individual chairmen in the areas where the chairman need the most help. One Associate Dean works with them primarily on administrative matters such as scheduling, and the other has responsibilities in the area of development, including such things as develop— ing outside funding sources. A chairman who has just completed his first year on the job found this type of assistance invaluable. Having been a graduate student and staff member in the College, he was familiar with some procedures, but when he did have problems he was able tO get assistance; as he put it, "I did feel . . . that I could see anyone, anytime, in the Office Of the Dean and get a reaction; not a decision, but a reaction." 86 He summed up Observations from his Own experience and from watching other new staff members by saying, "I don't see any evidence that the College has tended to appoint people, and then sort of throw them Off the dock." A number of University-wide administrative manuals are used to orient chairmen to policies and procedures; the Dean's staff goes over them with chairmen as needs arise. But one chairman said that learning the necessary procedures is, at best, a difficult task: If you're fortunate enough to get a good secretary who can indeed act as an administrative assistant, you can find your way through the maze of University regulations.3 But it's sort Of a Ilearn-as-you-ge-along" process here, and this is bad. Staff communications is one problem which might be alle- viated through a continuing in-service education program for chairmen. Staff members of the College are currently scat— tered about the campus in 21 different buildings, and keeping everyone informed is a major concern. One chairman suggested that especially a new chairman would benefit from more contact with other chairmen to learn how they Operate, what is being done to upgrade staff, to recruit students, and so on. The Associate Dean did indicate that the future may see develOpment Of a more formal in-service education program, 3Secretaries hold civil service appointments and gen- erally hold their positions for long periods Of time. It is interesting that at both institutions where this is the case [Epsilon and Sigma Universities], the secretaries were men- tioned as playing important roles in the orientation of new chairmen. 87 one not as concerned with administrative details as with helping chairmen to understand "the variety Of ways there are that we can gO about exercising leadership." He felt that as the College defines to an even greater extent the role Of the departments and the chairmen, more will be done with orientation and in-service education programs. Summary Selection Of chairmen involves a broad search for candidates by a committee appointed by the Dean. The top candidates are generally brought to Sigma's campus for inter- views; the search committee and senior members Of the depart— mental faculty must reach general agreement on a candidate before he is recommended to the dean. The dean, assuming that he accepts the recommendation, must Obtain approval of the chief academic Officer, the president, and the board Of control before the appointment is finalized. Orientation for a new chairman involves individualized assistance from members of the Dean's staff with the aid Of University-wide administrative manuals. There is virtually no ongoing in-service education. CHAPTER IV THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ANSWERED In Chapter I ten research questions were presented as guides to the collection and analysis of information for the current study. Answers to nine Of the ten questions are provided in this chapter; the fifth chapter is, in effect, an answer to the tenth question. A portion of the data reported in Chapter III is sum- marized in the current chapter. It is hoped that summari- zation and reorganization Of the data will yield meaningful comparisons among the seven institutions. Also, information presented for the first time furnishes additional insights regarding the selection, orientation, and in-service educa- tion of department chairmen. I. RESEARCH QUESTION ONE What processes are used for selection of depart- mental chairmen in the Schools and Colleges of Education studied? Procedures for selecting chairmen in the seven Schools and Colleges Of Education range from an uncomplicated elec- tion by a departmental staff through elaborate procedures involving nationwide searches for candidates. In the fol- lowing paragraphs, the procedures are summarized in approxi- mately the order of their complexity. 88 89 At Kappa University, the process is simplest; it is merely an election of chairmen by departmental ballot. Each department holds an election every three years, with a good probability that effective chairmen will be re- elected. The next simplest procedure was that used at Beta University when chairmen of the newly created divisions were selected. Each division, through a survey Of its membership, submitted a list Of three candidates to the Director Of the School of Education. He chose one Of the three for a two- year term. At two of the institutions, Epsilon and Alpha, selection requires involvement Of administrators outside the depart- ment, but tradition stipulates that the department recommends a candidate who is rarely, if ever, rejected. Typically, the department holds an election (called a "preferential ballot" at Epsilon) to select its nominee. The dean reviews the results and takes necessary action. At Epsilon, he con- sults with the chief administrative Officer before writing a letter of appointment tO the new chairmen; at Alpha, the dean makes a recommendation to the chief academic Officer, the president, and the board Of control, with appointment made by the board. The chairman's term of Office at Alpha is three years; at Epsilon, departments vote every year, with a normal expectation that an individual will be nominated for three consecutive one-year terms. 90 The final three institutions, Gamma, Phi, and Sigma, use complex procedures for selecting chairmen. In each case, the dean appoints a search committee which is responsible for establishing selection criteria and for identifying and screening candidates. At Gamma, the committee is com- posed entirely Of members of the department seeking a chair- man; at Phi and Sigma, individuals from outside the depart- ment are included. The committees typically search widely for candidates although they may on occasion restrict their efforts to current staff members if circumstances require it or if a particularly able person is available. Background informa- tion about nominated candidates is sought from a variety of sources. By the time a search committee has completed the screen- ing process and is prepared to make a recommendation, it is expected to haveeagood understanding of the staff's reaction to candidates. At Phi and Sigma, one person is recommended to the dean; if the dean approves, he recommends the name to the chief academic Officer, the president, and the board Of control for appointment. At Gamma, the dean receives a re- port from the search committee, informs the departmental staff regarding the final three candidates being considered, allows time for a final reaction, and then makes his recom- mendation through the chief academic Officer and the presi- dent for board appointment. 91 The terms Of chairmen at these three institutions are generally intended to be rather long. The appointment at Phi is for two years, but it is expected that this merely provides opportunity to evaluate existing programs; re- appointment would be anticipated. Essentially the same is true at Sigma, with an evaluation every two or three years. The review at Gamma takes place every five years, with the possibility that the chairman would be reappointed if both he and the dean agree on such action. Several interesting sidelights to selection processes were discovered during the interviews. The first relates to the initiation of candidacies for chairmanships. In Chapter II Of the current study, it was noted from the lit- erature that actively seeking a position in higher education is considered inappropriate behavior; one should wait to be sought out by others. Evidence from the current study indi- cates that this is what happens in filling chairmanships. Of the fourteen chairmen interviewed, not one claimed to have initiated his own candidacy for the position. TO the contrary, it was more typical for them to disavow any interest in assuming a chairmanship. At best, some Of the chairmen, when sought out by an individual or a committee, Offered little overt resistance when asked to consider the position. Others declared flatly that they were not inter- ested in a chairmanship but were "talked into it" by their colleagues. 92 The second sidelight relates tO the source Of indivi- duals for filling chairmanships. When searching for chair- men, three Of the colleges (Gamma, Phi, and Sigma) regularly include both current staff members and outsiders as candi- dates, and two others (Alpha and Beta) may do so in the future as their respective organizations mature. Also, several interviewees said it is desirable to conduct a broad search which will discover candidates who might be located at other institutions. In spite Of the apparent desirability of looking nation- wide for candidates, thirteen of the fourteen chairman interviewed were selected from.within their own institutions, with their tenure at the institution prior to appointment ranging from a few months to over twenty years. In several cases, outsiders were considered for the posts, but for various reasons, current staff members received the appoint- ments. Thirdly, it was mentioned in Chapter I that chairmen representing a variety of types Of departments within schools and colleges Of education were interviewed. Nothing in the information collected indicates that different types of de- partments within a given institution select chairmen by dif- ferent processes. If there are distinctions among depart- ments, they are related to the type Of person sought, not how he is selected; e.g., a philosophy Of education depart- ment may seek a scholarly person who has spent his entire 95 professional life in a college setting whereas a department of educational administration will probably want a person who knows the theory Of administration but who also has had experience administering educational institutions. II. RESEARCH QUESTION TWO What individuals and/or groups are involved in the selection? To what extent is each involved? Because the preceding answer to Research Question One necessarily included much information pertinent to the second question, the table below was developed to avoid extensive repetition. The key provides information which could not be included in the table itself; a blank space in the table indicates no involvement of that individual or group in selection of chairmen. Where departmental staffs are involved in a balloting situation, there apparently is equal involvement of all assistant, associate, and full professors. In some instances, instructors also participate, but the information on this point is not complete enough to warrant a generalization to all seven institutions. Where search committees are used, the data indicates a tendency to appoint only tenured faculty, although again information is incomplete. On the other hand, faculty of all ranks are asked for suggestions and are allowed to parti- cipate in all-departmental activities related to selection of a chairman. 94 .GOH#MUCOEEOUO.H mHS mmxme “omuuHEEou summon mo coapmpcofifioomu mm>flmoou “moumpflpcoo m3ma>umucfl “mmuuHEEou nonmmm mucflommd I m .mGOHuouHomaoo Houmcmm ca OO>HO>GH mumnuo Ham “mmupflEEoo noumom co Muaoomm oEom I Q .ucopflmmum one Hmoemmo OeEmpmom moenu Ou coauopcmfifioomu mac mome “muaoomm Eonm coaumpcmfifioomu mm>Hmomm I U .mumuuoH ucmEucflommm mpcmm coma whommn mmmcHEoc m.coma m3mfl>mm I m .Houmuumflcaepm mmflno £ua3 cowumuasmcoo nouns cmfiuflmno mucflommm “mcfluoaaon mBOH>Om I d cowuopcmEEOomH coaumpcmfifioomn museomm¢ m3mfl>mm m3¢e>mm m G mEmHm cowumpemafiooou cosumpcoEEoomu . mucflommd m3Oa>om m3mfl>mm m a Hsm cowumpcmfiaoomu GOHDMOGOEEOOOH mucflommé m3mfl>mm m3mfl>mm m a peace cowumpcoeaoomu coaumpcmEEooou oumcfiaoc mucflommd m3mfl>mm mzwfl>mm O on uoHHmm onmad uoHHmn m 4 Hafiucmnmmoum coasmmm mucflomma m Umumcflaoz mpmm muowam mmmmfi Houucou ucwpwmmum movammo comm ,NuAWUMMI mo oumom OHEOOMO< MOHQU Housmauummoa .cwEHHmno ucofiuummop mo coauomamm ca UO>HO>CH mmsoum Ugo maosUH>HUCH .a magma 95 The involvement of the chief academic Officer, the president, and the board Of control seems to be nominal wherever they are part of the selection process. In fact, it appears that in most of the institutions selection of chairmen is really accomplished at the departmental level, with nominal participation of the dean. Only at Beta and Gamma does the dean appear to be involved significantly. At the former, the Director selected a chairman from three nominees. At the latter, the dean receives a report from the search committee. The report may include several names, and when it does, the dean must inform the depart- ment who the final three candidates are. The department then has some time to give him a final reaction before he makes his recommendation. At all other institutions where the dean participates, it would be a rare instance if he rejected the recommendation of a departmental vote or Of a search committee. In summary, the evidence indicates that department chairmen are selected by departmental staffs. The involve- ment of other individuals and/or groups is usually nominal. III. RESEARCH QUESTION THREE How is the selection process influenced by an institution's appraisal Of the chairman's role? Information from the case studies in Chapter III sup— ports the conclusion that selection processes are influenced by an institution's appraisal Of the chairman's role. 96 At Gamma, Phi, and Sigma, the chairmen in the respec- tive Colleges Of Education are seen as administrative leaders Of departmental enterprises. The chairmanship is a full time, or nearly full time, position with responsi- bilities for program development and administrative details. In light of such meaningful involvement chairmen are chosen through an exhaustive selection process involving faculty search committees and review by upper—echelon administrators. If Colleges Of Education at Gamma, Phi, and Sigma repre- sent one extreme, Kappa's School of Education where chairmen are selected by a departmental vote would fall at the other. The chairman serves almost in the sense of a presiding officer for the department's activities; most Often, the department acts as a "committee Of the whole." It is true that the chairman has some administrative duties, but he may be characterized more as "first among equals“ than as one whose role clearly sets him apart from other faculty members. A similar situation prevails at Epsilon where chairmen in the College of Education are selected by the dean after a preferential ballot in the departments. The dean almost always appoints the person receiving the most votes so that selection is virtually by election. Just as at Kappa, chair- men at Epsilon are seen primarily as professors, not adminis- trators, and the departments value highly the tradition of faculty involvement in policy formulation and implementation. Consequently, an elected chairman has relatively well defined 97 boundaries within which he Operates; outside Of those boundaries he must consult with his departmental colleagues. In the other two institutions, Alpha and Beta, organi- zational patterns are evolving so that the role of the chairman is not firmly established. He is not as significant in administration as at Gamma, Phi, and Sigma, but he is more an administrator than at Kappa and perhaps more so than at Epsilon. Selection processes fall somewhere between the complete searches at the former group Of institutions and the election at Kappa or the quasi-election at Epsilon. IV. RESEARCH QUESTION FOUR What are the critical questions of concern when selecting a new chairman? When this question was broached in the interviews, the interviewer usually suggested possible areas were one's edu- cational background, professional experience, research out- put, ability to get along with others, and so forth. Generally, the interviewee responded that all Of these were important and then went on to discuss the issues which seem most significant to him. Two of the deans suggested that the crucial concerns tend to vary from department to department, or even from one time to another for a single department. A department heavily involved in research activities will need a research- oriented chairman, whereas a teacher education department will want to have a person with experience in that field. 98 Or on one occasion a department may need a productive scholar to give a particular style Of leadership, but at another time need someone who is primarily an administrator. A dean stated that it "depends on the department and the character- istics that it possesses at a given time." Two other deans said they look for an individual with ability to mold and lead a department. Their statements are very similar: I think . . . we want a person who's accepted by his peers, who can give some leadership in review of pro- grams and the proposals for modifying these programs in desirable directions. I'm looking for somebody who can lead the department in what seems tO me to be the desirable direction. A number Of interviewees (about nine) discussed the need to find a chairman who is competent in his field, a person whom department members can respect professionally. Some typical comments are the following: It has been pretty clear that the people who have been elected to the department chairman's job have been respected members of the department and competent individuals. They'd like to have a competent person, but he doesn't have to be writing and all these kind Of things. . . . some reSpect from his colleagues . . . at least they would respect some positions he's taken in the field. One aspect Of a chairman's competency is his ability to attract outstanding personnel to the staff. A chairman "who is not a very good judge Of horseflesh" probably would be unsatisfactory to most departments because Of his usually significant involvement in recruiting. 99 The single factor which was mentioned most frequently 4 (at least eleven times) was the individual's ability to work with others, including faculty members, students, the dean, and other administrators. The following excerpts are repre- sentative: I think ability to get along with a wide variety Of people in a constructive way is probably the central thing they [the staff] look for. A person who has learned tO get along with peOple. . . . In our concept here, I think the number one [criterion] is working with people. . . . that is, there would be no one in the department who couldn't work under him. . . . [He must be] willing to give anybody with a good argument a chance Of sup- port. A faculty search committee member at Phi provided a telling statement regarding the importance Of locating a man with whom the staff can work: One thing I've found on search committees for everyone-— the search committee for the dean, the search committee for this chairman, search committees for staff--one thing stands out: ,he's got to be [a person you are] able to get along with. . . . It's kind of amazing how important this criterion is. It isn't the first ques- tion people ask about the man, or the second, or the first or second comment they make about him. But at some point it always comes up. . . . You get more Of an emotional reaction than you do on any Of the other points. . . . This is more important than it's made out to be. You've got to be able to live with the rascal. Finally, two chairmen suggested a criterion which is important if one can believe faculty members are as reluctant to accept chairmanships as they claim to be: I'm saying this facetiously in part, but I can't help but think, too, that maybe they were just looking for people who were willing. 100 I suspect first you have to find the person that's willing to do it, frankly. In summary, a chairman should fit-the current needs of a department, be able to mold a departmental program, and work well with people. He must be competent, and he must be willing to do the job. V. RESEARCH QUESTION FIVE What kinds of qualifications and backgrounds are brought to their positions by new chairmen? The interview setting made it difficult to Obtain ade- quate information for a definitive answer to this question. With no advanced preparation, chairman were hard pressed to summarize their careers in terms Of job responsibilities, number of years at each location, and so on. Getting them to "toot their own horn" was awkward; providing complete in- formation tended to make them seem pretentious about their accomplishments. Consequently, the chairmen's backgrounds will be described here only in a very general, superficial manner. Most of the chairmen have combined practical applica— tion Of their Specialties with college-level research and teaching over a period of years. Nearly all had taught in public schools, been principals and/or superintendents, or held a variety of other positions in educational enterprises before moving to teaching and research positions in a col- lege or university setting. Several chairmen still partici- pate as consultants tO school boards or to educational 101 organizations such as the North Central Association while on a university staff. All Of the chairmen hold doctorates from schools or colleges of education at major state and private institu- tions. Of the fourteen degrees, three are from Columbia, two from Chicago, two from Ohio State, and one from each of seven other Midwestern state universities. Only four of the chairmen hold doctorates from the institutions they currently serve. Each chairman holds membership in several professional organizations, some of a general nature such as the National Education Association or Phi Delta Kappa, and others repre- senting various areas of major interest. Most Of them have held one or more Offices on the organizations' boards or committees at the state and national level. AS a generalization it may be said that holding a chair- manship tends to reduce an individual's output Of research and publication. Some exceptions to this are the few chair- men who indicated they never were very prolific SO had little to lose. Another was a chairman who said he now makes more speeches and finds he can Often derive journal articles from them, thus actually increasing his publication rate. VI. RESEARCH QUESTION SIX What suggestions can be elicited for ideal selec- tion procedures? Current selection procedures for chairmen are generally acceptable tO the individuals interviewed. When asked to 102 comment on possible improvements, interviewees usually sug- gested minor modifications of the procedure utilized at their respective institutions; in no case was it suggested that a complete changeover to some other procedure is needed. Several individuals mentioned the need to search wide- ly for candidates and then to collect the maximum amount of information availablecnleach candidate. One chairman said anything less than having "the broadest base of candidates" is unacceptable. A chairman who had been selected through use Of a search committee which restricted itself to "inside" candidates felt a broader search should have been conducted, even if it had been more time-consuming; in his Opinion, "Six months is not going to make that much difference in a department's life." One dean and one chairman said that a dean ought to assume a Significant role in selection Of chairmen Since the latter have so much to do with the kind of college the dean develops. They feel the dean could be given an unranked list of two or three names from which to choose a chairman. Under such a procedure, the faculty still plays an important part and can eliminate unacceptable individuals by omitting them from the list. Also, the dean is not faced with either having to approve a Single recommendation or arousing the staff's displeasure by rejecting its nominee. The Schools and Colleges Of Education which have re- organized and have selected chairmen only once may alter their 105 procedures in the future. AS they have opportunity to define Inore fully the chairman's role, they may wish to adopt new criteria and processes when current chairmen are replaced. A problem commonly experienced by many departments is locating suitable candidates for chairmanships. Although no one offered a solution to the problem, it is one which needs attention as the position grows in stature. With respect to search committees, one chairman suggested that the search committee could be selected by the depart- mental faculty rather than by the dean. He would like to see all levels of instructors, and perhaps even students, on the committee. Another recommendation for search committees was that they review only candidates from outside the institution. This procedure would assume the dean knows the qualifications Of current staff members. When the search committee com- pleted its work, the dean would compare qualifications Of the fleet outsiders located by the committee with those Of the inside people and make his decision accordingly. In summary, current selection procedures are apparently quite satisfactory. Suggested innovations would be designed Q tO insure more careful searches for outstanding candidates. VII. RESEARCH QUESTION SEVEN What programs Of orientation and/or infiservice education are provided for chairmen? The SChools and Colleges Of Education surveyed in the current study provide relatively little in the way of 104 orientation and in—service education programs for department chairmen. Two explanations for the lack Of programs were Offered: (1) chairmen are usually hired from within their respective institutions, and it is therefore assumed they are familiar with policies and procedures; and (2) several of the schools and colleges have recently reorganized and still are not certain what orientation or in-service education would be appropriate. But in Spite Of these reasons being given, it was Often admitted that more attention ought to be given to orientation and in-service education programs. At four Of the institutions (Epsilon, Gamma, Phi, and Sigma), the dean and his staff make an effort to work with individual chairmen, eSpecially those new to the position. The dean at Phi, for example, meets with new chairmen to dis- cuss policies and problems related to their departments and the College. At Sigma, two associate deans Spend a major portion of their time working with individual chairmen. Orientation for chairmen at Epsilon is primarily con- ducted between a new chairman and his predecessor. Pro- cedural differences among the departments limit the possibil— ities for standardized orientation programs. Also at Epsilon, the Dean mentioned that civil service secretaries Often assist in orienting a new chairman; the secretaries tend to have longer tenures than chairmen and therefore are able to pass on information about the depart- ment. A chairman at Sigma said this sometimes occurs at his institution as well. 105 Regular weekly, biweekly, or monthly meetings serve an in-service education function at four institutions (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Phi); such sessions bring together the dean, his staff, and the chairmen. Agendas for the meetings may include operational concerns but they are more likely to be concerned with policy formulation and long-range planning. At Beta, resource persons from outside of the School of Edu- cation are sometimes brought to the sessions. The dean, his staff, and the chairmen at Gamma Spend two or three days each fall before the general faculty work- shop talking about, and planning for, the upcoming year. This helps them begin a new year moving together in the same direction. VIII. RESEARCH QUESTION EIGHT Where do the chairmen feel their orientation and in-service education for the position were weak? Many Of the chairmen expressed no displeasure with orien- tation and in-service education programs they had experienced. There seems to be some validity to the assumption that a long— time staff member who becomes a chairman may need little preparation for the position; several interviewees expressed this point of view. Another factor which diminishes the need for extensive special preparation is that many of the chair- men have held other administrative positions and find the chairmanship similar to their previous posts. 106 The major criticism of orientation and in—service edu- cation came from chairmen who had had a difficult initial adjustment to their positions. For the most part, college and university regulations and procedures were not explained to them, and they resented having had tO learn them through a trial-and-error process. In at least two cases, new chair- men had difficulty even locating departmental files in order to do background reading about departmental programs. One chairman expressed his belief that the administra- tive group in his College spends too little time on some key issues: "We devote 15, 20, 50 minutes every meeting discuss- ing problems that probably ought to take weeks." Thus, Situ- ations which could provide good in-service education oppor- tunities are glossed over because Of the press of time. At two institutions where they do not have meetings to bring together the chairmen, it was said that the chairmen miss opportunities for mutual assistance. By Simply not hav- ing contact with each other, they do not learn from their colleagues' experiences. Nor is there Opportunity to be kept up-to-date on programs throughout the College. In Short, orientation programs are tOO Often inadequate to meet a chairman's needs; at a minimum, he needs to be assiSted in gaining a thorough understanding Of college and university rules and procedures. On the other hand, long- range in-service education programs are not seen as a Signifi— cant need except tO the extent they would improve communi- cation across a college staff. 107 IX. RESEARCH QUESTION NINE What suggestions can be elicited for ideal orien- tation and in-service education programs for department chairmen? When requested to make suggestions for "ideal" orienta- tion and in-service education programs, interviewees typically either said they were satisfied with current prac- tices or they made suggestions related more to orientation than to in-service education. Except for a few chairmen and one or two deans, there was general agreement that new chairmen need some orientation to their positions. The major concerns relate to procedures and regulations necessary to function as a chairman. Two chairmen were almost vehement about the lack of assistance they received in these matters and the resultant need to learn Slowly over a period Of time. Several interviewees said orientation becomes more important whenever a chairman is brought from another institution. Generally, the dean is seen as being responsible for providing orientation programs. Another suggestion was that experienced chairmen could provide assistance to a new colleague. At two of the three institutions which do not have regu— lar meetings for chairmen, it was felt having them could significantly reduce communications problems. Just bringing chairmen together would enable them to discuss common prob- lems and to learn from'each other. 108 In addition to the above-mentioned general suggestions, several other potentially useful proposals were made. Briefly, these were: Two chairmen at two different institutions would like to see their administrative colleagues (the dean, his staff, and other chairmen) plan retreats which would remove them from day—to-day concerns and allow extended consideration of important issues. One chairman even suggested doing this once each quarter to "work on problems, innovative practices, bone up on what's happening in this College." He said one potentially worthwhile experience would be for the dean to take a group of administrators to Washington, D. C., for several days of orientation to Federal programs in education. A dean would like to develop a programmed text regard- ing chairmen's responsibilities. New chairmen would work through the text on their own SO that conference time with the dean could be used more efficiently. A chairman of an educational administration department said it would be very appropriate for his department to work with the dean's office toward an orientation and in-service program for chairmen. Such activity Should fall within the domain of those staff members who claim to know something about administration. Sigma's Associate Dean said he could envision a seminar series dealing with effective leadership techniques for chairmen. It would perhaps help them work more effectively toward desired goals with their staffs. 109 One of the chairmen said he would stress three areas if he were planning an orientation program for new chairmen. They would be the following: 1) He has to Spend most of his time with the people in the division. He can't be in the Office; that isn't where the job is. The job is in molding these people together as a unit. 2) He can't spend the time just with people in his own division for development to work. . . . He must build fences with the people in other divisions. 5) The other orientation aspect . . . is the working of the University itself: the decision-making aspects of the University and what are the crucial links--whom does this man have to get to know, what people Should he send them to, where are the . . . crucial decisions made. Finally, with all Of these suggestions for preparation Of chairmen, one chairman's advice needs to be remembered. It is simply that chairmen differ from one another in their strengths and weaknesses; therefore, some phases Of orienta- tion and in-service education should be personalized to give attention to individual needs. X. CHAPTER SUMMARY In this chapter, information gleaned from interviews has been organized around nine of the ten research questions presented in Chapter I. In the final chapter attention is focused on the tenth question regarding general principles and programs Of selection, orientation, and in-service edu- cation. Recommendations for further research are also included. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The tenth and final research question was stated as follows: What general principles and programs Of selec- tion, orientation, and in-service education, if any, can be drawn from the information? After having conducted the series of interviews required for the current study and having analyzed the information from those interviews, the author is Of the Opinion that no single program Of selection, orientation, or in-service edu- cation can be recommended. Institutions and local circum- stances vary too greatly for such a recommendation to be made. But the author does believe that some general principles can be drawn from the data and from the literature. These principles could be applied in any Of the departments studied, with modifications as needed for unique conditions. The author is also convinced that the principles have application in departments other than those studied, i.e., those in other schools and colleges of the seven institutions included in this study and those in other institutions of higher education throughout the country. Problems of selection, orientation, and in-service education bear some similarity in all colleges 110 111 and universities so that general principles applicable one setting should have some meaning in other settings well. In the following two sections the author presents conclusions regarding general principles for selection department chairmen and for orientation and in-service cation of the chairmen once they are selected. In the as his of edu- final section Of this chapter, topics for future research studies are suggested. I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR SELECTION OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRMEN Based on the literature surveyed and on the information gathered for the current study, the author suggests the fol- lowing as general principles for selection of department chairmen: 1. Selection processes must be developed consistent with the chairman's role in a particular setting. The more important a chairman is to the functioning Of a de- partment and of its College, the greater the risk involved in selecting him.“ prhe is to be primarily a representative of his colleagues and will Spend only a small portion of his time in administration, a departmental election may be ade— quate. If he is to assume the status of a full time adminis- trator, more involved procedures are necessary. 2. Analysis of current circumstances in a particular department must precede the selection Of any new chairman. 112 If an appropriate chairman is to be selected, those respon- sible for his selection must be aware of current depart- mental needs. The type Of chairman that was right for the department some time ago or that is currently right for some other department may not be appropriate at all. Prevalent strengths and weaknesses must be assessed so that a person who can meet those needs may be located. 5. Criteria for selection should be developed and 4 made public every time a chairmanship is to be filled. This would apply even when a chairman Obviously will be se- lected from within the department. Making the criteria explicit to candidates and non-candidates alike provides some standard for judging individuals who might fill the position. The criteria could be distributed widely and thereby serve as a recruiting device for Off-campus persons. 4. Individuals who are potential chairman should be identifiable, either on their own initiative or some- one else's. The department chairmanship is here to stay, and every indi- cation is that it is a strategic position in the administra- tion of higher educational institutions. Consequently, the "hide-your-light-under-a-bushel-so-that-you-can continue- scholarly-pursuits" attitude is inappropriate. Qualified individuals ought to be more willing to assume chairmanships. TO encourage them, the position may need to be modified so that it is more attractive to capable individuals. Perhaps one approach to the problem would be to reduce the onerous 115 tasks of the chairmanship through use of graduate assistants or specially trained secretaries. 5. Where deans are to be involved in the selection process, they should be expected to play a significant role in developing criteria, screening candidates, and working with the department toward selection of a chairman. This study has supplied evidence that deans are nominally involved in selection procedures. It is the author's conten- tion they should either be Significantly involved or should openly establish their role as a perfunctory one. If the latter course were chosen, it would be a generally known fact that chairmen are selected by their departments, with the dean, the chief academic Officer, the president, or the board of control exercising the right to veto a department's choice only under most unusual circumstances. Currently the dean's role falls somewhere between active participation and docile acquiescence. 6. Search procedures should generally be quite broad in order to locate all potential candidates and to gather as much information as possible. This principle could apply even where chairmen are elected by departmental vote. If such a department analyzed its needs and found no current staff member able or willing to meet them, it should consider a broad search before electing a chairman. At the other extreme, a department having some- one Of professional stature on its staff might assume he should become the chairman; a broad search would then provide evidence that the "insider" is the best person available. 114 7. All departmental staff members should play a part in selecting a new chairman. Perhaps instructors and teaching assistants would not have the same degree of involvement as persons holding profes- sorial ranks, but they Should at least be encouraged to suggest criteria, nominate candidates, and provide some re- actions during the screening process. 8. When the selection process has been completed, some responsible person should write a report sum- marizing the procedures followed. The report should be confidential with respect to candidates' names SO that it can be used as a reference by other departments. Experiences gained by one department may assist another when it needs to select a chairman. A file Of reports would be Of assistance. 9. Chairmanships Should be reviewed periodically, preferrably at intervals greater than one year. If selection of a chairman is carried out well, there seems to be little reason to review and reappoint or select anew every year. In a year's time the chairman is just getting a feel for the position; he probably has not yet reached a peak of effectiveness. A term Of three to five years would allow him Opportunity to develop or improve programs, yet not seem like an unendurable expanse of time. The chairman might be reappointed if the departmental staff, the dean, and the chairman himself agree that this would be appro- priate. 115 II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR ORIENTATION AND IN-SERVICE EDUCATION OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRMEN Just as with the principles for selection, the author feels confident in stating certain principles for the orien- tation and in-service education of department chairman. The principles are: 1. Every new chairman needs some orientation to his position. The assumption that chairmen come "ready-made" and therefore .—-n-' ‘I. need no orientation is an unacceptable one. Whether the new chairman is an "insider" or “outsider," the evidence indicates some attention must be given to his needs as he assumes the position. 2. Orientation programs need to be individualized for each new chairman because chairmen enter their positions at different times and at different levels of preparation for the job. Across a large institution, there may be call for some stan- dardized orientation every term or semester if the turnover of chairmen is great. But even if such programs did take place, orientation would not be complete until college and departmental procedures and programs were understood by the new chairman. 5. Increased attention needs to be given to in-service education programs for chairmen. Regularly scheduled meetings for all chairmen with the dean and his assist- ants would be a minimum program. TOO many interviewees reported poor communications and a lack of interaction among chairmen resulting from little or no attention being given to in-service education programs. 116 A minimum of imagination and creativity is currently devoted to the development of expanded programs and better utiliza- tion of resources to meet local needs. 4. The dean Of a college bears the primary responsi- bility for orientation and in-service education of chairmen. The dean may delegate responsibility to an assistant or may suggest that other chairmen be involved. Or the chief aca- demic Officer Of the institution may develop some standardized programs. But as the chief administrative Officer Of his college, the dean is in the best position to know where the problems are and how they might be solved through in-service education. 5. The dean should call upon chairmen to assist in planning in—service education programs. The limited evidence from the current study indicates that chairmen certainly have ideas to contribute. A dean who systematically worked with his chairmen to define needs and ways to meet them would undoubtedly be able to develop a meaningful in-service education program. 6. In-service education programs must strike a balance between being group- and individual-oriented. Group sessions will meet some common concerns Of a college's chairmen. But individual differences still will require individualized attention from the dean or from other capable personnel. 7. Broader resources--human and material--should be committed to orientation and in-service education for chairmen. 117 This is Similar to the third principle above, but it seems important enough to be stated separately. Potential re- sources include consultants from fields such as group dy- namics and industrial sociology, general literature dealing with in-service programs, programmed learning techniques, imprOved handbooks and manuals defining procedures, and so on. The list Of possibilities is nearly endless. III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH As the author has developed the current study, a number Of questions relating to departmental chairmanships have come to mind. The suggestions below may provide fruitful ideas for future studies. 1. What is the role of the chairman? The brief analysis of his role included as a part of this study whetted the imagination with possibilities for more definitive studies. 2. How can the chairmanship be made more appealing to capable individuals? There seems to be a tendency to avoid becoming a chairman, if at all possible. Yet there is no denying that departments need qualified chairmen. Well plan— ned studies of this dilemma may provide clues to some solu- tions. 5. Are there other programs of selection, orientation, and in-service education which are Significantly different from those discovered in the current study? Additional in- formation would be of assistance to those concerned with these problems. 118 4. What characteristics contribute to making one an effective chairman? The current study touched on this topic in attempting to define "crucial questions" when selecting chairmen and to describe the backgrounds Of the chairmen interviewed. But this effort has only scratched the surface. 5. What implications are there for short-term as opposed to long-term chairmanships? The chairmen's terms vary con- siderably at the seven schools and colleges Of education in the current study. The author knows Of no empirical evidence that indicates the strengths and weaknesses Of various terms of service. B IBLIOGRAPHY 119 B IBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Ernest W. "Industry and Business Use In-Service Education," Educational Leadership, 17:561-565+ (March, 1960). Angiolillo, Paul F. "Reflections Of a Department Head," Improving College and University Eeaching, 15:8-11 (Winter, 1965). Anonymous. "The Pursuit Of Presidents," Time, vol. 89, no. 15, p. 74 (April 14, 1967). Ayers, Archie R. and Ernest V. Hollis. "Differentiating Functions of Administrative Officers in Colleges and Universities," Higher Education, 20:5-6+ (December, 1965). Barnard, Chester I. The Functions Oggthe Executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962 O . Organization and Management. Cambridge, Massa- chusetts: Harvard University Press, 1956. Berelson, Bernard. Graduate Education in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Bolman, Frederick deW. How College Presidents Are Chosen. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1965. . "Placing America's Highly Skilled Manpower: College Faculty and Administrators," Educational Record, 45:295-500 (October, 1962). Bowler, Ned W. "Who Should Be in Charge Of the Department-- Head or Chairman?" Journal Of Higher Education, 55:515-518 (June, 1962). Browning, Elmer R. "The Ideal Department Chairman," The National Business Educationgguarterly, 50:42-47 (May, 1962). Brubacher, John S. and Willis Rudy. Higher Education in Tran- sition. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1958. 120 121 Burns, Gerald P., editor. Administrators in Higher Education. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1962. Caplow, Theodore and Reece J. McGee. The Academic Market- place. New York: Science Editions, Inc., 1961. Chambers, M. M. "A Brief Bibliography of Higher Education in the Middle Nineteen Sixties," Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University, vol. 42, no. 5 (September, 1966). Committee T on College and University Government. "Faculty Participation in College and University Government," American Association of University Professors Bulletin, 49:255-257 (Autumn, 1965). Corson, John J. Governance of Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Creek, H. L. "Head of the Department," American Association Of University Egogessors Bulletin, 56:81-96 (Spring, Cromdall, Lars G. "The College Department Chairman," The National Business Education Quarterly, 29:55—58+ (May, 1961). DiBella, Edward Engel. The Graduate Professional Dean-- SelectEpn, Roley and Relationship_, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, Inc., 1965. Dooher, M. Joseph and Elizabeth Marting, editors. Selection of Management Personnel, vol. I. New York: American Management Association, Inc., 1957. Doyle, Edward A. The Status and Functions of the Departmental Chairman: A Study of the Status and Function of the Departmental Chairman in Thirty:three Selected Colleges Under Private Auppices. Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America, 1955. Dressel, Paul L. and Associates. Evaluation in Higher Educa— tion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961. Eells, W. C. and E. V. Hollis. Administration Of Higher Education: An Appotated Bibliography. Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1960. Euwema, Ben. "The Organization Of the Department," Education— al Record, 54:58-45 (January, 1955). 122 Fayol, Henri. General and Industrial Management. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd., 1949. Fellman, David. "The Departmental Chairman," paper presented at annual conference of the Association for Higher Education, Chicago, March 6, 1967, mimeographed. Flanagan, John C. “Selection Techniques for Research Workers," in Selection, Training, and Use of Personnel in Indus- trial Research, David B. Hertz, editor. New York: ,King's Crown Press, 1952, pp. 45-61. Garrett, Cyril D. "A Study Of the In-service Improvement Programs of Eight Liberal Arts Colleges," unpublished doctoral thesis, Michigan State University, 1957. Gould, John Wesley. The Academic Deanship. New York: Bureau Of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Gross, Neal. "Organizational Lag In American Universities," Harvard Educational Review, 55:58-75 (Winter, 1965). Gross, Richard F. "A Study of Inservice Education Programs for Student Personnel Workers in Selected Colleges and Universities in the United States,“ unpublished doctoral thesis, Michigan State University, 1965. Gunter, Craig Glenn. "The Role of Departmental Chairmen in the Governance Of State Universities," unpublished doctoral thesis, Washington State University, 1964. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, 25:2826 (November, 1964). Gustad, John W. "Orientation and Faculty Development," Educational Record, 44:195-215 (July, 1965). . "Policies and Practices in Faculty Evaluation," Educational Record, 42:194—211 (July, 1961). Heiges, Ralph E. "Functioning Department Heads in Colleges of Medium Size," Peabody Journal of Education, 55:154- 59 (November, 1955). Hemphill, John K. "Leadership Behavior Associated with the Administrative Reputation Of College Departments," The Journal of Educationa; Psychology, 46:585—401 —f (November, 1955). Henderson, Algo D. Policies and Practices in Higher Educa- tion. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1960. 125 Henry, Nelson B., editor. In-service Education for Teachers, Supervisors, and Administrators (The Fifty-Sixth Year- book Of the National Society for the Study Of Education). Chicago: The National Society for the Study Of Educa- tion, 1957. Hertz, David B., editor. Selection, Training, and Use of Personnel in Industrial Research. New York: King's Crown Press, 1952. Hodges, J. B. "Continuing Education: Why and How,“ Educa- tional Leadership, 17:550-1+ (March, 1960). Hollenbach, John W. "The Administrator's Role in Faculty Development," Liberal Education, 50:517-525 (December, 1964). Horn, Francis H. "The Organization Of Colleges and Universi- ties," in Administrators in Higher Education, Gerald P. Burns, editor. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962. Jasinski, Harry. "What Is Expected Of a College Department Chairman?" The National Business Education Quarterly, 29:59-45+ (May, 1961). Leedy, H. A. "Training of Young Researchers," in Selection, Training, and Use of Personnel in Industrial Research, David B. Hertz, editor. .New York: King's Crown Press, 1952, PP. 62-77. Lunsford, Terry F., editor. The Study O§_Academic Adminis- tration: Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Com— mission for Higher Education, 1965. McCall, Harlan R. pp pl. Problems Of New Facultngembers in Qplleqes and Universities. East Lansing, Michigan: Center for the Study of Higher Education, Michigan State University, 1961. McKenna, David Loren. "A Study Of Power and Interpersonal ' Relationships in the Administration Of Higher Education," unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Michigan, ,1958. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, 19:1275 (December, 1958). MacLeod, Robert B. "Confession Of an Ex-chairman," American Association Of University Professors Bulletin, 40:424-51 (Autumn, 1954). McVey, Frank L. and Raymond M. Hughes. Problems Of College and University Administration. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1952. 124 Meeth, L. Richard, editor. Selected Issues in Higher Educa- tion: An Annotated Bibliography. New York:- Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1965. Meredith, Patrick. "The Departmental Reality,“ Universities Quarterly, 17:54-9 (December, 1962). Miller, Delbert C. and William H. Form. Industrial Sociology. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951. Millett, John D. The Academic Community. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. Mooney, ROSS L. "The Problem of Leadership in the University," Harvard Educational Review, 55:42-57 (Winter, 1965). Murray, Robert K. "On Departmental Development: A Theory," Journal of General Education, 16:227-56 (October, 1964). Nanassy, Louis C. "Administration and Supervision of Business Education in State Colleges of Education,“ National Business Educationyguarterly, 52:51-40 (May, 1964). Newman, William H. Administrative Action. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965. Norris, Robert Bayless. "Administering Inservice Education in the College," School and Sociepy, 77:527-529 (May 25, 1955). Patterson, Laura Marguerite. “Preferences in Administrative Styles Based on an Inquiry into Perceptions Of the Ideal Structure of the University Department and the Ideal Role of the Department Chairman," unpublished doctoral thesis, The University Of Texas, 1966. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, 27:504-A (August, 1966). Patton, Robert D. “The Department Chairman," Journal Of Higher Education, 52:459-61 (November, 1961). Pollard, E. C. "How to Remain in the Laboratory Though Head of a Department," Science, 145:1018-1021 (September 4, 1964). Poorman, Richard 0. "Faculty Participation in Decision Mak- ing in Administration Of Higher Education," The Catholic Educational Review, 65:289-99 (May, 1965). Porter, Kirk H. "Department Head or Chairman?" American Association of University Professors Bulletin, 47:559-42 (Winter, 1961). 125 Richardson, Richard C., Jr. "Departmental Leadership in the Two-year College," paper presented at the annual con— ference of the Association for Higher Education, Chicago, March 6, 1967, mimeographed. Riesman, David. Constraint and Varietygin American Educa- tion. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1956. Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962. Russell, John Dale and Floyd W. Reeves. The Evaluation Of Higher Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. Russell, John Dale. "Faculty Satisfactions and Dissatisfac- tions," in Basis for Decision, L. J. Lins, editor. Madison, Wisconsin: Dembar Educational Research Services, Inc., 1965, pp. 155-159. Satlow, I. David. "Meeting Departmental Problems: The Work of the Department Head," Business Education World, 40:7-10+ (December, 1959); 40:25—25+7(January, 1960); 40:27-29+ (February, 1960); 40:57-59+ (March, 1960); 40:21-25+ (May, 1960). . "Profile of the Successful Department Head," Business Education World, 45:14-16 (April, 1965). Sears, Jesse B. The Nature of the Administrative Process. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950. Shimkin, Michael B. "Personnel Selection in Academic Insti- tutions,“ Science, 145:657 (February 14, 1964). Shuart, James M. "Some Value—orientations of Academic Depart— ment Chairman: A Study of Comparative Values and Administrative Effectiveness,“ unpublished doctoral thesis, New York University, 1966. Abstract and Bibliography provided by author. ' Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951. Stanford, Edward V. I‘Functional Faculty Units," The Catholic Educational Review, 61:78-84 (February, 1965). Strong, E. W. "Shared Responsibility," American Association of University Professors Bulletin, 492109—115 (June, 1965). 126 Swearingen, Mildred E. "Identifying Needs for In-service Growth," Educational Leadership, 17:552-555 (March, 1960). Tracy, Norbert J. "Orienting New Faculty Members in Colleges and Universities," North Central Associationgguarterly, 56:214-21 (Fall, 1961). Truitt, John W. and Richard F. Gross. Professional Develop- ment in Student Personnel Work Through In-service Education, Bulletin NO. 1, Division of Professional Development and Standards, National Association of Stu— dent Personnel Administrators (June, 1966). Urwick, Lyndall, F. The Elements of Administration. New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1954. Vincent, Melvin J. and Jackson Mayers. New Foundations for Industrial Sociology. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1959. Walker, Donald E. and Darrell C. Holmes. "The University Professor and His Department," Educational Record, 41:54-6 (January, 1960). Williams, Robert L. The Administration of Academic Affairs in Higher Education. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The Univer- sity of Michigan Press, 1965. Wilson, Francis M. "What Makes an Effective In-service Training Program?" Journal of the National Association of Deans of Women, 16:51-56 (January, 1953T. Woodburne, Lloyd S. "An Administrative Responsibility," Jougnal of Higher Education, 14:155-159 (March, 1945). . Faculty Personnel Policies in Higher Education. New York:. Harper and Brothers, 1950. . Principles of College and UniversitygAdministra- tiog. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1958. APPENDIX A LETTER TO DEANS 127 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansingo Michigan 48825 College of Education - Erickson Hall May 5, 1967 Dr. John Doe Dean College of Education Midwestern University Sometown,,SOmestate Dear Dean Doe: The April 14, 1967, edition Of Time carries a quote by U.C.L.A. Chancellor Franklin Murphy to the effect that "'attracting high-quality academic administrators is the biggest problem in American universities today.'“ Because we believe that this problem and that of preparing adminis- tratOrS to cope with the responsibilities of their positions are significant ones, we are undertaking a study Of the selection, orientation, and in-service education of depart- ment chairmen in schools and colleges Of education at eight large Midwestern institutions. Our plan is to visit each of the campuses to interview de- partment chairmen, members of faculty selection committees (where these were employed in the selection procedure), and deans Of the schools or colleges. All responses will be treated confidentially, and we will send to you a summary Of our findings when the study is completed. We solicit your COOperation in this study. At the present time, we would like to request the following: 1. That you list on the enclosed form the names Of all chairmen in your school or college of education who have acceded to their current positions within the past five years. Also list one faculty person who served on a committee participating in the chairmen's selection if there was such a committee. (All Of these chairmen may not be included in the final sample; the decision on this matter will rest on the number Of names we receive.) 2. That you send to us any available documents which relate to the selection, orientation, or in-service education of your department chairmen. These may include those applicable to your entire institution, to your own school or college, and/or to a Specific department. 128 129 Dean Doe - page 2 A large, self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your con- venience. Your assistance in making this project a success will be appreciated. Yours truly, /s/ Thomas H. Englund Thomas H. Englund Approved by: /s/ Richard L. Featherstone Richard L. Featherstone Chairman Department Of Administration and Higher Education Enclosures 150 mmmuppe momEmU _OODDAEEOU cowuomamm muasomm mo Hmnamz coauflmom medmmd mumn mmmuppm momEMU cmEHHan uGOEuHmme APPENDIX B LISTS OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 151 152 Interview Questions for Department Chairmen I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. The professional literature seems to indicate that the manner of selecting a chairman is dependent upon the functions of the chairman and the adminis- trative philosophy Of his institution. Please com- ment on the organizational structure Of your school or college and on the role of the chairmen. Please describe the process by which you were se- lected for your chairmanship as you understand that process. We hope to define the role of a number of individuals and/or groups in the selection process. Please in- dicate briefly the role Of each of the following: A. The departmental faculty (any difference between tenured and non-tenured?). B. Other faculty members. C. The outgoing chairman. D. The dean. E. The chief academic officer of your institution. F. The president. G. The board of control. What do you perceive to be the crucial issues when selecting a new chairman: his educational background, professional experiences, research output, ability to work with others, etc.? How long was your predecessor in Office? Is a term of about that length typical for your school or college? Did you initiate your own candidacy for the position? If not, how did you become a candidate? What was required of you as a candidate for the position during the selection process: interviews, applications, placement papers? In what ways did the selection process inform you adequately about important aspects of the position such as administrative duties, goals Of the depart- ment, time allowed for teaching and research, and so on? In what areas were you incompletely informed? In what ways might the selection process be improved? 155 Interview Questions for Department Chairman--cont'd. X. What kinds Of things were done to help you gain a XI. XII. XIII. perspective Of your new job once you were in it? A. Who was responsible for this? B. How extensive was the program in terms of time invested, topics covered, etc.? Were any other orientation programs carried out in addition to those you have already mentioned? In what ways was the orientation inadequate? In what in-service education programs are you in- volved other than those which you yourself might be administering for faculty? A. Are they separate from programs for faculty members in general? B. Who is responsible for the program? C. Who is involved as resource persons? D. What topics are covered? In what ways is the in-service education inadequate? Please describe an ideal program of orientation and in-service education for department chairmen. In our last few minutes, I would like to gather some information about your background leading up to your current‘position. A. In what major fields of study do you hold graduate degrees? B. From what institution did you receive.your highest earned degree? C. Please summarize the major activities Of your professional career. D. What was (is) your highest rank as a faculty member? E. What effect has holding the chairmanship had on your research activities and your publica- tion rate? F. To what professional and honorary organizations do you belong? G. What Offices have you held in the above? 154 Interview Questions for Deans I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. The professional literature seems to indicate that the manner Of selecting a chairman is dependent upon the functions Of the chairman and the adminis- trative philosophy of his institution. Please com- ment on the organizational structure of your school or college and on the role Of the chairmen. Please describe the process of selection and appoint- ment of departmental chairmen as it takes place in your school or college. From what sources are candidates normally solicited? What is the rationale for this practice? We hope to define the role of a number Of groups and individuals in the selection process. Please des- cribe briefly the role of each of these: A. The departmental faculty (any differences between tenured and non-tenured?). B. Other faculty members. C. The outgoing chairman. D. The dean. E. The chief academic Officer of your institution. F. The president. G. The board Of control. At what point is the selection virtually final so that further approvals are essentially "rubber stamp- ing" another's recommendation? What do you perceive to be the crucial issues when selecting a chairman; his educational background, professional experience, research output, ability to work with others, and so on? What is the turnover pattern for chairmen in your school or college: every two years, five years, infrequently? Is this related to a policy Of the institution? In what ways might your process of selecting depart- ment chairmen be improved? Who is responsible for orientation of your new chair- man? What other individuals might ordinarily partici- pate? \ 155 Interview Questions for Deans--cont'd. X. In what ways is a new chairman assisted in gaining a perspective of what his job is all about? XI. Are there any other orientation programs carried out in addition to those you have already mentioned? XII. What ment A. B. C. DO E. in-service education programs exist for depart- chairmen? Are these separate and distinct from programs conducted for faculty in general? Who is responsible for carrying them out? Who participates as resource persons? Who attends: only new chairmen, all chairmen, all administrators from your College, etc.? What tOpics are covered? XIII. Can you suggest an ideal program of orientation and in-service education for chairmen? A. B0 C. D. Who would be responsible? What topics would be covered? What resources (human and material) would be used? Who would attend? 156 Interview Questions for Faculty Committee Member I. The professional literature seems to indicate that the manner Of selecting a chairman is dependent .pon the functions Of the chairman and the adminis- trative philosophy Of his institution. Please com- ment on the organizational structure Of your school or college and on the role Of the chairmen. II. Please describe the composition Of the committee on which you served in terms of the number of faculty members, their rank, etc. A. Who appointed or selected the committee and assigned its functions? B. What did you understand the committee's function to be? C. IS the use Of a faculty committee in the selection of chairmen common throughout your institution? Your school or college? III. Describe the process your committee used for selection purposes. A. What involvement did the following groups or individuals have in the selection process? 1. The departmental faculty (any differences between tenured and non-tenured individuals?). . The outgoing chairman. . The dean. . Other faculty members. . The chief academic Officer of the institution. . The president. . The board of control. B. Did you attempt any steps such as developing a job description or describing the ideal candi- date before actually reviewing candidates? If so, what were those steps? C. What did your committee see as being the crucial issues in looking for a chairman; for example, his educational background, professional experi- ence, research ability, and/or his ability to work with others? D. From what sources did you receive or solicit names Of candidates? E. What channels did you use for soliciting informa- tion about candidates (application forms, recommendations, interviews, etc.)? F. Did Off-campus candidates visit the campus? What activities took place during their visits? If they did not, did someone visit them at their campuses? #0301901“) 157 Interview Questions for Faculty Committee Member--cont'd. G. How many names were still in the running when your committee finished its work? H. What disposition did the committee make of its choices (departmental election, referral to the dean, etc.)? IV. How were the selection and appointment finalized? A. Through what channels did the name(s) have to pass after your committee finished its work? B. At what point would it be reasonable to say that the appointment was virtually assured? C. Who made the official appointment? V. What improvements could be made in your procedures to provide an ideal process of selection for a chairman Of your department? a VI. To the best Of your knowledge, what orientation pro- grams are provided for new chairmen in your institu- tion and/or in your particular school or college? VII. What in-service education programs are conducted? Are they separate and distinct from those provided for faculty members in general? VIII. DO you have any thoughts about what might be Offered to chairmen to make them more effective in the eyes of the faculty? 5“. . II 4. «7|: IIIIIIIIIIIIIII