The purpose of the dissertation was threefold: (1) to provide a framework for viewing and understand the position of academic department chairperson and the role of unit administrator; (2) to synthesize information concerning the department chairperson as unit administrator from existing literature and from interviews with central academic administrators, deans, and chairpersons; and (3) to discuss the implications of the analysis in providing for the administrative support needs of chairpersons. Three sources of information were used in this analysis: (1) existing literature about academic department chairpersons, orientation and experiences for chairpersons and other academic administrators; (2) a theoretical framework drawn from role theory and the formal application of role theory to formal organizations; and (3) interviews with central academic administrators and department chairpersons. Using the concept of role theory, the study focused not only on the position within the organization, but also on the role or activities expected from the person in the position, and the self, the individual occupying the position. The framework helped to focus both the analysis of the literature and the analysis of the interview data on (1) the role expectations for the chairperson; (2) some aspects of role behavior or performance; and (3) the role skills necessary to the position. Based on the analysis of the literature within the conceptual framework, nine propositions were formulated to focus the analysis of the interview data. The synthesis of the literature and the interview data resulted in five conclusions regarding the need for orientation or inservice education for chairpersons. Although the results of the interviews are not generalizable beyond the individuals and environment, the concepts could have relevance to other universities. Based on the analysis, the following conclusions appear warranted: (1) In defining the position of chairperson a balance should be found between defining the position too narrowly and no direction at all. A clear definition of power, authority and accountability would help to strengthen the position. This includes expectations about research, scholarship and teaching. However, too detailed a description of administrative duties may destroy the incentive for creative management. (2) A clearer definition of the chairperson position will provide a basis for performance evaluation, an activity which is growing under the pressure for accountability. (3) As the bridge between the administration and faculty the position of chairperson is a position of potential conflict. Faculty members who agree to assume the position should be made aware of this fact. However, much of the frustration of adapting to the role could be alleviated by a program to provide chairpersons with a university perspective, to discuss the adjustments a chairperson is likely to encounter, and to present the rudiments of the processes the chairperson must deal with. (4) The issue of orientation and in-service education for chairpersons is more complex than might be expected. The fact that the administrators see a need for it and chairpersons do not necessarily agree creates a problem of even getting chairpersons to attend such sessions. The difference in perspective suggests the need for the involvement of chairpersons in the development of any orientation or in-service programs for them. (5) In attempting to provide any form of orientation or in-service for chairpersons those responsible will need to find a way to account for different levels of skills among chairpersons and to schedule such programs so they occur when the chairperson most needs the assistance. For instance, a component on budgeting would be most useful a few weeks before the process begins rather than six months before.
Read
