1.....«‘.-.. n .‘n .H... IL .‘.c,e.‘.';'.‘ WW Ill/fll/l/IjllfifflIfl/III/lfllll/l/I/l/ll//I//l//////I/I/////I 93 10381 4368 j y— This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN ANALYSIS’OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT NEEDS OF THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON presented by id Jacqueline Mary Skubal .1?) 9'1 ‘3 has been-accepted towards fulfillment __; of githe figuirements for ‘ ,. _I_ _, "i Ph ' D '3‘. __ degree in ____=__E@ii;cgt_i_og_ rr_l Major professor Date " 1: [9%) 0-7639 ..£4M‘W¥A LIEin R Y Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE I . ye -‘~M»)~f‘7 €274 i i as. : hwy f 155 MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution c:\cIrc\daedue pma __——_____..__.__..__ _________ ___ AN ANALYSIS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT NEEDS OF THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON By Jacqueline Mary Skubal A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1980 Moow§$ i ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT NEEDS OF THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON By Jacqueline Mary Skubal The purpose of the dissertation was threefold: (l) to pro- vide a framework for Viewing and understanding the position of academic department chairperson and the role of unit administrator; /(2) to synthesize information concerning the department chair- person 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 chair- persons. 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 adminis- trators 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 frame- work 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 perfor- mance; and 3) the role skills necessary to the position. Based on the analysis of the literature within the concep- tual 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: i. 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 expecta- tions 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 poten- tial 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 eleviated by a program to provide chairpersons with a university perspective, to dis- cuss the adjustments a chairperson is likely to encounter, and to present the rudiments of the processes the chairperson must deal with. The iSsue of orientation and in-service education for chairpersons is more complex than might be ex- pected. 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. 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. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With sincere appreciation, I wish to acknowledge my guidance committee, each of whom contributed to my professional growth in a significant way. Dr. Richard Featherstone, my advisor for his constant support and counsel and ever-present good humor. Dr. Paul Dressel, who directed the dissertation, for his interest, guidance, and faith in my abilities. Dr. LouAnna Simon for her wise counsel and sound advice which frequently put me back on the path when I was lost. Dr. Thomas Freeman for his interest and advice and for the opportunity to work in the Office of Institutional Research. Dr. T. Harry McKinney for his support particularly during those difficult early months during my program. I also wish to express my appreciation to those cen— tral academic administrators, deans, and chairpersons who gave of their valuable time in the interviews for this study. Thanks go to my fellow graduate students, particularly Andrew, Jim, Fred, and Carol who provided the friendship and support I needed to persevere. And finally, my thanks to Rosanne Donahue, who so ably typed the dissertation, for helping me see this project to fruition. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter I: Rationale for the Study A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l B. Background of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll D. Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 E. Purpose of the Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . 13 F. Procedures for the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A G. Limitations and Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . 15 H. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Chapter II: Conceptual Framework A. The Background of Role Theory . . . 20 “B. Social Organizations Versus Formal Organizations. 21 C. The University as a Formal Organization . . . . . 23 D. Role Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 E. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Chapter III: Review of the Literature A Academic Department Chairpersons. . . . . . . . . 3A B. Education of Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 70 C Summary . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Chapter IV: Design of the Study A. Propositions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 B. Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 C. Data Analysis Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 D. Statistical Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Chapter V: Analysis of the Data A. Role Expectations . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 B. Role Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10A C. Role Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 D. Summary of Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Chapter VI: Summary and Conclusions A. Purpose of the Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . 131 B. Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 C. Conceptual Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 iii D. The Propositions. . E. Summary of Findings F. Conclusions . Appendix: Interview Questionnaires. Bibliography. iv 132 133 137 1A0 1A5 5.10. 5.11. LIST OF TABLES Activities Within the Purview of Department Chairpersons. . . . . . Departments of Respondents by Years of Experience and Type of Discipline Chairpersons' View of their Primary Responsibilities by Years of Experience Chairpersons' View of their Primary Responsibilities by Type of Discipline. Comparison of Chairpersons' and Administra- tors' Statements of Chairpersons' Responsibilities Comparison of Statements of Chairpersons who Have Been in the Position One through Five Years with Those of Administrators Comparison of Statements of Chairpersons who Have Been in the Position Six Years or More with Those of Administrators. . . Comparison of the Chairpersons' Perception of the Deans' Dexpectations with the Deans' Statement of Chairpersons' Responsibilities. Comparison of the Perception of Chairpersons with One through Five Years Experience Concerning the Deans' with the Dean's Statement of the Chairpersons' Responsibilities. Comparison of the Perception of Chairpersons with Six Years or More of Experience Concerning the Deans' Expectation with the Deans' Statement of the Chairpersons' Responsibilities. Comparison of Chairpersons’ Perception of the Deans' Expectations According to Years of Experience Comparison of Chairpersons' Statements of Faculty Expectations. Adjustments of Chairpersons Upon Assuming the Position According to Chairpersons and Deans. Page AA 84 90 91 9A 95 96 98 100 101 102 106 Table Page 5.12. Administrators' View by Chairpersons' Major Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 5.13. Chairpersons' Description of the Major Problem Areas They Face . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 5.1M. Chairpersons' Description of Their Major Problem Areas by Years of Experience. . . . . . . 113 5.15. Chairpersons' Description of Their Major Problem Areas by Type of Discipline . . . . . . . 11“ 5.16. Chairpersons' View of the Role of the Dean. . . . . 117 5.17. Skills and Competencies Needed by Chairpersons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 5.18. Personal Traits Needed by Chairpersons. . . . . . . 122 vi CHAPTER I RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY Introduction ' All available evidence indicates that, in keeping with academic folklore, the best administrator is still thought to be the 'compleat amateur,’ an individual who comes to his post without prior know- ledge of or preparation for the tasks at hand, and most certainly without ambition to be an administrator (Knapp, 1969, D. 57). Although this statement was made in 1969, it is repre- sentative of the evolution of administrative positions within colleges and universities. Administrators originally were faculty members who agreed to take on some administrative tasks in addition to their teaching duties. All levels of administrators from the president on down were recruited this way. When the institutions grew in size and complexity, people in certain administrative positions had to relinquish their teaching positions to take on the growing administrative tasks. Today an increasing number of administrators in an institution are trained as administrators and have never been faculty members, particularly in support areas such as busi- ness and finance, facilities, registration and records, and the management of other auxiliary services. Only in the academic administrative line are administrators former teach- ing faculty members who have usually been "trained on-the-job" without any formal education in administration and management. In other words, they were put in the position and expected to perform. As the Michigan State University Bylaws (1978) state, "An academic administrator is a faculty member who has authority and‘responsibility delegated by the President and the Board of Trustees for the administration of a unit." The academic administrator closest to the faculty and the focus of this study is the academic department chairperson, or unit administrator. ,The acceptance of the designation of academic adminis- trator or unit administrator is not universal throughout the academic community. At one time considerable debate existed among academics as to whether or not the academic department leader was a "department head" or "department chairman." (The designation from here on is department chairperson in compliance with the Bylaws for Academic Governance, Michigan State University, 1978, unless quoted verbatim from other sources). In discussing the issue of confidence in depart- ment management, Dressel and Others (1969) found that: Sources of confidence were revealed by examination of departmental organization and procedures for selection, appointing and reviewing the term of the office of the chief department administrative officer. The title itself gave some clue. For example, if the chief executive officer was designated as "department head," he was appointed by the adminis— tration, to which he needed to maintain allegiance while cultivating faculty confidence. If the title was "chairman," it could be expected that he represented his faculty to central administration and maintained the faculty as his source of confidence, while developing that of the administration. Other characteristics of the department head versus the department chairperson were cited by Porter (1961). Presumably a department head expects permanent tenure in his post and has a considerably higher salary than the next ranking staff member in the department. A chairman, on the other hand, may have been elected by the staff members for a fixed term, after which another person' may be named. The salary differential is not likely to be as great as in the case of a department head. Duties, functions, powers, and responsibilities are said to be identical in either case. For the purposes of this document the issue of the "head versus chairperson" is irrelevant. Regardless of the manner of selection or length of term or salary awarded, the people who become the unit administrators of academic departments are still as Knapp described "compleat amateurs" as admin- istrators. Appointed or elected to the position by virtue of characteristics other than their competence as administra-. tors (Corson, 19753 Dressel, et a1., 1970; Roach, 1976), chairpersons are provided little assistance as they take on the new role of unit administrator (Corson, 1975; Dilley, 1968; Monson, 1968). Background of the Problem The selection of a chairperson with little training or experience as an administrator is one of four aspects which contributes to the amateurism of the chairperson as administrator. The other factors are the lack of a consis— tent, documented definition of the position, the changing role expectations for unit administrators, and the lack of non-monetary assistance for unit administrator. Selection of Chairperson As stated above, the people chosen to be department chairpersons are most often inexperienced as administrators. The reasons for their selection range from "no one else wanted it" to longevity in the department and renown as a scholar in the field (Dressel and Others, 1970; Corson, 1975). Regardless of the reason for selection, chairpersons are primarily faculty members who are asked to assume an addi- tional role. Years have been spent in college and graduate school developing skills as researchers, scholars, and teach- ers (Roach, 1976; Lee, 1970; Dressel, 1970). Nothing has really prepared them for their role as administrators. I'll never forget the first experience I had of looking at the financial report which told me whether the department was solvent or not. It was frightening! I prepared my first budget, and I had little notion of what I ought to be asking for the department. I did think I wanted a more substantial graduate program, but I did not know how to translate that idea into the budget procedures (Monson, 1968, p. 37). Combine this lack of preparation with the fact that the position of chairperson is not clearly defined and documented and that the role of the unit administrator is changing, and the problem of the amateur academic department chairperson is compounded. Chairperson Position Ambiguous Roach (1976, p. 13) states that: the department chairperson's role is often ambiguous and ill-defined. Often there is no job description and when a description does exist, it may be largely seen as a hodge-podge of duties described by some as a "laundry list" of undone duties and responsibilities pulled from throughout the school. Leslie (1973, p. 420) agrees with this and points out that "roles in higher education are generally ambiguous, ill—defined, and overlapping in all sorts of ways." Although the position often does not have a job description, usually there are policies or bylaws and a general set of role expectations within which the chairperson has to function. The difficulty is that the expectations of deans and faculty members are different and often conflicting. Carroll, 197A; Dressel, 1970). The dean expects the chairperson to function as an administrator, to complete all the tasks necessary for the efficient management of the department. Faculty members expect the chairperson to function as their represen- tative and advocate; to support them as they secure research funds, teach, and do research and service. The role of the chairperson as administrator is changing, however. The Changing Role of Chairperson as Administrator Discussing the changing role of the chairperson as admin- istrator is difficult since the position differs with depart- ment, discipline, and institution. Additionally, the empir— ical research in the area is sparse. An analysis of the literature within a chronological framework can provide some insights. Considering the position of departmental chairperson as documented during the last 30 to 35 years, there seems to be an increase in the administrative role. Doyle (1953) studied 23 liberal arts colleges and found chairpersons involved in three categories of duties: (1) teaching and supervisory, (2) administrative duties, (3) miscellaneous duties such as meetings and conferences. The survey revealfed] that the major portion of the departmental chairman's time [was] given to student instruction, counseling, and sponsorship of student activities (Doyle, 1963, pt 88). Writing at the same time, Euwema (1953) identified the functions of the department as teaching, scholarly activity, develop- ment of the discipline, attraction and development of personnel, academic statesmanship, and the training of young Soholars. The department chairperson's responsibilities in this were to exercise leadership in the selection and evaluation of faculty and in the development of curriculum. All other functions...the head may delegate to others...If he does not delegate most of them telothers, Chances are that there is something wrong some- where in his conduct of the department's affairs (Euwema, 1953, p. A2). The chairperson must also be sure to "arrange his own time as to permit the continuance of his personal career as teacher and scholar" (p. A3). The role of administrator for the department chairperson in the 1950's was a relatively small one according to Doyle, and this seems consistent with the expectations outlined by Euwema. The chairperson was still expected to be a teacher and scholar. Perhaps these expec- \ tations were reasonable in the 1950's when the administrative burden of running a university was not as great. When the enrollments rose rapidly in the 1960's, the institutional growth was phenomenal and the complexities of administration grew also. Understandably the burden of administration-also increased at the departmental level and fell to the chair- person. Yet, the expectations for the chairperson did not change, they merely increased. In a 1967 study of power, Hill and French list the following areas of power of the chairperson: Scheduling Student Assistants Influence (with administration) Community Committees Paid Extra Teaching Information Academic Contacts Course Assignments Clerical Work Interdepartmental Relations Salary Increases Additional Teaching Assignments Paid Extra Work Goal Determination Research Assistance Promotion Sabbaticals Curriculum Colloquia Recruitment Travel Funds . Tenure Consulting and Speaking Inspiration (of faculty) Research Facilities (p. 553) Although this list does not constitute a job description, it does show the variety of areas a chairperson is assumed to be involved in. A similar list evolved three years later when Dressel and Others (1970) identified the functions of the chairperson. Chairmen initiate action on budget formulation; selection, promotion, and retention of academic staff; faculty salaries, sabbatical leaves; inter« departmental relationships; research grants; educational development and innovation; university committee member- ship; discipline representation; pro- fessional growth; advice to dean on departmental matters; administration to faculty relationship; new faculty orientation; departmental meetings, adequate non-academic help; student administration; student advising class scheduling; student personnel records; faculty load; graduate student appli- cation approval; grading standards and practices; and curriculum changes (Dressel and Others, 1970, p. 13). With such a variety of tasks to perform, even in 1967, the literature still echoes the opinion, "To retain the respect of his departmental colleagues, he [the chairperson] must keep his scholarship alive and retain his teaching skills" (Fellman, 1967, p. 243). Dressel and Others, summarize the conflict‘well. It is not that the department chair- men are always constrained by the university system in which they work (although this is often the case),. but rather that the staggering amount of routine activities required and the diverse expectations of the dean on the one hand and the faculty on the other greatly limit the chairman's authority and deprive him of satisfaction in his work. Meanwhile, his scholarly career, which was partly responsible for bring- ing him the assignment, is seriously jeopardized (p. 82). In the mid to late seventies new pressures were placed on the department chairperson. The advent of collective bargaining on the campus forced the clarification of the issue of whether or not the chairperson is an administrator or faculty member (Leslie, 1963; Boyer, 197A; Byrnes, 1977). Those campuses where bargaining exists now operate within definite legal boundaries. Even in those'institutions where unionism for faculty does not exist, the chairperson is expected to deal with non—faculty unions, federal regulations and guidelines for research, affirmative action guidelines, formal student and faculty grievance procedures, and the ever—present forms and reports. The emphasis on these areas is increasing and is sure to affect the administrative role of the chairperson. This leads to the last issue: what is being done to assist department chairpersons to cope with their administrative role? Support for Chairpersons Support, in this instance, refers to non-monetary support to help chairpersons fulfill their roles. Such things as information, advice on decisions, interpretation of policies and procedures, and the development of role skills may require additional monetary resources, but additional money is not the focus. Two sources for this type of support are inhouse or institutional programs and external programs. Fisher (1977) discussed the state of the art in both instances. Inhouse Programs Activities ranged from workshops and seminars to retreats to internships, some relatively brief, others quite extensive and periodic. Topics ranged from role orientation to current insti- tutional concerns, management by objec- tives, time and resource management, and general higher education issues (Fisher, 1977, p- 3). This summary of types of programs and topics for inservice professional development programs is from an American Council on Education (A.C.E.) survey which discovered that 262 colleges and universities of the 1300 A.C.E. member insti— tutions ran some sort of program for administrators. However, this seems a meager beginning when one considers the number of institutions which are not involved and the fact that the 10 mission of colleges and universities is to provide education. State systems and consortia have also attempted to provide assistance to the institutions, but certain aspects of administration unique to a campus can only be dealt with on an institutional level. The primary questions which arise concerning inhouse programs are how many are derived from a formal assessment of departmental chairperson needs, and how many are an integral part of the functioning of the institu- tion?_ External Programs A growing number of external agencies are offering programs for administrative development. It is only recently, however, that these programs have addressed the administra- tive role of chairperson. A number of workshops for department chairpersons have been offered during the past decade by both national and regional associations, including some disciplinary societies, but the enormity of the need is overwhelming (Fisher, 1977, p. 3). Problems with Existing Programs A number of problems can be identified with the exist- ing programs, either inhouse or external. 1. Often the workshops are an academic discussion of leadership, or the "effective chairperson," or testimonials from former chairpersons which yield little information or incentive to modify behavior on the job. 2. If offered during the first week of the academic 11 year, often a wealth of information and directions are provided which is either forgotten or lost I when the time comes to use it. 3. Even if an external or inservice program provides new skills or techniques, the environment to which the person returns may not be conducive to using them (Fisher, 1977; Gellerman, 1977). A. "Newly learned skills" are not yet supported by habit and familiarity, and are therefore too easily "snuffed out" unless interim support is provided (Gellerman, 1977, p. A). 5. Before a training program for chairpersons can be effective, a dean or other academic adminis- trator should examine departmental structures and policies that may be at the root of dysfunctional conflict (Booth, 1977, D. 8A). Assumptions Three assumptions underlie this study: (1) the current lack of assistance for academic department chairpersons can- not continue under the continuing pressure for accountability, (2) the most appropriate setting for providing assistance to chairpersons is the institution where they work, and (3) a program to provide such assistance cannot be developed without an institution and the support needs necessary to fulfill the role. 12 The Situation Gannot'Continue The first assumption is that the current lack of assistance for academic department chairpersons cannot con- tinue under the continuing pressure for accountability. In addition to the increasing pressure for accountability, the greater legal and due process demands on the universities are permeating every administrative level. As the final position in the administrative chain the chairperson is accountable for the affective and efficient use of departmental resources. The risk and inefficiency created by the "compleat amateur" are greater than ever. "[AJn organization cannot expect optimum managerial efficiency unless it does what is necessary to achieve it" (Gordon, 1975, p. 20). In this instance that is to provide appropriate support to unit adminiStrators to help them become better managers. The Institution Provides Assistance The second assumption is that the responsibility to pro- vide assistance and administrative development programs for department chairpersons rests with the university adminis- tration. The greatest benefit, better administrators, will be derived by the institution as will the greatest loss, inefficient use of resources. According to the literature concerning the department chairperson, little agreement exists among institutions as to the role of the chairperson (Dressel, et a1., 1970). Indeed, the role varies within institutions among departments and disciplines. Therefore, each university administration should define the role and assess the chairperson's 13 needs in relation to that particular environment. Addition- ally, regardless of the differences, some activities are con- ducted within each department as a function of university policies and procedures. Assessment of Role Needs is Necessary The third and final assumption is that an analysis of the chairperson role as administrator within an institutional context is necessary before a program can be designed. Unless the administrative role of the chairperson is identified and defined, it is difficult to assess the support needs. The ambiguity of the role of the chairperson has contributed to conflict and job dissatisfaction among chairpersons (Carroll, 197A). It is also cited as a reason why chairpersons resign (Heimler, 1967).' The chairperson position and its roles constitute a complex situation, but only continued analysis will help to understand the position and to discover how to assist those who perform the role. Statement of the Problem The problem addressed in this dissertation is what can be done by universities to reduce the amateurism of unit administrators? Purpose of the Dissertation The purpose of the dissertation is-threefold: (1) to provide a framework for viewing and understanding 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 1A literature and from interviews with central academic adminis- trators, deans, and chairpersons; and (3) to discuss the implications of the analysis in providing for the adminis- trative support needs of chairpersons. Procedures for the Study Three sources of information are used in this analysis: (1) existing literature about academic department chairpersons, orientation and education for chairpersons and other academic administrators; (2) a theoretical framework drawn from role theory and the application of role theory to formal organiza- tions; and (3) interviews with central academic adminis- trators, deans, and department chairpersons. The people selected for interview came from five colleges of a large, midwestern research university. The colleges chosen were those which were likely to be found in most universities. A single institution was chosen for this study based on the assumption that institutional administrators are responsible for providing administrative support including orientation or in-service training for chairpersons. Additionally, research, as well as tradition holds that institutions are unique and a program which may hold for one campus may not hold for other campuses. The discussion of the theoretical framework is found in Chapter II; the review of the existing literature is in Chapter III; the details of the design and data collection are found in Chapter IV; the analysis of the data is in Chapter V; and Chapter VI contains the discussion and con- clusions. 15 Limitations and Delimitations Limitations 1. Representativeness of those interviewed was limited to those who were willing to participate although the initial selection of subjects for interview was based on years of service and college. 2. An open-ended survey instrument was used in an exploratory manner, therefore, the results are subject to the limitations associated with the use of such data-gathering techniques and methods. Delimitations The delimitations of the study were as follows: 1. The study was restricted to the central adminis- trators, deans, and department chairperson of a single large, midwestern research unitersity. 2. The review of literature was restricted to the Michigan State University Library, the Office of Institutional Research Library at Michigan State University, ERIC and DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS infor- mation searches, material obtained through inter— library loan and books or materials owned or borrowed by the author. Definition of Terms, Academic Department Chairperson--the designated leadership position of a university department charged with teaching, research, and service. Also known as a unit administrator on the campus involved. l6 Bureaucracy—-"a specialized administrative staff...that is responsible for maintaining the organization as a going con- cern and for coordinating the activities of its members" (Blau and Scott, 1962, p. 7). Focal Person--the individual who is currently functioning in a given position and/or role. Also role incumbent. Formal Organization-~an organization which has deliberately been established to achieve certain goals. Interrole Conflict—-conf1ict which occurs when the role ex- pectations of two different roles occupied by the same person are contradictory. Intrarole Conflict--conflict which occurs when contradictory role expectations for the same role are held by two or more persons. Non-monetary Support—-any type of assistance available to or needed by a department chairperson other than additional dollars. Office--also a position, represents a location in organiza- tional space around which one or more roles is organized intended for performance by one person (Katz and Kahn, 1968). Person-role Conflicts—a situation where the "role require- ments violate the needs, values, or capacities of the focal person." (Katz and Kahn, 1968). Also self—role incongruence. Position--is a cognitive organization of role expectations (Sarbin, 195A, p. 22A). The Received-Role--the component of the role episode which "is the focal person's perception of the role-—sendings so 17 addressed, including the reflexive role expectations that the focal person 'sends' to himself or herself..." (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 194). 59125-"15 a patterned sequence of learned actions or deeds performed by a person in an interaction situation" (Sarbin, 1954, p. 225). In an organizational framework, roles are "standardized patterns of behavior required of all persons playing a part in a given functional relationship regardless of personal wishes or interpersonal obligations irrelevant to the functional relationship" (Katz and Kahn, 1968, p. 37). Role Behavior--the component of the role episode which "is the response of the focal person to the complex of information and influence received" (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 194). Also role enactment. Role Conflicts-~15 the condition where an actor finds him- self/herself in a situation where role expectations are con- tradictory if not mutually exclusive (Katz and Kahn, 1978; Sarbin and Allen, 1968). Role Enactments--"the overt performances of persons" which validate (or invalidate) the expectations of the other person or persons in a social situation (Sarbin, 1954). Also role behaviors. Role Episode—-a model of the interaction which takes place in the performance of a role. It consists of four major com- ponents: role expectations, the sent—role, the received-role, and role behavior (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Role Expectations——"are the evaluative standards of performance 18 applied to the behavior of any person who occupies a given organizational office or position" (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 194). Role Incumbent--the individual who is currently functioning in a given role. Also focal person. Role Set-—the people with whom the focal person or role incumbent interacts (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Role Skills--are "those characteristics possessed by the individual which result in effective and convincing role enactment: aptitude, appropriate experience and specific training" (Sarbin and Allen, 1968). Role-takinge-the process of assuming a role (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Role Theory--the theory which defines human interaction with- in a social structure focusing on an individual actor or performer. Selig-"is the experience of identity arising from a person's interbehaving with things, body parts and other persons" (Sarbin and Allen, 1968, p. 523). Self-role Congruence-—is "the degree to which qualities of the self--traits, values or beliefs—-and requirements of the role exhibit fittingness or overlap" (Sarbin and Allen, 1968). Also person—role conflict. The Sent-role--the component of the role episode which "con- sists of communications stemming from role expectations and sent by the role-set as attempts to influence the focal person" (Katz and Kahn, 1978, P. 194). 19 Social Organization-—those groups which evolve wherever human beings interact regularly based on the social conditions under which they find themselves; the interaCtion is charac- terized by the feelings the people have toward one another and the shared orientations and beliefs which govern their behavior. CHAPTER II CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The focus of this dissertation was the position of the department chairperson within the academic organization of a large, research university. The theoretical framework for the analysis was the theory of the organization as a group of role systems discussed by Katz and Kahn in the book Th2 Social Psychology of Organizations. This presentation of the framework consists of a description of the background of role theory; a discussion of the difference between social organ— ization and formal organization; a discussion of the university as a formal organization; a presentation of the theoretical framework; and a discussion of each of the components. The Background of Role Theory Role theory developed over the years through the efforts of social scientists in a number of disciplines. In recent years it has become a theory used by social psychologists to help explain and understand human behavior. Park wrote, as early as 1926, that everyone is always and everywhere, more or less consciously playing a role...It is in these roles that we know each other, it is in these roles that we know ourselves. Mead (1934) used role to explain the origin of social behavior and Moreno (1934) as a concept in psychotherapy. Linton (1936) gave it a central place in anthropology, New— comb made it the key concept in his theoretical approach to social psychology (Newcomb, 1950; Newcomb, Turner, and Converse, 1965). Parsons (1951 and Merton (1957) consider it essential to understanding social action and 20 21 social structure (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 186). The instances cited above are related to the use of role theory within social organizations. It has also been applied to formal organizations. Getzels and Cuba (1955) studied role conflict among teachers at the Air Command and Staff School of Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base. Gross, Mason, and McEachern (1958) used role theory to analyze the role of the school superintendent. Kahn and his associates have used it in studying role stress in business and mental health organizations (Kahn and Others, 1966; Kahn and Quinn, 1970; Kahn, 1974). In 1968 Kahn joined Katz to publish their concept of the social psychology of organizations which they revised in 1978. Before presenting Katz and Kahn's theory of the organization as role systems, a discussion of the difference between social organizations and formal organiza- tions is in order. Social Organizations Versus Formal Organizations The difference between social organizations and formal organizations is important in understanding the difference between the two environments and the way in which the concept of role functions within them. The theory developed initially in the study of social organizations and structure; therefore, the discussion 03 social organization is first. Social organization refers to the ways in which human conduct becomes socially organized, that is, to the observed regularities in the behavior of people that are 22 due to the social conditions in which they find themselves rather than to their physiological or psychological characteristics as individuals (Blau and Scott, 1962, p. 2). In other words social organizations are those groups of people which evolve wherever human beings regularly interact. The groups are formed based on the social conditions in which they find themselves rather than their particular character- istics as individuals. The two main social conditions which influence human conduct are the social relations within a group, which consist of the pattern of interaction and the feelings people have toward one another, and the shared be- liefs and orientations that unite the group and guide behavior (Blau and Scott, 1962). For example, a number of people traveling on a bus does not constitute a social organization or group. However, if the people on the bus are a church group on a Sunday outing then it is a social organization. A formal organization in constrast is an organization that has deliberately been established to achieve certain goals. If the accomplishment of an objective requires collective effort, men set up an organization designed to coordinate the activities of many persons and to furnish incentives for others to join them in this purpose...In these cases, the goals to be achieved, the rules the members of the organization are expected to follow, and that status structure that defines the relations between them (the organization chart) have not spon- taneously emerged in the course of social interaction but have been con- sciously designed a priority to antici— pate and guide interaction and activities (Blau and Scott, 1962, p. 5). 23 The discussion of organizational theory presented beratz and Kahn refers primarily to the formal organizations whose objectives are to make a product and earn a profit. The formal organization of concern in this analysis however, is the university. ‘ The Universityias a Formal Organization The objectives of a university are more typically called its mission. Traditionally the university mission is tri- partite: teaching, research, and public service. The organi- zational structure which constitutes the university contains a board of trustees, the administration, the faculty, and 'the students it serves. The manner in which these groups interact in order to achieve the mission of the institution is unique compared with other formal organization in American society. The board of trustees is legally charged with and accountable for the functioning of the institution. The trustees hire the administration to administer the institution and a faculty to teach and do research and public service. Functionally, the university can be described as having two distinctive organizational structures, a bureaucracy and a democracy. A bureaucracy generally exists in any formal organ- ization. It usually consists of a "specialized administrative staff...that is responsible for maintaining the organiza— tion as a going concern and for coordinating the activities of its members" (Blau and Scott, 1962, p. 7). For many reasons the term bureaucracy has negative connotations which arise from the detailed rules and regulations which a bureaucracy 24 fosters. In this case, "the term is used neutrally to refer to the administrative aspects of organizations" (Blau and Scott, 1962, p. 8). The size of the bureaucracy of a univer- sity varies from campus to campus, but has generally increased since the end of World War II. Typically the positions within the academic line are the President or Chancellor, the Academic Vice—President or Provost, the dean, and the department chairperson. The inclusion of the department chair- person within the bureaucracy is sometimes questioned because centered in this position is perhaps the greatest conflict between the two organizational structures. The democratic aspects of the organization are more commonly called the gov- ernance structure. Through this structure faculty members have a direct impact upon decisions in some areas of the univ- ersity. Although it varies among academic departments, the department theoretically functions as a democratic or quasi- democratic group with the chairperson as the chosen repre- sentative of the group. This is the same department chair— person who is at the end of the bureaucratic line. The first part of this chapter has described the back- ground of role theory and discussed the difference between social organization and formal organizations, as well as the university as a formal organization. The following section will present the theoretical framework and discuss each of the components. 25 Role‘Theory- The three core elements of role theory are the position, the role, and the self. The position is "a cognitive orien- tation of role expectations" (Sarbin, 1954, p. 224). It is the point around which rules are organized. In a formal organ- ization the position or office represents a location in organizational space. The role "is a patterned sequence of learned actions or deeds performed by a person in an inter- action situation" (Sarbin, 1954, p. 225). In their pure organizational form, roles are standardized patterns of behavior required of all persons playing a part in a given functional relation- ship regardless of personal wishes or interpersonal obligations irrelevant to the functional relationship (Katz and Kahn, 1968, p. 37). The third element, the self, is "the experience of identity arising from a person's interbehaving with things, body parts, and other persons" (Sarbin and Allen, 1968, p. 523). The self is a cognitive structure through which a person perceives what the role entails and acts on that basis. Although the focus of role theory is the behavior of the individual as a result of the interaction of the position, the role, and the self, the focal person is also a part of an organizational subsystem in which that individual interacts with a number of other people, called the role-set. All members of a person's role set depend on that person's performance in some fashion; they are rewarded by it, judged in terms of it, or require it to perform their own tasks. Because they have a stake in that person's performance, they develop beliefs and 26 attitudes about what he or she should and should not do as part of the role. Such prescriptions and proscriptions held by members of a role-set are de- signated role expectations; in the aggregate they define the role, the behaviors expected of the person who hold it. ' Role expectations constitute one component of a model which Katz and Kahn have presented called a role episode. The Role Episode The role episode consists of four basic components: role expectations, the sent-role, the received-role, and role behavior. The purpose of the role episode model is to des- cribe the theory in operation. Essentially role expectations exist in a formal position description, on the part of the role-set, and within the role incumbent. These expectations are sent to the role incumbent who receives them and acts upon them (role behavior). The following is a more detailed discussion of the four components. Role expectations are the "evaluative standards applied to the behavior of any person who occupies a given organiza- tional office or position" (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 194). The formal role expectations are usually stated as rights and privileges and duties and responsibilities in a written position description. The informal role expectations are not as clearly documented. However, appropriate role enactments depend upon the knowledge of both the formal and informal role expectations. To a considerable extent the role expec— tations held by the members of a role- set-—the prescriptions and proscriptions 27 associated with a particular office—- are determined by the broader organiza- tional context. The technology of the organization, the structure of its sub- systems, its formal policies, and its rewards and penalties dictate in large degree the content of a given office... Although human beings are doing the "supposing" and rewarding the structural properties of organization are suffi- ciently stable so that they can be treated independently of the particular persons in the role-set (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p- 196). The sent-role "consists of communications stemming from role expectations and sent by members of the role-set as attempts to influence the focal person" (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 194). Factors which can affect the sent-role include the degree to which each member of the role-set knows what he/ she expects from the focal person; the clarity with which that message is conveyed; the consistency of expectations among the members of the role-set; and the frequency and intensity of the expectations. In a formal organization the availability of a position description will greatly affect the formal role expectations. The received role "is the focal person's perception of the role—sendings so addressed, including the reflexive role expectations that the focal person *sends' to himself or her- self..." (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 194). A focal person's perception of the rolessendings can be impeded by problems with the sent-role discussed above or by the misperception of the role expectations of the role set on the part of the incumbent. "Several factors influence a person's perception of his role expectations" (Sarbin and Allen, 1968, p. 506). 28 They include the ability to accurately read the sent-role, the degree of abruptness or continuity in passage from one role to another, and unrealistic expectations for the role prior to entering it (Sarbin and Allen, 1968). Role behavior "is the response of the focal person to the complex of information and influence thus received (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 194). While the sent-role or role percep- tion described in the previous paragraph is the cognitive or perceptual response, "the (usually) silent naming or locating of the position of the other..., which serves to locate the position or the self," the enactment or role behavior is the motoric response which follows (Sarbin, 1954, p. 229). In' the organization role behaviors are activities which are organized to perform a specific purpose. An activity is "a recurring behavior sequence which has organizational relevance, [which] is held in the form of role expectations by some members of the role set, and which affords some sense of closure on completion" (Katz and Kahn, 1968, p. 179). A role is composed of a number of activities which in inter- action with other activities within the organization produce the organizational output. These then comprise the role episode, the role expecta- tions, the sentnrole, the received—role, and role behavior. Activities of a role occur "in an ongoing and interdependent cyclical process...[which] is itself shaped by several additional or contextual factors—~individual, interpersonal, and organizational" (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 195). This 29 process is called role-taking. The process of assuming a role is the simplest when there is a great deal of congruence between the role expectations of the role set and that of the focal person, when only one activity is performed, and when the focal person is capable of adequately performing the role. In other words assuming a role is easier, if the focal person is a member of only one subsystem. It can become more complex, however, in several ways: by the addition of activities, subsystem involvements, and role-senders, and in rare circumstances the addition of other organizational roles to be enacted by the same focal person (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 197). Further study of the position of department chairperson will Show that all three of these have occurred. The person who becomes a chairperson not only takes on the additional role as administrator, but also becomes a member of two subsystems, the administrative bureaucracy in addition to the faculty governance democracy. Any person in a position which crosses subsystem boundaries is in a position which is likely to contain role conflict. Role conflict is "the simultaneous occurrence of two or more role expectations such that compliance with one would make compliance with the other more difficult" (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 204). Role conflict can be categorized into three basic types of conflict: interrole conflict; intrarole conflict; and self—role congruence or person-role conflict. Interrole conflict occurs when the role expectations of two different roles occupied by the same person are contradictory. 3O Intra—role conflict exists when contradictory role expecta- tions for the same role are held by two or more groups.) Self- role congruence or person-role conflict is "the degree to which qualities of the self--traits, values, or beliefs-- and requirements of the role exhibit fittingness or overlap" (Sarbin and Allen, 1968, p. 524). In other words the "role requirements violate the needs, values, or capacities of the focal person" (Katz and Kahn, 1968, p. 185). A less severe situation than role conflict is role ambiguity. Role ambiguity means simply "an uncertainty about what the occupant of a particular office is supposed to do" (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 206). However, that uncertainty may also be in relation to any aspect of the role including who the role-set is, why does the role exist, and how will the role incumbent be evaluated (Katz and Kahn, 1978). The previous discussion includes the major components of role theory and of the model of a role episode as well as the issues of role conflict and role ambiguity. The final aspect of role theory to be discussed is the self; the focal person. Of primary concern when considering the focal person are role skills. Rplpvskills_are "those characteristics possessed by the individual which result in effective and convincing role enactment: aptitude, appropriate experience and specific training" (Sarbin and Allen, 1968, P. 514). Role skills, then, can account for some of the difference in role enactment if other variables, role expectations and self—role congruence, 31 for instance, can be held constant. Although [m]ost role skills are probably learned ., the learning conditions of early life are important for the acquisi- tion of such skills, though can one enhance role skills, within limits, through appropriate training in later life (Sarbin and Allen, 1963, p. 514). Defined as "a physical and psychological readiness to perform some task at a given level of competence," skills, or role skills, also include "the assumption that persons differ in basic attributes in past experience, and in relevant train- ing, all of which interact to influence role enactment" (Sarbin and Allen, 1968, p. 514). Role skills can be cate- gorized as cognitive and motoric. The cognitive Skills are those which are needed to recognize cues from the role set and accurately translate them into role expectations. The motoric skills refer to the posture, movements, facial expres- sion, etc., necessary to carry out the role successfully. Summary The presentation of the theoretical framework of role theory has been based upon the works of Sarbin (1954), Sarbin and Allen (1968), to explain human behavior in a sociallorgan- \ ization. A social organization is a group of people who inter-4€§/ act on a regular basis and hold a common set of beliefs and é values. The theory can also be used to explain behavior in a formal organization. A formal organization, in contrast to a social organization, has been deliberately organized to achieve certain goals. In this instance, the organization of concern was a university and the position of concern was the 32 department chairperson. The theory involves three concepts: (1) the role, which is a series of activities centered around the second concept; (2) the position, which is a point or place in formal organ- ization; and (3) the self, which is the incumbent or focal person in the role. The manner in which the theory functions was described by Katz and Kahn is a model called a role episode. The role episode has four components: (1) the role expectations, the standards of behavior held by the role-set. and the focal person; (2) the sent-role, the role expectations communicated to the focal person by the role set; (3) the received-role, the role expectations perceived by the focal person; and (4) role behavior, the activities of the focal person based on role expectations. The existence of conflicting expectations was called role conflict. Three kinds of role conflict were identified. (1) Interrole conflict occurs when the expectations for two or more roles held by the same individual and are conflicting. (2) Intrarole conflict happens when the role expectations among the role-set are conflicting. (3) Person-role conflict or self—role incongruence exists when the role expectations are in conflict with the role incumbent's values and beliefs. The personal characteristics of the role incumbent which affect role performance are called role skills. Role skills are the aptitude, experience, and training of an individual performer which influence role behavior. This chapter outlined the conceptual framework which will 33 guide the dissertation. The next chapter will present a review of the literature within the conceptual framework. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The literature covered in this chapter is primarily the literature related to the academic department chairperson. The discussion of this literature within the conceptual frame- work also draws upon Katz and Kahn's review of the research on role theory. A brief review of existing programs for the administrative development of department chairpersons com— pletes the chapter. Academic Department Chairpersons Using the conceptual framework of role theory, a review of the role of unit administrator as it is derived from the literature, will be presented in this chapter. As was pointed out in Chapter I the position of department chairperson en- compasses four roles: teacher, scholar, research, and unit administrator. The amount of time and effort spent in each of these roles differs among role incumbents; however, the role of unit administrator has increased over the years. This increased role of unit administrator is the focus of the review of the literature. Framed within the model of the role episode, the role of unit administrator will be discussed in reference to role expectations; role conflict; role behavior; and role skills. Although the interaction of these concepts is so extensive at times as to prevent a clear cut distinction, the discussion will follow this outline. 34 35 Role ExpectatiOnseAdministrative Role Role expectations are those evaluative standards which are applied to the performance or behavior of an individual in a position and role. They are an expression either verbal or nonverbal, conscious or unconscious of the manner in which a person is expected to act in a given role. When asked to describe the role expectations regarding a given role, a person can respond in conceptual terms. For instance, a chairperson is expected to be a leader or to develop curri- culum. These are legitimate role expectations. However, the manner in which the conceptual expectation is translated into specific activities which comprise the role is the critical area which truly determines behavior. Much of the literature and rhetoric about the role of the unit adminis— trator is expressed at the conceptual level and will be dis- cussed in the first part of this section. The second appraoch will be to present in matrix form the more specific activities of chairpersons. Dual Obligation of the Chairperson. Because of the manner in which the administrative role was initially added to the position of faculty member and has since grown in importance for department chairpersons, the individuals who are chairpersons are first and foremost teachers and scholars. They have come from the ranks of professors within the depart- ment or a similar department "...the chairman's basic loyalty is to his department and his discipline" (Anderson, 1968, p. 212). AS chairperson, however, the incumbent will now be 36 considered part of the administrative hierarchy, the bureau- cracy of the institution (Strong, 1963). He or she has the dual obligation of interpreting to the administration the needs and wishes of the department and of communicating to his or her colleagues the basis for decisions made by the dean, the president, the trustees, or the more remote state coordinating agency (Corson, 1975, p. 251). It is with respect to this dual obligation that much of the controversy exists concerning the role of the unit adminis- trator; Some have characterized chairpersons as caught in the middle between administrative demands on one side and faculty demands on the other (Dressel, 1970; Hill and French, 1967; Peterson, 1970). As a result the chairperson according to Ahmann (1969) is faced with two choices: 1. The chairman may consider himself primarily a faculty member-~that is, first among equals--or primarily as an academic admin- istrator. 2. The chairman may consider himself primarily a conveyor and coordinator, or primarily as an educational leader (p. 188). Ahmann calls strongly for the chairperson to be an adminis- trative activist, however, Dressel's (1969) research showed that this was not necessarily the choice. ...if the chief executive officer was designated as 'department head,‘ he was appointed by the administration, to which he needed to maintain allegiance while cultivating faculty confidence. If the title was 'chairman,' it could be expected that he represented his faculty to central administration and maintained the faculty as his source of confidence while develop— .ing that of the administration (p. 277). The manner in which a chairperson reacts to the dual 37 obligation and performs in the role of unit administrator will be dealt with in further detail later on. Expectations for the AdministratiVe Role. Novick (1970) found in a survey of administrators, faculty and chair- persons in two public and two private institutions that the "chairmanship position is more that of an administrator of the department, rather than a departmental faculty member" (p. 143). In this study both administrators and faculty chose administrative ability as "most descriptive" of pro- spective department chairmen with teaching and research ability ranked low. It has also been discovered that admin- istrators and faculty overall show considerable agreement concerning expected professional activities and administrative responsibilities of chairpersons (Siever and others, 1972). In a study of 481 faculty and administrators at two land-grant universities it was found that the most important professional activities for the chairperson were developing outstanding students, acquiring a reputation as an able scholar in his field, and acquiring a reputation for achieving program goals. Of least impor- tance are characteristics centering around involvement with outside organizations... (p, 406). The most important administrative activities were "being skill— ful in organizing faculty responsibilities, recruiting pro- mosing faculty members, and developing good teaching." Of least importance were "raising funds from outside the university, keeping a low staff turnover, and participating in university government..." (406). In addition there was 38 less agreement concerning desired personal characteristics; however, those rated most important were "the ability to think decisively and to take action, to consider the depart- ment needs in the broader context of the total university, and to be interested in the needs of students" (p. 407). While the least important were "being highly identified with one's academic specialty; identifying oneself as one of the faculty, first among equals; and making strong impressions among people" (p. 407). The results of this survey also speak to the question of whether or not faculty members want a strong leader. While a great deal of speculation has been made about a preference toward equilitarian or democratic leadership styles in academic departments, the present findings indicate faculty also stress the decision-making role of their chairman (Siever, 1972, p. 407). This conclusion is based on the low ranking of the chairperson as first among equals and the high ranking of decision- making ability. The expectation of the chairperson as an academic leader was also examined by Schroeder (1969) and Washington (1975). Both used leadership scales (LBDQ). Schroeder administered them to 331 deans, chairpersons, and faculty and found that faculty expected significantly more Consideration (the manner in which they are treated by the chairperson) from chairpersons than do deans. However, chairpersons agreed with faculty on Consideration, but would expect to display more Initiating Structure than faculty desire. Deans also expect more Initiating Structure from 39 chairpersons than faculty. Washington measured the job sat— isfaction of 188 faculty members at 31 collegescompared with the faculty member's perceived leadership ability of the chairperson. He found that the highest degree of job satis- faction occured in departments where faculty perceived that their chairperson was high in Initiating Structure and high in Consideration. The faculty member's concern about Con- sideration was also reflected in a study by Petterson (1966) which found that faculty members regard the ideal chairman as a facilitator of their own self- determined goals, as an intermediary between themselves and the dean, as an information handler and as a time space scheduler (p. 304-A). Professors' perception of the power of the chairperson were studied in relation to job satisfaction and productivity (Hill and French, 1967). The findings were similar to Washington's, "the higher the power imparted to a chairman, the higher the satisfaction of the respondent, the degree of association being relatively high..." (p. 563). As far as productivity was concerned, " ...it was found that the greater the power of the chairman, the more productive its department faculty perceived themselves to be in terms of attaining organiza— tional goals" (p. 566). The results of all three studies (Siever and Other, 1972; Washington, 1975; and Hill and French, 1967) seem to run contradictory to much of what prompted the change from the "department head" to the "depart- ment chairman" and the increased participation of the governance of the institution through democracy (Porter, 1961). One 40 explanation is that the type of institutions surveyed affected the results. Hill and French, for example, surveyed four- year colleges and universities. These institutions, though greater innumber, are not the typical model thought of when discussing higher education; but rather the prestigious research institutions are most typically the frame of re- ference. Therefore, when an itemization is made of the changes brought with the move from head to chairman that itemiza— tion reflects the ideal rather than the real for most col— leges and universities. One must also consider that "the role of the departmental chairpersons varies as the departments they are expected to lead vary..." (Corson, 1975, p. 250). Dressel identified two different breeds of chairpersons in his research on the department. One breed was found in those depart- ments that, by the nature of their discipline; found themselves heavily dependent on the university as their source of funds. In these departments faculty looked to their chairman to provide the best possible working con— ditions...In departments receiving extensive funding from outside the vuniversity, players displayed little concern and sometimes disdain for deans and central university administration (p. 276).. These units were greatly influenced by outside agencies which funded the research. Dressel also discovered that the oper— ating style appeared to be related to prestige. Those rated high in the Cartter Report tended to be democratic and those rated low tended to be oligarchical. These comments, as further discussion later on will, support the view that the 41 role of the chairperson varies considerably from institution to institution and even among departments within a single university. Although the concept of role performance has been partially addressed here due to the difficulty of separ- ating expectations from behaviors in the literature, the primary focus here is role expectations. This part of the review of the literature has dealt in a general way with role expectations. The following paragraphs attempt to address the expectations expressed as activities or respon— sibilities of unit administrators. Expected Activities of the Unit Administrator. Although the topics and aspects of the chairperson position discussed in the literature varied, there seemed to be some consistency in the expected activities of the department chairperson. In order to discover the degree to which consistency did exist, a matrix was constructed with the activities mentioned down one side and the various authors along the top. The purpose of developing the matrix was simply to identify the frequency with which certain actiVities were discussed in the literature as the expected area of the chairperson. The basic assumption of the analysis was that the literature would reflect the areas of concern relative to chairperson activities. In no way was it assumed that any given author had identified the activities mentioned as the only activities of the chairperson. The activities discussed in the literature appeared to fall into ten categories which have been identified in the 42 following manner: I. Planning Activities: Setting Departmental Goals and Objectives II. Budget Formulation and Control Activities III. Faculty Personnel Activities IV. Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related Activities V. Student Affairs Activities VI. Non-faculty Personnel Activities VII. Research-Related Activities VIII. Internal Administrative Activities IX. Interdepartmental Activities and External Relations X. Other Extraneous Activities All of the activities identified with the administra- tive role fell within these ten categories. Activities in Categories I through VII and Category X were performed with the department and departmental interactions as the primary focus. Category IX contained those activities where the stimulus for action or the primary interaction was from units outside of the department including the college, other departments, the central administration and outside agencies. The authors included in this matrix were those who to varying degrees discussed the expected activities of the chair- person. The extensiveness of the discussion or itemization of activities ranged from the Penn State detailed listing of responsibilities to a more general discussion of duties (Delahanty, 1969, and McKeachie, 1968, for example). The authors were also grouped according to the VieWpoint of their 43 presentations. For instance, Doyle (1953) interviewed depart- ment chairpersons, and McKeachie (1968) and Monson (1968) were former chairpersons, therefore they were grouped with others who represent the chairperson's view. Patterson (1966) and Hill and French (1967) surveyed faculty, therefore they represented the faculty view. The administrative View was represented primarily by institutional Job descriptions or bylaws (Penn State, 1963; Michigan State University, 1973; and College of Social Science--Michigan State University, 1977). Table 3.1 displays the percent of authors who dis- cussed each category of activities for the administrative view, the chairperson view, and the faculty view respectively. Cateogry I: Planning. The activities within the plan- ning category included long range planning; short range plan- ning, comprehensive planning; overall evaluation; and depart- mental innovations and improvements. The activities of planning were mentioned by the greatest percent of authors in the administrative View followed by the chairperson's view and the faculty. The concept was identified by 50% of the 32 authors. Category II: Budget. The activities of budget formula- tion and control included budget development; budget presen- tation; budget administration; and research fund administra- tion. Again the greatest percentage of the administrative authors mentioned budget activities followed by chairpersons and faculty. This concept was also identified by 50% of the 32 authors. 44 Table 3.l.--Activities Within the Purview of Department Chair— persons An Administrative View (N=10) Activity Type ‘ Percent Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 60% Budget Formulation and Control 70% Faculty Personnel 100% Curriculum, Program, and Course—Related 100% Student Affairs 50% Non-faculty Personnel - 80% Research-Related ' 60% Internal Administrative 60% Interdepartmental and External Relations 60% Chairpersons' View (N=17) Activity Type, Percent Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 47% Budget Formulation and Control ,47% Faculty Personnel 82% Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 71% Student Affairs 47% Non-faculty Personnel 12% Research-Related 29% Internal Administrative 53% Interdepartmental and External Relations 65% Faculty View (N=5) Activity Type Percent Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 40% Budget Formulation and Control 20% Faculty Personnel 40% Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 60% Student Affairs 40% Nonnfaculty Personnel 40% Research-Related 60% Internal Administrative 100% Interdepartmental and External Relations 60% 45 Category III: Faculty. Faculty Personnel Activities discussed included recruitment; selection and hiring; pro— motion and tenure; retention/non-retention; salary; orienta- tion, development; sabbaticals and leaves; evaluation; and work assignments. Recruitments and evaluation were mentioned by the greatest number of authors followed by promotion and tenure; selection and hiring, and faculty development; salary, retention/non-retention; sabbaticals and leaves; and orientation. Overall this category was identified by the greatest percentage (88%) of all 32 authors. Administrative view authors discussed Faculty Personnel most often followed by chairpersons and faculty. Category IV: Curriculum: The Curriculum, Program, Course-related Activities discussed were curriculum develop- ment; academic programs; evaluation; course development and revision; course approval; quality instructionl and grading policies. Curriculum activities were identified by 78% of the 32 authors. The greatest percentage of authors who dis- cussed this category were of the administrative view followed by the chairpersons, and the faculty. Category V: Student Affairs. Student Affairs Activities included advising/counseling; graduate recruitment; graduate admissions; financial support; record; administration/ activities; and recommendations and inquiries. General administration and activities with students were mentioned by the largest number of authors followed by advising/counseling. This category was identified by the greatest number of authors representing the administrative view followed by the chairpersons, 46 and faculty. Of the 32 authors, 47% discussed student affairs. Category VI: Non-faculty Personnel. The Non-faculty Personnel Activities included the following groupings: non- academic help; clerical personnel; service personnel; technical staff; and student help. Although these groupings are not necessarily mutually exclusive, clerical personnel were men- tioned specifically by the greatest number of authors. Non- academic personnel were identified by the greatest percentage of authors with the administrative View followed by the faculty, and the chairpersons. The lowest percent of all authors, 38% mentioned Non—faculty Personnel Activities. Category VII: Research. Research-related Activities were grouped into actively acquiring outside funds; promote a research environment; and provide resources. The largest number of authors mentioned the need to promote a research environment followed by actively acquire outside funds. The greatest percentage of authors representing the administra- tive view mentioned this category followed by faculty and chairpersons. Research—Related Activities were discussed by 44% of the 32 authors. Category VIII: Internal Administration. Internal Admin- istrative Activities were grouped as follows: supervise departmental activities; organize the department; develop policies and procedures; schedule classes; prepare department publications and reports; record and collect information; manage facilities; equipment, and materials; provide faculty 47 with information. The activity mentioned by the largest number of authors was to manage facilities, equipment, and materials followed by organize the department and supervise departmental activities. The Internal Administrative Activities were identified by the greatest percentage of authors repres- enting the administrative view followed by the chairpersons, and faculty.‘ Sixty-two percent of the 32 authors spoke of Internal Administrative Activities. Category IX: Interdepartmental Activities and External Relations. The activities in this category were grouped according to the following; interdepartmental liaison; ser- vice and community liaison; professional liaison; university administration liaison; federal and state government liaison; research liaison; alumni relations; faculty governance; inquiries; questionnaires and correspondence; and fund-raising. The activities mentioned by the largest number of authors were service and community liaison and university administration liaison followed by professional liaison and faculty gover- nance. This category was identified by the greatest percen- tage of authors representing the Chairpersons' view followed by faculty and administrators. Of the 32 authors, 62% dis- cussed Interdepartmental Activities and External Relations. Category X: Other Extraneous Activities. This category is represented by the social obligations of chairpersons which were specifically mentioned by one administrative docu- ment (Penn, 1963) and one chairperson (Doyle, 1953). Author's Viewpoint. Another way to consider the activity 48 categories was according to the three types of authors: 1) administrator; 2) chairperson; and 3) faculty. When the categories in Table 3.1 were arranged according to frequency of response, four categories of activities stood at the top of each list with more than 50% of the authors. For the adminis— trative View authors Faculty Personnel Activities (100%) and Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related Activities (100%) were at the top of the list followed by Non-faculty Personnel Activities (80%) and Budget Formulation and Control (70%). For the chairpersons, Faculty Personnel (82%) and Curriculum (71%) also topped the list with Interdepartmental Activities and External Relations (65%) and Internal Administration (53%). The faculty list, however, was different with Internal Admin- istration (100%) first, followed by Curriculum (60%), Research-Related Activities (60%), and Interdepartmental Activities and External Relations (60%). Summary. Faculty Personnel Activities and Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related Activities were identified most frequently as activities within the purview of the chairperson. The others discussed, in order of frequency, were Internal Administrative Activities and Interdisciplinary Activities and External Relations; Planning and Budget Formulation and Control; Student Affairs; Research—Related Activities; and Non—faculty Personnel Activities. All except three of the categories were identified by the greatest percent of administrative authors followed by the chairpersons and faculty. Non-faculty Personnel Activities 49 and Research-Related Activities were discussed most often by administrative authors followed by faculty and then chair- persons while the Interdepartmental Activities and External Relations category was discussed most frequently by chair- persons followed by faculty and administrative authors. Considering the frequency with which each group discussed the various categories revealed that the administrative authors and chairpersons discussed Faculty Personnel and Curriculum most frequently. Administrative authors then dealt with Non-faculty Personnel and Budget Control and Formulation while chairpersons spoke of Interdepartmental Activities and External Relations and Internal Administration. Faculty, on the other hand, had a slightly different ranking with Internal Administration at the top of the list followed by Curriculum, ResearchwRelated Activities, and Interdepartmental Activities. Based on this discussion of the kinds of activities found in the literature discussing the position of depart- ment chairperson, some agreement exists particularly among administrators and chairpersons, about role expectations for the unit administrator role. The following section discussed expectations for the other roles of a chairperson. Role Expectations-~Teacher, Scholar and Researcher In addition to the role of unit administrator the department chairperson has traditionally had the roles of teacher, scholar and researcher. The amount of time a chair— person has to devote to each role has changed over time. In 50 1953 the latter roles occupied more of the Chairpersons' time than administration (Doyle, 1953). Ten years later, in 1963, the expectation was still that chairpersons would engage in teaching, research and scholarship (Strong, 1963). Later in that decade the expectation remained that the chair- person would be active as teacher, researcher and Scholar (Fellman, 1967; Heimler, 1968). Working at about the same point in time, Davidson (1967) found in a survey of ten colleges in the State University of New York System that "The chairman in these colleges is today a full time administrator who accomplishes some teaching and attempts some research" (p. 2935-A). In 1970 Novick found in a survey of faculty chairmen and administrators that scholarship and research were important to faculty only in the selection process. After the appointment of a chairperson faculty felt that departmental concerns should take priority. Chairpersons of high innovative departments were found to "have a higher regard for their performance of administrative duties and activities associated with the chairmanship..." than chair— persons of low innovative departments (Davis, 1975, p. 7831-A). The argument that such a professional administrator does not possess the impor- tant attribute of being a 'true scholar' is weakened by the finding in this study, that this value is not necessarily an important one, according to the perceptions of the chairmen in this study (Davis, 1975, p. 783l-A). Perhaps the expectations have caught up with the reality of the situation. The loss of time for scholarship, teaching and research appears inevitable for most chairpersons (Davidson, 51 1967; Dressel and Others, 1970). The fact that this poses a problem for chairpersons who serve for a short term and return to the faculty was identified by Dressel and his colleagues (1970). The extent of the problem has most recently been discussed by Zorn (1978). Three primary problems related to returning chairpersons cited by Zorn were the reestablishing of reserach ties; the adjustment to the change in work pattern, how to manage time; and the management of salary adjustments. (Chairpersons returning to teaching are often making much higher salaries than the faculty). All problems take a great deal of emotional support from colleagues to help the returning chairpersons. Role Conflict The previous discussion concerning role expectations addressed the role expectations of the unit administrator as documented in the literature. It did not deal with the linkage between role expectations and role performance, (at least not in great detail). Within this linkage [tJhere is the relationship between the expectations held by members of the role set and the expectations as actually sent to the focal person, the relationship between those sent by the set and those received by the focal person, and the relationship between the expectations so received and the subsequent response (both as role performance and side effects) (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 201). The side effect which has received some attention in research on the department chairperson is role conflict. Role conflict occurs in three forms: conflicting expectations for the same \ role between two or more groups (intrarole conflict); 52 conflicting expectations for two or more roles occupied by the same person (interrole conflict); and conflicting expec— tations between the role to be filled and the values, traits, or beliefs of the role incumbent (person-role conflict). The research on role conflict in the department chairperson follows the same pattern as research on role conflict in other areas. That is the role chosen for study had the potential for some polarization of differences among role- senders, and the research demonstrated that such differences existed and were stressful for the persons involved, especially the role incumbent (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 204). A study of 200 department chairpersons in the Florida State Univer- sity System documented that "the role conflict problem does indeed, manifest itself within the complex academic organi- zation particularly at the departmental level..." (Carroll, 1974, p. 62). In addition the decisions which generated the greatest amount of conflict were faculty salary and promo- tion decisions (Carroll, 1974). Carroll surveyed chair- persons in his study of role conflict. Earlier Parker (1971) had looked at role conflict relative to role expectations (the Ideal) and role behavior (the Real) among three reference groups, administrators, department heads and faculty. He found that Real dimension conflict occurred primarily bet- ween faculty and department heads. This seems logical since the most frequent day by day interactions occur between faculty and department heads. The Ideal dimension conflict on the other hand occurred between faculty and administrators 53 who have different role expectations for department chair- persons. In addition the difference between perceptions of performance and expectations was the greatest within the faculty group followed by department heads and administra- tors. Size also appeared to be a factor since faculty and department heads of small departments showed conflict on fewer items than those in large departments. POdemski (1973) examined the relationship between leadership behavior and role conflict and leadership behavior and role ambiguity. He hypothesized that the stronger the faculty perceive the chairperson to be, the less intense the role conflict concern- ing expectations. Likewise the stronger the perceived leadership behavior, the less intense the perception of role ambiguity. No significant relationships were found in this study. Rather closer scrutiny of the data found 81% of the respondents were in the first year of their position and therefore, the search and screen selection process was put forth as the structural process which mitigated both role conflict and role ambiguity for chairpersons in their first term. Research on role conflict in various settings has found that role conflict "is associated with decreased satisfaction, coping behavior that would be dysfunctional for the organiza— tion, and experiences of stress and anxiety" (Carroll, 1974, p. 54). Getzels and Guba (1954) found role con— flict to be associated with reduced teaching effectiveness in nine air force 54 training schools and Bible and McComas (1963) reported similar findings for teacher effectiveness in other settings. Role conflict has also been studied in relation to various measures of organiza— tional strain (Kahn and Quinn, 1970). (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 206). Research on the effects of role conflict on the performance of department chairpersons has not been done. Nor has any- one addressed the issue of whether or not there is a degree of role conflict which is tolerable or even productive in certain situations. Kahn (1964) has discovered that positions located near the boundaries of an organization (e.g., job involving labor negotiations) or near an intraorganizational boundary such as a representative of two departments were more likely to experience conflict and stress than those located deep within the organization. The department chair- person fits the former situation. Darkenwald (1971) found that there was a relationship between institutional differ— entiation based on size, quality, and research orientation and the presence of organizational conflict. Chairpersons in high differentiated institutions (large, distinguished research universities) and low differentiated institutions (small, little-known liberal arts colleges) experienced significantly less conflict with administrators in decision- making than did chairpersons in medium differentiated institutions (institutions which emphasized undergraduate education). Darkenwald's research is based on the chair— person’s perception of conflict rather than any form of observation. 55 Role Ambiguity A concept related to role conflict which exists in relation to the department chairperson is role ambiquity. The lack of a definitive statement as to the role of the unit administrator is often mentioned in the literature (Dressel and Others, 1970; Nicoll, 1971; Brann, 1972; Roach, 1976). Many institutions do not have a formal written position description'and when a chairman's duties are defined in writing, the resulting hodepodge often resembles a laundry list of undone duties and responsibilities pulled together from thrgpghout the institution (Brann, 1972, p. . Little research has been done on the effect of role ambiquity on the chairperson although Podemski (1973) found no relation— ship between leadership behavior and role ambiguity. Research on role ambiguity in other areas has shown that the results are similar to those of role confliCt, that is, low job satisfaction and high tension. Additionally, role ambiguity has also been found to contribute to low self-confidence and a sense of futility (Katz and Kahn, 1978). There is also substantial evidence that role ambiguity reduces the effectiveness of performance. Cohen (1959) reports that the accomplishment of experimental tasks is reduced when instructions are unclear, and Smith (1957) found similar‘ effects when 'nonsending role-senders' (silent unidentified stooges) were introduced into an experiment situation. Weitz (1957) found ambiguity of role expectations was related to turnover in a variety of jobs. Torrance (1954) found that ambiguity of role allocation and definition in air force crews under stress was a significant factor in 56 survival (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 206). The problem of role ambiguity is present in many different areas and even in other areas within the university. ...Grain (1976) found that 80 percent of the administrative recruits to a service arm of a public uniVersity did not know 'what the supervisor wanted,’ even after nine months in the role (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 206). Role Behavior or Performance With the wide assortment of role expectations, the apparently conflicting demands placed upon them, and the lack of a clearly defined and documented position description, how in the world do chairpersons perform their role? The facetious response "Very carefully," might seem most appro- priate. However, the fact is that chairpersons have been performing in their roles with varying degrees of success for a number of years. As Ahmann (1969) pointed out, "Each departmental chairman is faced with a number of significant choices which must be made with regard to his perceived role" (p. 188). The two choices Ahmann discussed were related to self-perception and style of running the department: faculty member coordinator or an administrator/leader. Dressel and his colleagues pointed out that ...the style of the department chairman could be associated with three levels of activity. The first is those things the chairman did; the second, those things the chairman delegated; and finally those things the chairman left undone (p. 23). Given the long list of expectations included as part of the unit administrator's duties, the fact that things are left 57 undone by the chairperson is perhaps the one thing which has saved many of them from an early grave. (Indeed.it has been shown that chairperson's most "frequently do what they enjoy doing" (McLaughlin and Others, 1975). It follows that those things left undone are usually the least enjoyable. "The major exception is managing non—academic staff which is both one of the most demanding and also one of the least enjoyable" (McLaughlin and Others, 1975). Limiting Factors. Although chairpersons have choices to make, a number of factors limit or seem to circumscribe their performance. The chairperson is called upon to function in an organization where faculty may play an important role in decision-making--where the departmental organization may vary from a division of labor among peers to an obligarchy or collegium to no desire on the part of faculty to be involved (Hobbs and Anderson, 1971). In addition the depart- ment is a part of a larger university structure with policies, rules and regulations to follow (Dressel, 1970). More recently outside agencies at the state and federal level have placed demands on institutions which reach to the department level and affect the chairpersons' freedom to make decisions. Such things as affirmative action and legal constraints (due process, grievances) and collective bargaining agreements are examples of the impact of outside agencies on the admin- istration of a department (Hobbs, 1976; Brann, 1972). Two studies on the effects of collective bargaining arrived at very similar conclusions. Edelson (1973) paired unionized . 58 and non-unionized campuses and investigated chairperson and faculty perceptions of the role of the chairperson. He discovered that chairpersons in "unionized schools tended to perceive their involvement in personnel activities as less important than did chairmen in non—unionized schools" (p. 211-A). This corresponds with Gallucci's (1975) finding that the chairpersons of physical education departments experienced significant decreases in their ability to in— fluence faculty personnel issues after unionization. In this survey of 27 institutions chairpersons also experienced a loss of influence over decisions on grievance procedures, committees appointments, the number of faculty meetings, and determining faculty travel allocations. Perhaps the greatest effeCt that collective bargaining has on the chairperson is the decision of whether or not that person is a member of "management” or "labor" (Leslie, 1972; Leslie, 1973: Freemuth, 1974; Boyer, 1974; Byrnes, 1977). Edelson (1973), who did not indicate whether or not the chairperson was a member of the bargaining unit, found that chairpersons in both unionized and non—unionized schools "tended to see themselves first as department spokesmen and representatives, second as teachers, and third as department administrators. "Those in unionized schools viewed their administrative activities of coordina- tion and leading the unit as more important than did those in non-unionized schools. The constraints of departmental organization for decision- making; the university policies, rules and procedures; the 59 impact of outside agency demands; and the effect of collec— tive bargaining if the faculty is unionized directly affect the autonomy of the chairperson to make those choices necessary for satisfactory performance. Other factors identified in the literature and discussed below are depart- mental orientation, departmental discipline, departmental size and role perceptions. Departmental Orientation. In addition to the constraints discussed above there is a case within the literature for the existence of two different: orientations for departments which affect the function and the role of the chairperson. The first is the type of department which is basically research oriented, emphasizes graduate education, and is funded to a considerable extent from outside sources (Dressel, 1970; Peterson, 1976). This type of department is found in the highly differentiated institution of Darkenwald (1971) and seems to be more evident in the sciences. The second type of department is oriented toward undergraduate education, had a lesser emphasis on research and depends primarily on the institution for support (Dressel and Others, 1970). Darkenwald (1971) called institutions with a large number of these departments his low differentiated departments. Although these descriptions are the extremes, the role of the unit administrator can be discussed in relation to the two types of department. Dressel and his colleagues (1969) discussed the two breeds of chairpersons. The first type of department had a chairperson who was nationally known and who could 60 facilitate_getting outside funds. The second had a chair— person who could best represent the department to the univ- ersity administration. The style of operation of the two types of departments also differed. The former tended to be democratic and the latter tended to be oligarchical (Dressel, Johnson, and Marcus, 1969). On the other hand, Darkenwald (1971) found that there was less conflict in institutions which were highly differentiated or low differentiated than in institutions whose departments fell somewhere between these extremes. Departmental Discipline. One rather extensive study analyzed the administrative activities of the department chair— persons in relation to the discipline of the department (Smart, 1976). The Chairpersons' choice of discipline was used as an expression of one of six personality types (realis— tic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and con- ventional) and Holland‘s model of environments was used as a theoretical framework for the study. A factor analysis of time devoted to 27 administrative activities resulted in six factors: 1) faculty development; 2) external coordination; 3) graduate program; 4) internal administration; 5) instruction; and 6) program management. These six were collapsed into three functions: 1) curriculum management; 2) internal orien— tation; and 3) faculty orientation. The discriminant function analysis showed that l. Chairmen in artistic, social and conventional environments tended to devote more time to curriculum management...[while] chairmen in .- \ JMLJJ 61 investigative, realistic, and enterprising environments tended to devote less time to curriculum management...(p. 200-201). 2. Chairmen in artistic and investigative environments tended.to have greater internal orientation...[while] chairmen in conventional departments tended to have less internal orientation (p. 201). 3. Chairmen in enterprising environments tended to have a greater faculty orientation... [while] their colleagues in realistic envir- onments tended to have less of a faculty orientation (p. 201). Departmental Size. One final factor which has been dis- cussed in relation to the management of departments is size (Lee, 1970; Johnson, 1976; McKeachie, 1976). McKeachie relates that he observed with his own department at least two tran-' sition points. As a department of 30 to 40 staff members, a great deal could be done informally and in a collegial fashion. As we grew to a group of 70 to 80, we needed to make in- creasing use of committees, and the depart- ment chairman's role thus involved greater delegation and greater coordination and monitoring. As the number of faculty increased from 80 to 200, a new system of organization was needed in which the department was subdivided into programs or subdepartments. The department chairman's role differed from level to level (McKeachie, 1976, p. 120—121). Haas and Cohen (1963) discovered that "It is the repetitive- ness of decision-making which tends to produce increased form- alization rather than size itself" (p. 58). Role Perceptions. Two fairly recent studies examined administrative performance in relation to role perceptions. In an analysis of data collected in 1972, McLaughlin, Mont- gomery, and Sullins (1977) studied the effect of role 62 perceptions on the decision-making duties of the chairperson. They found if chairpersons perceived themselves as making major decisions, "the chairmen spent relatively larger amounts of time in working to guide the growth and development of the department, its personnel and its programs" (McLaughlin, Montgomery, and Sullins, 1977, p. 336). In the extreme opposite of this were those chairpersons who perceived that the control rested with the dean. In these cases, the chair- men occupied themselves with the faculty-type activities of maintaining the flow of information to and from the depart- ment" (McLaughlin, Montgomery, and Sullins, 1977, p. 336). Olswang (1977) discovered that there were significant dif- ferences between the perceptions of chairpersons and those of-deans and provosts in relation to the performance of the chairpersons. The major Categories in which disagreement consistently occurred were in the adequacy of communication procedures and the areas of the chairpersons' influence and effectiveness. Summa y. The review of the literature and research rela— tive to role behavior or performance of the unit administra- tor has shown that although the number of expected activities for the chairperson is considerable, chairpersons do not necessarily perform them all. The activities they do perform and the manner in which they are performed are circumscribed by a number of variables including: the organization and decision-making style of the department; the university rules and regulations; demands from outside agencies; the discipline; 63 the orientation of the department; the time available to get things done; the amount of administrative detail; and the diverse expectations of deans and faculty. This choice of activities was also proven to be related to the strength of the decision-making responsibility of the chairperson versus the dean. The satisfaction which chairpersons derive from the position also depends on the strength of their authority and influence in decision-making. The chairpersons who have decision-making power find satisfaction in "having a challenging job, achieving [their] own goals, having sufficient time for outside activities, and influencing the profession" (McLau- ghlin and Others, 1977, p. 338). The activities which con- tribute to that satisfaction, those that chairpersons enjoy most, are for the most part, the activities they perform. The Focal Person/Role Incumbent So far the elements of the conceptual framework discussed were related to the position of the chairperson and the roles which make up the position. The third component of role theory is the self or the focal person, the individual who occupies the role. The focal person is as crucial to the role performance as are the other elements of the role episode, if not more so- The focal person brings not only a set of values and beliefs to the role, but also skills, abilities and competencies, both potential and developed. Discussing the various assets of an individual in relation to role behavior is often rather difficult. The terms skills, abilities, and competencies are very close in meaning and are 64 often used inter-changeably. In additiOn personal traits are sometimes indistinguishable from abilities. Whatever terms are used there seem to be two types or sets of personal char- acteristics which a person brings to any role: traits which are already inherent in the personality of the individual and those skills or competencies either currently developed or present for future development. Generally speaking traits are already present and difficult to change or modify in adults. Skills and competencies, however fall into two groups, those derived from something inherent in the individual and those which are learned. Although it is not the purpose of this paper to discuss whether or not leadership skills can or cannot be taught, both aspects of the focal person, the interent and the learned skills and competencies should be acknowledged because of the implications for orientation or in-service types of training. The literature on the department chairperson identifies a number of traits, abilities, skills or competencies which various members of the role set perceive as important. How- ever, as Mangelson (1977) points out there is inconsistent use of terminology and various levels of specificity in describing those abilities. The problem in this area is the same as in the area of role expectations. The manner in which role skills are discussed is usually in conceptual terms rather than in more specific behavioral terms. The discussion of role skills identified in the literature will be divided (loosely) into traits or personal characteristics and skills and compet- encies. 65 .Personal Traits or Characteristics. A personal trait frequently identified as important for department chairpersons was integrity or honesty (Aldmon, 1959; Roach, 1976; Brown, 1977; Hopper, 1978). Brown elaborated on this point ...I would put intuitive integrity first. This means not merely being honest and fair in day-to-day dealings with others, but ' possessing a personal system of values that affords a basis for judgment of issues which is more sensitive than logic alone. Intuitive integrity is an essential attribute of leader- ship, not only in judging others, but also in gaining the continuing respect of a group of colleagues with differing interests and opinions (p. 190). An equally mentioned trait was concern for faculty members (Aldmon, 1959; Gardner, 1971; Siever, 1972; Fellman, 1967; Hopper, 1978). Gardner, in a study of 595 faculty members and 25 chairpersons in the liberal arts and sciences, found that faculty who felt that the chairperson was supportive, friendly, and had trust and confidence in them were satisfied with their participation in the departmental administrative activities and believed that they had sufficient influence and involvement. Another trait related to faculty participation in deci- sion-making was the commitment to democratic procedures (Aldmon, 1959; Fellman, 1967; Hopper, 1976). This did not mean that decisive thinking and action were not necessary (Siever, 1972). In a study of 481 administrators and faculty asked to rank administrative responsibilities, professional characteristics and personal characteristics of chairpersons Siever found 66 ...the most important personal character- istics are the ability to think decisively and to take action, to.consider the department needs in the broader context of the total university, and to be inter- ested in the needs of students (p. 407). Other characteristics mentioned as important were emotional stability.(Aldmon, 1959; Hopper, 1978), openness (Roach, 1976; Hopper, 1978), motivation (Siever, 1972; Hopper, 1978), good sense of humor and wit (Hopper, 1978), diplomatic tact (Fel- lman, 1967), aggressiveness (Brann, 1972); and a willingness to sacrifice their own self-interest to serve others (Hopper, 1978). Role Skills and Competencies. A perusal of the literature on the department chairperson emphasized the inadequacy of the English language in translating a sense of what skills and competencies a person needs to perform effectively as a unit administrator into a description of the required behaviors. At the most comprehensive level the unit administrator must have all the requisite personal, technical, and professional skills to successfully lead the department. From there the literature reflects a myriad of ways to describe those skills and competencies. The most straightforward way to present them is chronologically. Aldman (1959) in a study of three institutions using a critical incident technique identified seven critical behaviors, four of which seemed to be skills or competencies. A chair- person should 1) seek the resolution of problems through scientific problem—solving; 2) realize change is inevitable and attempt to base it on established departmental need; 3) 67 communicate freely and effectively with other persons; and 4) provide for the proper management of funds. Ramer (1963) interviewed selected faculty and administrators concerning the functions and duties of departmental chairpersons and recommended among other things three important criteria in selecting a chairperson: administrative talent, commitment to democratic procedures, and the ability to use group process in decision-making. Bolman (1964) focused on a slightly different approach with his three competencies: professional skill, a comprehensive understanding of the institution, and political insight. The latter two were related to the func- tioning of the institution as an environment. As a former chairperson, Fellman (1967), also acknowledged the importance of having "a mastery of the complicated procedures through which complex institutions function" (p. 243). Brann (1972) cited two general competencies by which an effective chairperson can be identified. -- An effective chairman sees that faculty committees are established to shoulder much of his work, par- ticularly in curriculum design and revision, and departmental housekeeping. -- An effective chairman learns how to circumvent the regulations of his central administration (Brann, 1972, p. 11). The former skill was also cited by Siever (1972) in the list- ing of personal characteristics used in his study: "delegates decision—making and decision-maker with faculty as advisors." Other competencies cited by Siever were: "a good negotiator, good at conflict resolution and sensitive to departmental needs." A litany of the skills which a chairperson must develop 68 was presented by Roach (1976), a former chairperson. Those skills were: "(1) planning; (2) communication, representing, negotiating, coordinating, and facilitating functions; (3) problem-solving; (4) organizing and administering" (p. 15). Roach's article provided some detail as to how these various skills should be used. Another former chairperson, Brown (1977) used a slightly different set of skills which empha- sized perspective rather than activities. [An] essential qualification for a chair- man is a sense of organization. This is the ability to think of an organization as a structural combination of people whose activities are coordinated by leader- ship, intercommunication, and traditions to serve a common end...The resolution of the tensions is aided by his willingness and ability to delegate functions to others, yet retain responsibility for leadership and oversight...A good chair- man not only encourages full discussion but makes sure that all members of his department have as complete information as possible on any important question of policy...0ne of the most important func- tions a department chairman should perform is assuring a proper balance in the diverse approaches to learning and the varied subareas of instruction and scholarship represented in his discipline (pp. 191-193). Brown, however, did not discuss these competencies in any greater detail. Mangelson (1977) attempted to identify on a task level the abilities needed by effective chairpersons. Three types of abilities were used in the study: people-inter- action abilities; technical-related abilities; and functionally- related abilities. He concluded, Overall, chairpersons and faculty agreed on the relationship and absolute importance of various abilities for chairpersons. Spec— ifically abilities relating to money and the 69 development of faculty were generally con- sidered of great importance for chair— persons (p. 176). In a recent study of 11 deans at a major research insti- tution, Hopper (1978) elicited an interesting array of des- criptions of the competencies and skills needed by chairper- sons. "The responses seemed to fall into three general cate- gories: abilities related to providing direction, problem- solving abilities, and abilities related to interacting with personnel. The following abilities seemed to fall under the first category: able to use figures and justify ideas with figures leader and scholar able to plan and carry through academic leader (p. 8) able to evaluate programs, set goals, and develop staff to achieve these goals able to analyze the department, describe its needs plan to meet the needs and do it must understand the college envision and articulate a program to lead the discipline in research and teaching and service (p. 9). The following abilities were grouped under the category of problem-solving.abilities: ’independent decision—maker a terrific administrator (p. 8) leadership and management skills a line administrator a decision—maker ability to identify a problem, plan a rea- sonable solution and carry it through (p. 9) The final category included the abilities related to inter— acting with personnel. ability to make faculty aware of their short— comings without bruising them able to deal constructively with people 70 work well with faculty be able to listen to adVice, weigh it, accept it or reject it or compromise and make the appropriate judgments (p. 8) ability to motivate other to create (p. 9) Overall, the literature which discussed both the traits or characteristics and the skills, competencies, or abilities of the departmental chairpersons, particularly in relation to the administrative role, did so at various levels of detail using various categories and terminology. The empiri- cal research in the area was dissertation research and pro- vided minimal insight into the area. A larger knowledge base in this area would help those interested in providing orientation and training for departmental chairpersons. The final section in this chapter is a review of the literature concerning the orientation and in-service education of chair- persons. Education of Administrators Until the 1960's few academic administrators received any administrative training either prior to or after becoming administrators. Various programs, however, have grown up since then which provide an opportunity for administrators such as presidents, provosts, and deans to attend workshops or seminars in the area of leadership and administration. The American CounCil on Education (A.C.E.) has been a major spon- sor of such programs and also of the A.C.E. fellows program. The latter was started in 1964 to provide an opportunity for a select few to have significant contact with academic adminis— tration through an internship (Stauffer, 1978, p. 87). 71 Another educational opportunity for academic administrators is the Institute for Educational Management which is held each summer at Harvard University (Fisher, 1977). The opportunities for department chairpersons to have similar experiences have been less frequent despite the recog- nition of the need for them. Some former chairpersons have acknowledged the need for some assistance in acquiring administrative and leadership skills (Bolman, 1964; Dilley, 1968; Heimler, 1968; Manson, 1968). Millett (1978) pointed out that faculty have been trained to g3 research, not to manage research. Yet, they are called upon in their positions as faculty members to manage courses as well as research. Chemists, for example, who are involved in research supported by grants are primarily in— volved in managing the project while doctoral and post-doctoral students are actually doing the research. The educational system has been as negligent in providing them with management skills as it has been with department chairpersons. The implicit message is that faculty could also benefit from some form of management training. A number of studies on the position of department chair- person have resulted in recommendations that some sort of orientation or in-service education be developed for chair-- persons (Quick, 1966; Schroeder, 1969; Davis, 1975; Mohan, 1976; Mangelson, 1977; and Olswang, 1977). The recommendations included a focus on human relations in attaining institutional goals (Schroeder, 1969); orientation to develop common role "72 perceptions for the chairperson to be held by all levels of administrators (Olswang, 1977); and programs to develop "abilities to handle budgets, write finance reports, critique grant proposals, counsel with faculties about their work, handle conflicts on an interpersonal and organizational basis, and deal With student needs and procedures" (Mangelson, 1977, p. 176). The one study directly related to orientation and in- service training was conducted by Englund (1967). In an inter- view of chairpersons, deans, and search committee members in seven colleges of'education he found that relatively little was provided in the way of orientation and in-service educa— tion for chairpersons. Chairpersons felt that little was adequately done to orient them to college and university rules and procedures. "On the other hand, in-service education programs [were] not seen as a significant need except to the extent they would improve communication across a college" (p. 106). Generally people agreed that chairpersons needed some sort of orientation, particularly if they were new to the campus. In addition, it was recommended that orientation programs be individualized to accommodate the various experience and expertise levels of the chairpersons. Besides these few studies, little can be found in the literature which adequately addressed this issue. Booth (1977) provided some general thoughts and guidelines on the issue. The following statements highlight his presentation: 1) Before a training program for chairmen can 73 be effective, a dean or other academic administrator should examine departmental structures and policies that may be at the root of dysfunctional conflict (p. 84). 2) Planning requires us to look for and encourage development of people within departments who can move into chairmanships and assume positions of responsibility and educational leadership (p. 84). 3) We must broaden faculty perceptions of what a department can be and how a com- petent chairman can move it ahead (p. 85). 4) ...there must be a reward...financial com- * pensation, additional secretarial staff, or assistance...an early sabbatical (p. 85). 5) Peer learning is the most effective strategy to educate chairmen (p. 87). 6) A chairman should know what he does well and what needs improvement (non-evaluative feedback) (p. 88). 7) The burden of in-service training could be shared if the academic disciplines integrated the training of chairmen with their professional activities (p. 88). Educational Programs for Chairpersons At various times programs on a national or regional level have been offered specifically for department chairpersons. In 1967 the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) and the American Council on Education cosponsored the first institute for new chairpersons, and the Danforth Foundation funded a similar program at WICHE from 1968 to 1970 (Booth, 1977). However, the primary activity in this area has occurred either at a state level within a system or at an institutional level. Systems in California, Florida, and New York have their own program (Fisher, 1977). The program at Florida is structured "to enhance the 74 planning, leadership, and management skills of department chairpersons..." (Tucker, 1978, p. XI). The program was designed to specifically improve the competencies of chair- persons: (1) in resource development and management, personnel development and supervision, and curriculum development; (2) in the areas of needs assessment, problem clarification, planning and implementation of change stra- tegies, and evaluation of strategy effec- tiveness; (3) in clearing and utilizing vertical and horizontal communication channels; and (4) in structuring faculty involvement in management decision-making activities (Tucker, 1978, p. XI). The activities of the workshop include readings, case study situations and exercises in various aspects of the program. The more common location for orientation, inservice or leadership development attempts is at the institutional level. Most institutions at some point or other have had or do have orientation sessions for chairpersons. Generally these ses- sions include a parade of addresses by central academic admin- istrators and support personnel intended to supply chair- persons with information about university procedures. Two institutions that have gone further than that are the Univer- sity of Utah and the Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester, New York. The Administrative Leadership Conference at the University of Utah grew out of the experiences of a former department chairperson. The first year of the program six topics were discussed: (1) the budget..., (2) recruiting and 75 retentionss (3) the department and its publics: student affairs, public relations, research; (4) the hard problems: internal dissension, professional malaise, etc.; (5) some synamics of leadership, (6) what does a good department chairman look like? (Monson, 1968, pp. 38-39). Those issues were addressed in three extended luncheon meet- ings over the span of a quarter. Unfortunately, as with many educational programs, this one ceased when the person res- ponsible for it retired. (Jarvis, 1979). Institutional com— mitment is necessary to perpetuate the program. The program described in the following paragraph has such commitment. The Rochester Institute of Technology has recently become involved in a similar series of workshop (Plough, 1979). The Academic Leadership Workshop Series was initiated by the central administration and funded on hard money. The program was a year long program with twelve seminars and approxi- mately 25 participants each year out of 150 department chair- persons. The workshops had five objectives: 1. Promote interactions among department chairpersons 2. Clarify the functions of academic leadership 3. Provide direct access to top management 4. Introduce participants to expanding knowledge about higher education 5. Develop readiness for more competency—based workshops An evaluation of the program after four years' experience showed that those who had participated in the program felt it was successful. A number of factors were identified as having an influence on that success: 76 l. The program was planned to meet needs expressed by chairpersons and deans. 2. It was conceptualized and implemented as leadership development rather than management training. 3. There were a variety of topics, presenters and methods of presentation. 4. The program was funded for "classy" meals and quality meeting spaces. .5. All evaluation group data were fully disclosed. 6. Central administrators and other in-house presenters prepared thoughtful and stimu- lating programs (Plough, 1979). Another possible reason for the success of the program which was not specifically identified was the fact that a small number of participants were invited to participate by the provost. The position of department chairperson and its functions was also part of a more comprehensive study of the depart- ment as the focus of a summer workshop at Concordia College on faculty development. The interest group on the 'Department3 Chairperson' noted several concerns. Rotation of department chairpersons may adversely affect governance, especially in the areas of long-range planning. An effort should be made to train chairpersons for their responsibilities. Among the sug- gestions: preparation of a handbook especially devoted to a Chairpersons' responsibilities, the the holding of a summer workshop devoted to discussion of these issues (Corcordia, 1978, p. 5). The three institutional programs reviewed here are representative of the kinds of programs in existence. 77 Chapter III Summary In Chapter III the literature concerning the position of department chairperson was discussed within the conceptual framework. The concepts which structured the chapter were role expectations, role conflict, role ambiguity, role be- havior or performance, and the role skills of the focal per- son. In addition, a discussion of the education of adminis- trators and educational programs for chairpersons were included. CHAPTER IV DESIGN OF THE STUDY, The purpose of this dissertation as presented in Chapter I is threefold. The first, the framework for viewing the posi- tion of department chairperson, was presented in Chapter II. The review of the literature addressed part of the second aspect, to synthesize information concerning the chairperson from exist— literature. The second part of that, the interview process, is addressed in this chapter. The final aspect of the tri- partite purpose is dealt with in Chapter VI. Included in this chapter are a statement of proposed outcomes or propositions used to guide the data collection; a description of data col— lection procedures; and a discussion of the data analysis. Propositions Within the conceptual framework and drawing from the review of the literature, a number of propositions were form— ulated concerning the results of the interviews. Although they were not hypotheses to be tested, these propositions pro- vided a focus for the analysis. Role Expectations Role expectations exist in the form of formal statements of responsibilities and in the informal expectations of the role set. The review of the existing literature concerning the role expectations of the chairperson revealed a lack of a clear definition of the role and responsibilities of the chair— person. The first proposition was derived from this knowledge. 78 79 Proposition 1: Little agreement will be expressed among chairpersons about their primary responsi- bilities. As a corollary to Proposition 1, Proposition 2 arose not only from the lack of a clear definition for the position, but also from role theory which identified the chairperson position as one of potential conflict. Proposition 2: The chairperson will show signs of being caught between the varying expectations of administrators and faculty. The third, and final proposition about role expectations evolved from the increasing demands of the administrative role of the chairperson. - Proposition 3: The expectation that chairpersons will continue to teach and do research and scholarly activities to the same extent as they did as faculty members will not be expressed. Role Behavior Within the concept of role behavior or performance, three propositions were formed concerning factors which affect behavior. The first proposition addressed the impact of add- ing the role of unit administrator to that of faculty member to form the position of chairperson. Proposition 4: The assumption of the position of chair- person will necessitate adjustments on the part of the incumbent to accomodate 80 the new role of unit administrator. The other two propositions were related to the per- ceptions and relationships between the chairperson and other administrators. Proposition 5: Administrators will identify different problems for chairpersons than the chair- persons themselves will. Proposition 6: Chairpersons will view the roles of other academic administrators as important in the performance of the chairpersons role of unit administrator. Role Skills Role skills are those necessary to successfully per- form the role. The literature reflects the difficulty in- herent not only in identifying requisite skills, but also in assessing them. In the case of the department chairperson the lack of role definition and the variation in role ex- pectations contributed to the problem. Proposition 7: No consensus will emerge regarding the skills necessary for department chair- persons. Traditionally chairpersons have come from the faculty ranks often with no previous administrative preparation or experience. With the increase in the time devoted to and the complexity of administrative tasks performed by chairpersons, Proposition 8 seemed logical. Proposition 8: Chairpersons and administrators will 81 express a need for preparation or exper— ience for departmental chairpersons prior to or soon after they assume the positions. The increase in the size of the administrative role of the chairperson which was documented in the literature also implied the need for new skills for the chairperson. Proposition 9: Management skills will be identified as increasingly important to the chairperson. Data Collection Participants To collect the information relative to the propositions above, chairpersons, deans and central academic administrators at a large mid-western university were interviewed. According to the assumption stated in Chapter I, institutional admini- strators have the primary responsibility to provide support to chairpersons; therefore, the subjects interviewed were all administrators. Although faculty expectations influence the performance of chairpersons, faculty are not in a position to provide administrative support to unit administrators, therefore, faculty were not interviewed. The central academic administrators interviewed were the Associate Provost, the Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Education, and the Director of Institutional Research. These people were chosen because of their contact with and knowledge of the chairperson position. The deans and department chair- persons represented the following colleges: Arts and Letters, Business, Engineering, Human Ecology, 82 Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences. These colleges were chosen because they are representative of the disciplines common to most universities. Fourteen chairpersons were selected at least two from each college. In addition to dis— cipline, length of service was also considered in the select- ion process. At least one person from each college had been a chairperson for one to three years and at least one had served for more than three years. Interview Potential participants were contacted by telephone. If they were willing to be interviewed, an appointment was arranged and a list of questions to be discussed mailed to them. (See Appendix) The questions were open—ended and served to guide the interview and followup questons used as needed. The purpose of the interview was to elicit ideas and thoughts from the people involved. Questions were provided early in the hope that they would stimulate some thought. The interviews were tape recorded and notes taken from the tapes. Data Analysis Procedures A content analysis of each item was done within the three major components of the conceptual framework: l)role expecta- tions; 2) role behavior or performance; and 3) role skills. The component parts of each response were considered in rela— tion to a number of variables. The variables differed accord- ing to the type of respondent, chairperson or administrator. 83 Chairpersons. The Chairpersons' responses were divided according to two variables: years of experience as department chairperson at the current campus and the type of discipline represented by the department. Years of experience were grouped with chairpersons serving from one to five years in one group and those serving six or more years in the other. Grouped in this manner the former group were in their first term as chairperson while the latter were more experienced and had possibly made a long—range commitment to the job. The second variable under which the chairpersons' re- sponses were viewed was the type of discipline represented by the department. The two dimensions used were the hard and soft dimension of Biglan's model (1973). The hard disciplines in the model were biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, engineering and computer science. Soft disciplines areas were English, German, sociology, psychology, education, and accounting. These two dimensions were chosen since they represent basically the sciences versus the non-sciences. Although Biglan's model also had two other dimensions, the hard/soft dimension was the only one used here because of the small number of respondents. The departments in the institu- tion studied had been identified according to Biglan's model by a previous researcher (Hugine, 1977). The only unit not classified by Hugine was the School of Nursing. Since it was located within the College of Natural Sciences, it was con~ sidered a hard discipline. Table 4.1 shows the departments of the chairpersons interviewed and their respective 84 categories for both years of experience and type of discipline. Table 4.1. —- Departments of Respondents by Years of Experience and Type of Discipline Years of Experience Type of Discipline Hard Soft l to 5 years Chemical Accounting & Engineering Finance Mathematics Criminal Justice Statistics and Music Probability Romance Languages Zoology 6 years or more Computer Science Business Law and Food Science and Office Admin- Human Nutrition istration Nursing Geography Psychology Administrators. The administrators' responses were group- ed as deans or central academic administrators. The two types of administrators were used because they are part of the organ- izational administrative structure, academic administration, that is the line of authority from the president to the provost and his staff to the deans and finally to the chairpersons. Role expectations. An additional variable, the adminis- trative activities of chairpersons, was used in the analysis of responses concerning role expectations. This was the same variable used in Chapter III in the analysis of activities discussed in the literature. The variable had ten values or categories; nine of which were used here. 85 Statistical Tests The use of an open-ended survey produced a large amount of information to be aggregated and analyzed. Although speci- fic hypotheses were not identified for testing in this study, a measure of association between the responses, particularly the question of Chairpersons' responsibilities, was used as a way to better understand the relationships among responses. Because the sample size was small and the variables were ordinal, a non-parametric measure, the Kendall rank order coefficient,‘Y’(tau) was used. The following steps were used to calculate 1' 1. Rank the observations on the X variable from 1 to N. Rank the observations on the Y variable from 1 to N. 2. Arrange the list of N subjects so that the X ranks of the subjects are in their natural order, that is, l, 2, 3,..., N. 3. Observe the Y ranks in the order in which they occur when the X ranks are in natural order. Determine the value of S for this order of the Y ranks. 4. If there are no ties among either the X or the Y observations, use S \('= 1/2N (N-l) in computing the value of if if there are ties use Y = ‘ s J1/2N (N-l)-TX yl/ZN (N-l)—Ty 5. If the N subjects constitute a random sample from some population, one may test whether the observed value of fl' indicates the existence of an associa- tion between the X and Y variables in that popula- tion. The method for doing so depends on the size of N. a. For N g 10, [Table Q (Siegal P. 285)] the assoc- iated probability of a value as large as an observed S, 86 b. For N.$ 10, one may compute the value of z associated with ...(Siegel, 1956, p. 222) Summary The design of the study was organized within the con- ceptual framework of role theory with the major focus on role expectations, role behavior or performance, and role skills. The method of data collection was a personal interview with a set of open—ended questions as an interview guide. Respon— dents were provided a copy of the interview guide prior to the interview. Fourteen chairpersons and eight administrators were interviewed at a large midwestern university. The pur- pose of the interview was to elicit ideas and opinions to be analyzed in conjunction with the literature on the department chairperson to arrive at some conclusions and suggestions on the administrative support needs of unit administrators. Content analysis was used to analyze the responses in relation to a number of variables. Respondents were grouped in the following way: A. Chairpersons 1. Years of Experience as chairperson on current campus. a. 1 through 5 years b. 6 or more years 2. Type of discipline represented by the department a. Hard b. Soft B. Administrators 87 1. Deans 2. Central Academic Administrators These variables were used throughout the analysis of the data. One additional variable was used to group administra- tive activities. Where appropriate the non-parametric measure Kendall's Rank Correlation Coefficient, 1((tau) was used to determine the degree of association between ranked variables. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the analysis of the interview data within the conceptual framework ofrole expectations, role behavior and role skills. Each of the propositions derived from the literature is addressed below. Rele;Expectations Three propositions related to role expectations were identified as a result of the review of the literature. The first was reflective of the received-role outlined within the framework, or the perception of the role incumtent of what that role is. The second and third were concerned with the sent-role, or the expectations of the role set for that role and the possibility of contradictory and conflict-producing expectations Proposition 1: Little agreement will be expressed among chairpersons about their_primary respon- sibilities. According to role theory, role expectations exist in the form of formal statements of responsibilities and in the infor- mal expectations of the role set. Since, as the review of the literature revealed, there is a lack of a clear formal defini— tion of the administrative role and responsibilities of the chairperson, the assumption was that the Chairpersons' percep- tion of the informal expectations would vary among chairpersons depending upon the individual Chairpersons' role set. The analysis of the Chairpersons' responses did not con- firm this proposition. The Kendall's Rank Correlation 88 89 Coefficient showed a high degree of association between the ranked categories of activities derived from the responses. This was true for the ranks by years of experience and by type of discipline. Table 5.1 shows the activity type, the percent of chairpersons who described that activity, and the rank assigned on the basis of the percent according to the years of experience of the chairperson. The rank correlation for the ranked responses of the 1 through 5 year group and the 6 years or more group was .67 which was significant at p = .012. Table 5.2 contains the same information by type of discipline. The rank correlation coefficient for the ranked responses of the Hard disciplines and the Soft disciplines was considerably higher than that for years of experience with a correlation coefficient of .95 which was significant at p = .00043. The manner in which the chairpersons responded to the question regarding their primary responsibilities was also indicative of the agreement identified through the correla- tion. Although each had a distinct way of expressing it, the chairpersons described themselves as the person responsible for their departments. Two saw themselves as a "middleman" or "foreman." One person identified himself in terms of the people he was "in charge of," while another was "chief adminis- trator" and "a professor in the department." In all but one instance the chairperson described the primary responsi- bilities of the position as those of the administrative role. The one chairperson who did not, perhaps displayed a 90 Table 5.l.--Chairpersons' View of their Primary Responsibilities by Years oprxperience. One Through Five Years (N=8) Activity Percent Rank Internal Administrative 100% 1 Budget Formulation and Control 75% 2.5 Faculty Personnel 75% 2.5 Non-Faculty Personnel 63% 4.5 Interdepartmental and External Relations 63% 4.5 Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 50% 6 Student Affairs 38% 7 Research—Related 25% 8 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives - 9 Six or More Years (N=6) Activity Percent Rank Budget Formulation and Control 100% 1 Faculty Personnel 83% 2.5 Internal Administrative 83% 2.5 Curriculum, Program, and CourseeRelated 67% 5 Research-Related 67% 5 Interdepartmental and External Relations 67% 5 Non-Faculty Relations 50% 7 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 33% 8 Student Affairs 17% 9 Kendall's Rank Correlation Coefficient y'= .67 ' S = 22 Significance: p = .012 91 Table 5.2.--Chairpersons' View of their Primary Responsibilities by Type of Discipline Hard Disciplines (N=7) Activity Percent Rank Budget Formulation and Control 86% 1.5 Internal Administrative 86% 1.5 Faculty Personnel 71% 3 Non-Faculty Personnel . 57% 4.5 Interdepartmental and External Relations 57% 4.5 Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 43% 6.5 Research-Related 43% 6.5 Student Affairs 29% 8 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives - 9 Soft Disciplines (N=7) Activity Percent Rank Internal Administrative 100% 1 Budget Formulation and Control 86% 2.5 Faculty Personnel 86% 2.5 Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 71% 4.5 Interdepartmental and External Relations ' 71% 4.5 Non—Faculty Personnel 57% 6 Research-Related 43% 7 Student Affairs 29% .5 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 29% .5 Kendall's Rank Correlation Coefficient -YH= .95 S = 31 Significance: p = .00043 92 more traditional approach. My main responsibility is teaching, pro- viding quality instruction; and in a department like this you have to have strong graduate programs, and you have to do research. As a result of doing these things we have to manage a support service, supervise expenditures, and go out to get money to do research. Although other respondents discussed their role in provi- ding quality instruction, none responded in quite this way. Contrary to expectations, then, agreement did exist. Among the chairpersons regarding their primary responsibilities. Proposition 2: The QhairPEPSFHFWll1,§hOW signs of being caught between;thewvaryihg‘expectations of administrators and faculty. Within the concept of role theory the position of chair- person is one of potential role conflict. According to Kahn's research, positions located near the boundaries of an organiza- tion, for instance the first line supervisor in a factory, were more likely to experience conflict than those located deeper within the organization. The chairperson position is located at the interface between the administration and the faculty, a relationship not unlike that of a supervisor. However, unlike a worker in a factory, faculty members play a greater role in the decision-making process within a university perhaps creating a greater pull on chairpersons from the faculty. The existance of role conflict among chairpersons was documented in the literature by Carroll, Parker, and Podemski. The expectation was that the interviews would reveal role conflict among chair- persons. The analysis of the interview data bore this out. The 93 description of the chairpersons' responsibilities by the adminis— trators was also in reference to the administrative role and hence was analyzed within the same activity structure as the chairpersons. This was also the case when chairpersons were asked to indicate what the dean viewed as the chairpersons' primary responsibilities. When asked what the faculty expected of them, chairpersons responded from a totally different frame of reference. While the former frame of reference could be described as organizationally based, i.e. organizational fun— ctions such as planning, budgeting, etc., the latter was defini- tely faculty-based. Although fulfilling faculty expectations need not necessarily conflict with fulfilling administrative expectations, the fact that the chairpersons responses indicate two very different viewpoints from which people are making demands of them emphasizes the potential for conflict. Administrators Expectations While the previous discussion focused on the differing expectations of administrators and faculty, analysis also showed a lack of agreement between administrators and chairpersons regarding the chairpersons' primary responsibilities. Table 5.3 shows the comparison of the description of primary responsi- bilities by chairpersons and administrators. Tables 5.4 and 5.5 compare the chairpersons' responses by years of experience with the administrators'. In each case the correlation coefficient was less than .50 and not significant. In addition a correlation of the chairpersons' statements of what the deans viewed as their primary responsibilities with the deans' own 94 Table 5.3.-—Comparison of Chairpersons' and Administrators' Statements of Chairpersons! Responsibilities g- A4 _ L L # A _ A. _14 FA - A L_tI—‘L_L ..kA. L Chairpersons (N=l4) Activity Percent Rank Internal Administrative 93% 1 Budget Formulation and Control 86% 2 Faculty Personnel 79% 3 Interdepartmental and External Relations 64% 4 Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 57% 5.5 Non-Faculty Personnel 57% 5.5 Research-Related 43% 7 Student Affairs 29% 8 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 14% 9 _L_._._‘ H“.— _. _A a; 1 A- - Administrators (N=8) Activity Percent Rank Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 100% 1 Budget Formulation and Control 75% 2.5 Faculty Personnel 75% 2.5 Internal Administrative 62% 4 Student Affairs 38% 5.5 Interdepartmental and External Relations 38% 5.5 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 25% 7.5 Non-Faculty Personnel 25% 7.5 Research-Related 12% 9 Kendall's Rank Correlation Coefficient '\’= .44 S = 15 Not significant 95 Table 5.4.——Comparison of Statements of Chairpersons Who Have Have Been in the Position One Through Five Years with Those of Administrators A ; A _AA AWAM .1 Chairpersons One Through Five Years (N=8) Activities Percent Rank Internal Administrative 100% 1 Budget Formulation and Control 75% 2.5 Faculty Personnel 75% 2.5 Non-Faculty Personnel 63% 4.5 Interdepartmental and External Relations 63% 4.5 Curriculum, Program, and Course Related 50% 6 . Student Affairs 38% 7 Research-Related 25% 8 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives - 9 Administrators (N=8) Activities Percent Rank Curriculum, Program, and Course—Related - 100% 1 Budget Formulation and Control 75% 2.5 Faculty Personnel 75% 2.5 Internal Administrative 62% 4 Student Affairs 38% 5.5 Interdepartmental and External Relations 38% 5.5 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 25% 7.5 Non-Faculty Personnel 25% 7.5 Research-Related 12% 9 Kendall's Rank Correlation Coefficient '1': .48 S = 15 Not significant 96 Table 5.5.--Comparison of Statements of Chairpersons Who Have Been in the Position Six Years or More with Those of Administrators 1 A .A AA A l— m - .A ' A A A A 1.. A A A AA AAAA ;_A A A A Chairpersons Six Years or More (N=6) Activity Percent Rank Budget Formulation and Control 100% 1 Faculty Personnel 83% 2.5 Internal Administrative 83% 2.5 Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 67% 5 Research-Related 67% 5 Interdepartmental and External Relations 67% 5 Non-Faculty Personnel 50% 7 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 33% 8 Student Affairs 17% 9 Administrators (N=8) Activity Percent Rank Curriculum, Program, and Course—Related 100% 1 Budget Formulation and Control 75% 2.5 Faculty Personnel 75% 2.5 Internal Administrative 62% 4 Student Affairs 38% 5.5 Interdepartmental and External Relations 38% 5.5 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 25% 7.5 Non-Faculty Personnel 25% 7.5 Research-Related 12% 9 . A AA AA Kendall's Rank Correlation Coefficient WK: .49 8.: 16 Not significant 97 statements was not significant. Tables 5.6 through 5.9 show the rankings and the rank correlation coefficients, all of which were less than .50. Faculty Expectations As stated above, the chairpersons' descriptions of faculty expectations were from a faculty-based frame of reference. The responses fell into four categories. Faculty members expected chairpersons a) to provide an environment for them to meet their professional goals; b) to provide for their personal needs; 0) to be a protector/advocate outside of the department; and d) to be an administrator/decision-maker. Each of the chair- persons responded with a statement which fit in one of these categories. Table 5.10 shows the percent of chairpersons by years of experience and type of discipline. The responses of the two groupings within each variable were ranked and the ranks compared. Although in each group the primary expectation of faculty that emerged was to provide an environment for faculty to meet professional goals, little agreement existed on the rankings of the four categories on either variable. In summary, the assumption of potential for conflict underlying Proposition 2 was substantiated from the data col- lected. Substantiation of the proposition itself was not as evident. Nothing overwhelmingly indicated that the chair- persons were conscious of conflict. In a couple of instances chairpersons expressed anger at the administration and the demands made on them. Others expressed a frustration in dealing with faculty. One chairperson felt that it was her 98 Table 5.6.--Comparison of the Chairpersons' Perceptions of the Deans' Expectations With the Deans' Statements of Chairpersons' Responsibilities. Chairpersons' Perception (N=l4) Activity Percent Rank Internal Administrative 86% 1 Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 43% 2 Interdepartmental and External Relations 36% 3 Budget Formulation and Control 29% 4 Research-Related 21% 5 Faculty Personnel 14% 6 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 7% 7 Non-Faculty Personnel - 8.5 Student Affairs - 8.5 Deans' Statements (N=5) Activity Percent Rank Curriculum, Program, and Course—Related 100% 1 Budget Formulation and Control 80% 2.5 Faculty Personnel 80% 2.5 Internal Administrative 60% 4 Student Affairs 40% 5 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 20% 7.5 Non-Faculty Personnel 20% 7-5 Research-Related 20% 7.5 Interdepartmental and External Relations 20% 7.5 A Kendall's Rank Correlation Coefficient Y: .35 s = 11 Not significant 99 Table 5.7.--Comparison of the Perception of Chairpersons with 1 Through 5 Years Experience Concerning the Deans' Expectations With the Deans' Statements of the Chairpersons' ReSponsibilities. Chairpersons with 1 Through 5 Years Experience (N=8) Activity Percent Rank Internal Administrative 88% 1 Budget Formulation and Control 50% 2 Interdepartmental and External Relations 38% 3 Faculty Personnel 12% 5 Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 12% 5 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 12% 5 Student Affairs - 8 Non-Faculty Personnel - 8 Research-Related - 8 Deans' Statements (N=5) Activity Percent Rank Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 100% 1 Budget Formulation and Control 80% 2.5 Faculty Personnel 80% 2.5 Internal Administrative 60% 4 Student Affairs 40% 5 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 20% 7.5 Non-Faculty Personnel 20% 7.5 Research-Related 20% 7.5 Interdepartmental and External Relations 20% 7.5 Kendall's Rank Correlation Coefficient W6= .44 S = 13 Not significant 100 Table 5.8.—-Comparison of the Perception of Chairpersons with 6 Years or More of Experience Concerning the Deans' Expectations With the Deans' Statement of the Chairpersons' Responsibilities A A Chairpersons with 6 Years or More Experience (N=6) Activity Percent Rank Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 83% 1.5 Internal Administrative 83% 1.5 Research-Related 50% 3.5 Interdepartmental and External Relations 50% 3.5 Faculty Personnel 17% 5 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives - 7.5 Budget Formulation and Control - 7.5 Student Affairs — 7.5 Non-Faculty Personnel - 7.5 Deans' Statement (N=5) Activity Percent Rank Curriculum, Program, and Course—Related 100% 1 Budget Formulation and Control 80% 2.5 Faculty Personnel 80% 2.5 Internal Administrative 60% 4 Student Affairs 40% 5 P1anning:Setting Goals and Objectives 20% 7.5 Non-Faculty Personnel 20% 7.5 Research-Related 20% 7.5 Interdepartmental and External Relations 20% 7.5 Kendall's Rank Correlation Coefficient ‘1’: .46 s = 13 Not significant 101 Table 5.9.--Comparison of Chairpersons' Perceptions of the Deans' Expectations According to Years of Experience 1 Through 5 Years (N=8) Activity Percent Rank Internal Administrative 88% 1 Budget Formulation and Control 50% 2 Interdepartmental and External Relations 38% 3 Faculty Personnel 12% 5 Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 12% 5 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 12% 5 Student Affairs — 8 Non-Faculty Personnel - 8 Research-Related - 8 6 Years or More (N=6) Activity Percent Rank Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related 83% 1.5 Internal Administrative 83% 1.5 Research-Related . 50% 3.5 Interdepartmental and External Relations 50% 3.5 Faculty Personnel 17% 5 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives - 7.5 Budget Formulation and Control - 7.5 Student Affairs - 7.5 Non-Faculty Personnel - 7.5 Kendall's Rank Correlation Coefficient 1’: .48 S = 14 Not significant 102 Table 5.10.--Comparison of Chairpersons' Statements of Faculty Expectations. One Through Five Years (N=8) Expectations PerCent Rank Meet Professional Goals 75% 1 Provide for Personal Needs 62% 2 Protector/Advocate with the Outside 50% 3 Administrator/Decision-Maker 38% 4 Six Years or More (N=6) Expectations Percent Rank Meet Professional Goals 67% l Protector/Advocate with the Outside 50% 2.5 Administrator/Decision-Maker 50% 2.5 Provide for Personal Needs 33% 4 Hard Disciplines (N=7) Expectations Percent Rank Meet Professional Goals 71% l Administrator/Decision-Maker 57% 2 Protector/Advocate with the Outside 43% 3 Provide for Personal Needs 29% 4 Soft Disciplines (N=7) Expectations Percent Rank Meet Professional Goals 71% 1.5 Provide for Personal Needs 71% 1.5 Protector/Advocate with the Outside 57% 3 Provide for Personal Needs 29% 4 Kendall's Rank Correlation Coefficient 1 Through 5 / 6 Years or More 'Y’= .1826 S 1 Not significant Hard / Soft Disciplines jf==.l826 S-l Not significant 103 responsibility "to follow the rules and regulations of the university, to implement policies, and not let faculty do things that are not in keeping with the rules." As a result the chairperson felt she was often seen as not being supportive of faculty. Another was disturbed because faculty seemed only to be concerned about their individual careers and not about the department. Only in these few instances did chairpersons display any signs of dealing with conflicting expectations. Proposition 3: The expectationthat chairpersons will continpeptqyteach and do reSearch and scholar1y_actiVities tp the same extent as they did as fagulty members will not be”expressed. When a faculty member assumes the position of chairperson, the role of unit administrator is added to those of researcher, scholar, and teacher. The increasing demands of the adminis— trative role have been documented in the literature. Logically it would follow that the time available for the other roles would decrease as the administrative role increases. This leads to Proposition 3 that the expectations about the chairpersons' ability to maintain in full measure the researcher, scholar, and teacher roles. Proposition 3 was not substantiated by the interview data. The expectation that the chairperson continue the faculty roles of teacher and scholar was evident from the interviews with administrators. Eighty percent of them said that chairpersons should teach and 60% indicated they should be involved in scholarship or research. The chairpersons themselves were teaching (71%) even if only one course a year, although most 104 were not actively involved in research. Those chairpersons in the first term of the position tended to be teaching (88%) while those in the position 6 years or more were less likely to be teaching (50%). From the standpoint of discipline, 86% of those in the Hard disciplines were teaching compared with 57% of those in the Soft disciplines. RQLEQEQQ§YIOP The three propositions related to role behavior or perfor- mance deal with the impact of adding the role of unit adminis- trator to that of faculty member to form the position of chair- person, and the perceptions of chairpersons and other adminis- trators relative to the problems chairpersons face and the roles of other academic administrators. Proposition 4: The assumption of the position of chair- person will necessitate adjustments on theypart of the incumbent to accommodate the new role 0f unit administrator. Role behavior or performance is affected by the role expectations of the people the role incumbent interacts with, his/her perception of those expectations, and his/her own expectations for that role. The addition of the unit adminis— trator's role introduces another set of expectations which impact on the chairpersons' behavior. This is borne out in the literature with discussions of the dilemma of whether a chairperson is a chosen representative of the faculty or a representative of the administration. Assumption of the posi- tion, as stated in Proposition 4 necessitates adjustments in role behavior. Both chairpersons and deans identified a number of 105 adjustments a chairperson must make upon assuming the role of unit administrator. Two types of changes discussed most fre- quently by both groups were personal changes at work and the change from concern for one to a concern for many. All the deans (100%) discussed changes in personal conduct at work particularly the need for chairpersons to become more circum- spect when dealing with faculty. "They cannot talk about one faculty member with another faculty member." "Faculty can have a short fuse and get away with it; a chairperson can't." "A chairperson can't be too outspoken." Loss of control over their time was the personal change at work which concerned the 71% of the chairpersons who discussed personal changes at work. Table 5.11 shows the other areas of adjustment discussed by deans and chairpersons. Fifty—eight percent of the chair- persons identified change in viewpoint, an adjustment summarized by this comment: Some of the things that as a faculty member I thought the chairman should be doing, I don't think that a chair- man can do. As a faculty member you look at the ideal of the thing. As a chairman you see the balance between the reality and the ideal. You try to fight for the ideal, but if you don't get the ideal you learn to accept the compromises. Adjustments in their professional lives were discussed by 43% of the chairpersons. They "don't teach as much;" "don't write as much;" "don't do outside programs;" "haven't been able to do research;" "and have less involvement with graduate students." Twenty—nine percent of the chairpersons discussed adjustments in their personal lives away from work including their social 106 Table 5.ll.--Adjustments of Chairpersons Upon Assuming the Position According to Chairpersons and Deans .____ Chairpersons—-Years of Experience Percent Adjustment 1-5 Years 6 or More Years N=8 N=6 Personal Changes at Work 62% 83% From Concern for One to Many 62% 67% Change in Viewpoint 62% 50% Professional Changes 50% 33% Personal Changes Away From Work 12% 50% Chairpersons-~Discipline . Percent Adjustments Hard Soft N=7 N=7 Personal Changes at Work 71% 71% Change in VieWpoint 71% 43% From Concern for One to Many 57% 71% Professional Changes 43% 43% Personal Changes Away From Work 21% 14% Comparison of Chairpersons and Deans Percent Adjustments Chairpersons Deans N=14 N=5 Personal Changes at Work 71% 100% From Concern for One to Many 64% 80% Change in VieWpoint 58% 40% Professional Changes 43% 40% Personal Changes Away From Work 29% - 107 lives and changes in life style. - Considerable agreement existed between the chairpersons by years of experience and between them by type of discipline. The most noticeable difference was that those who served 1 to 5 years identified "professional changes" more frequently than those who served 6 or more years while those who served 6 or more years identified "personal changes away from work" more frequently. From the viewpoint of discipline the primary dif- ference between the hard and the soft disciplines was that "Change in viewpoint" was identified more frequently by chair— persons in hard disciplines while the change "from concern for one to concern for many" was more frequently discussed by those from soft disciplines. In summary, both deans and chairpersons not only confirmed the need for adjustments on the part of the person becoming a chairperson, but also expressed considerable agreement on the type of adjustments neceSsary. Proposition 5: Administrators will identify different problems for chairpersons than the chairpersons themselves will. The proposition could logically be expected to be upheld given that the problem identified in role behavior should arise out of the person's expectation for that role. Since the analysis found on Table 5.3 showed little relationship in the ranking of the descriptions of chairperson responsibilities identified by chairpersons and administrators, the assumption could be that the two groups would see different problems. The results of the interview did not entirely support the proposition. In 108 reference to.this issue, the responses of the two levels of administrators could not be considered together. Central Administrators The central academic administrators did see different problems for the chairpersons than did the deans or the chairpersons themselves. Four problems were identified by the central academic administrators: 1) management of re— sources; 2) dealing with legal issues; 3) difficulties with their role; and 4) planning and programs. All but one of these problems were an extention of issues and problems being dealt with at a university level. They were also spoken in reference to the future. One person stated that chair- persons have to live with constrained budgets and reallocation of resources. Soon they will be audited financially and will lose flexibility and managerial autonomy. This loss of new resources means that the chairpersons need to have the focus on the college and the university. They will need to share resources. There will be a loss of bound— aries; small departments will be lost. The problems were also discussed as a change in the way a chairperson thinks about the department and the role of the chairperson. Part of the problem is they don't under— stand what they are. They don't see them— selves as part of a larger management team. They see themselves as a little person pro— tecting their own territory. Chairpersons The chairpersons' responses on the other hand showed the 109 problems of dealing day to day with the results of the issues identified as problems by the central administrators. Problems concerning Internal Administrative Activities were identified most frequently (93%) by the chairpersons. Under this category the increase in paperwork was mentioned most often (57%). Some of the other problems mentioned were "too much arguing and grieving;" "too little administrative support at the department level;" "the whole academic non/academic interface;" and "too many hours spent in meetings and com- mittees." The next most frequent category of problems was Interdepartmental and External Relations Activities (71%). These comments described the difficulties chairpersons ex- perienced in dealing with pressures from outside of the department. In some ways, those pressures were created by the problems identified by the central administrators. The problems considered Interdepartmental and External Relations were "dealing with the administration;" "we've gone too far with accountability;" and "imposition on the institution from the outside." The other problem areas discussed by chair— persons were discussed by less than 50% of them. Leila While the central academic administrators' discussion of the chairpersons' problems was different in perspective from that of the chairpersons , that of the deans incorp- orated both perspectives. The two problem areas discussed most frequently were dealing with the paperwork/bureauCracy problem and dealing with faculty personnel matters. In 110 reference to the increase in paperwork and the expansion of bureaucracy one dean explained it this way. The next most difficult problem is the expansion of bureaucracy. It's becoming a controlling mechanism. The difficult part of this and much of the reason we have the expansion of rules is because people have not performed in a fair and equitable way so then we get a rule. Then you have managers to manage the rules. Pretty soon they de- cide the policy. This is very difficult for chairpersons and directors. In the area of faculty personnel, the retention of faculty and the recruitment of faculty were the two things most frequently mentioned. Also of concern was the problem of motivating faculty and helping them to grow. These problems were also discussed by chairpersons. The areas identified by deans which were also of concern to central administrators were "keeping up a momentum in planning and program in a period of declining resource," the management of resources and confusion over the chairpersons' role. Tables 5.12 and 5.13 display the major problems identi- fied by administrators and chairpersons. Tables 5.14 and 5.15 show results of Kendall's Rank Correlation analysis of the chairpersons' responses according to years of experience and type of discipline. Chairpersons' Responses by Experience and Discipline The rank correlation of the problem areas by years of experience was 7’= .581 which is significant at p = .038. The rank correlation by type of discipline was 1’= .762 which was significant at p = .0063. The ranked problem areas 111 Table 5.12.--Administrators' View of Chairpersons' Major Problems A Central Academic Administrators (N=3) Major Problems Percent Management of Resources 67% Legal Issues 67% Problems with Role 67% Planning and Programs 33% Deans (N=5) Major Problems Percent Faculty Personnel 60% Bureaucracy/Paperwork 60% Planning and Programs 40% Management of Resources 20% Recruiting Students 20% Problems with Role 20% Lack of Space 20% All Administrators (N=8) Major Problems Percent Planning and Programs 38% Management of Resources 38% Faculty Personnel 38% Bureaucracy/Paperwork 38% Legal Issues 38% Problems with Role 38% Lack of Space 12% Recruiting Students 12% 112 Table 5.13.--Chairpersons' Description of the Major Problem Areas They Face All Chairpersons (N=l4) Problem Areas Percent Internal Administrative 93% Interdepartmental and External Relations 79% Faculty Personnel 4 36% Student Affairs 21% Non-Faculty Personnel 21% Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 7% Budget Formulation and Control 7% Research-Related 7% Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related - 113 Table 5.14.--Chairpersons' Description of Their Major Problem Areas by Years of Experience One Through Five Years (N=8) Problem Areas Percent Rank Internal Administrative 100% l Interdepartmental and External Relations 88% 2 Student Affairs 38% 3 Faculty Personnel 25% 4.5 Non-Faculty Personnel 25% 4.5 Budget Formulation and Control 12% 6 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives - 8 Research-Related - 8 Curriculum, Program and Course-Related - 8 Six or More Years (N=6) Problem Areas Percent Rank Internal Administration 83% 1 Interdepartmental and External Relations 67% 2 Faculty Personnel 50% 3 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 17% 5 Non-Faculty Personnel 17% 5 Research-Related 17% 5 Budget Formulation and Control - 8 Student Affairs - 2 Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related - Kendall's Rank Correlation ~{’= .581 . s = 18 Significance: p = .038 114 Table 5.15.--Chairpersons' Description of Their Major Problem Areas.by.Type of Discipline Hard Disciplines Problem Areas Percent Rank Interdepartmental and External Relations 100% 1 Internal Administrative 80% 2 Faculty Personnel - 29% 3.5 Non-Faculty Personnel 29% 3.5 Budget Formulation and Control 14% 6 Student Affairs 14% 6 Research-Related 14% 6 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives - 8.5 Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related - 8.5 Soft Disciplines Problem Areas Percent Rank Internal Administrative 100% 1 Interdepartmental and External Relations 57% 2 Faculty Personnel 43% 3 Student Affairs 29% 4 Planning: Setting Goals and Objectives 14% 5.5 Non-Faculty Personnel 14% 5.5 Research-Related - 8 Budget Formulation and Control - 8 Curriculum, Program, and Course-Related - 8 Kendall's Rank Correlation if: .762 _ S = 24 Significance: p .0063 115 of the chairpersons who had served 1 to 5 years was closely related to the ranking of those who had served 6 or more years as were the rankings of the hard and soft disciplines. In other words, the chairpersons, regardless of years of exper- ience or discipline generally identified similar problem areas. In conclusion, the data show that chairpersons saw the same types of problems while central academic administrators saw the chairpersons' problems from a different, more issue- oriented perspective. The deans expressed a perspective which partially agreed with both the chairpersons and the central academic administrators. In retrospect, these results fit with the concept of’the hierarchical nature of the organizational structure. The deans are organizationally closer to the chairpersons than are the central academic administrators and serve as the connection between the chairpersons and the central academic administra- tors. As such they are in a position to understand the per— spectives. Proposition 6: Chairpersons will view the roles of other academic administrators as im- portant in the performance of the chairpersons' role of unit admin- istrator. In the same way that deans and central academic admin— istrators have expectations concerning the department chair- person, the chairperson has expectations concerning the role of those administrators. Those chairpersons' expectations concerning the role of administrators also affect the chair- persons' performance. As Proposition 6 states, the assumption 116 is that the chairpersons will view the roles of the admin- istrators as important to the chairperson!s role. Role of the Dean Two very different types of responses were given regard— ing the role of deans and the role of central academic admin— istrators in relation to the chairperson. The deans were definitely viewed as primarily a supporter of the chairperson but also as a leader and a representative of the department and faculty to the central administration. Fifty-seven percent of the chairpersons said the dean should be a supporter of the chairperson. He/she should be available and provide "assist- ' "advice and guidance," and "resources." ance with problems,‘ The dean should not"interfere, but backup" the chairperson. Thirty-six percent said the dean should "provide direction" or "assign priorities," in other words provide leadership. Both the chairpersons who had 1 to 5 years in the position and those who had served longer discussed the role of the dean as supportive; 50% of the former group and 67% of the latter group identified this role. Only the chairpersons who served 1 to 5 years mentioned the role of the dean as a leader with 63% of them discussing it. From the stand-point of discipline the greater percent of both the hard and soft disciplines described the dean's role as supportive of the chairperson although both also discussed the dean's role as leader. Table 5.16 displays the data about the dean's role. Based on these responses PrOposition 6 was supported by the 117 Table 5.16.--Chairpersons' View of the Role of the Dean Role of the Dean Supportive Leadership Years of Experience Number 'Percent Number Percent 1 to 5 Years 4 50% 5 63% No Response 3’ 50% 3 37% Total 8 100% 8 100% 6 or More Years 4 67% 0 - No Response 2 33% 6 100% Total 6 100% 6 100% Type of Discipline Hard 5 71% 3 “3% No Response 2 29% 3 57% Total 7 100% 7 100% Soft 3 43% 2 29% No Response 4 57% 5 71% Total 7 100% 7 100% All Chairpersons 8 57% 5 36% No ReSponse 6 43% 9 64% Total 14 100% 14 100% 118 chairpersons responses, the deans role was seen as important to their performance. Central Academic Administrators In contrast, there was less agreement as to the import- ance of the central academic administrators. Fifty—seven percent of those interviewed had little interaction with cen- tral academic administrators. Three indicated that the central administrators should have no direct role with the chairpersons. On the other hand others stated that there should be more con- tact between the departments and central administration, the distance was too great. Central administrators should provide the support and resources; "minimize the demands on units;" "be clear in their demands;" "reduce the paperwork;""provide information;" and "represent the faculty too, particularly the Provost." As with the previous proposition, these results also fit with the hierarchical nature of the organizational structure. Chairpersons report to deans. Deans are in a position to in— fluence chairpersons' performance. Role Skills The third component of the conceptual framework is the requisite role skills needed to perform in the position. The propositions put forth in this area address the difficulty in identifying skills, the need for preparation or experience, and the perceived importance of new management skills. Proposition 7: No consensus will emerge regarding the skills necessary for department chair— EGI‘SOI’IS . 119 Role skills are an important aspect of the third component of role theory the self or focal person.. The successful per- formance of a role is dependent upon the skills and abilities of the role incumbent. Rather than identifying a set of necessary skills, the literature reflected the difficulty inherent in not only identifying requisite skills, but also in assessing them. In the case of the chairperson the lack of formal role definition and the variation in role expectations as well as the difficulty in identifying skills led to the formulation of Proposition 7. To state whether or not the interview data supported this proposition was complicated by the lack of specificity of the language used to discuss skills as it was in the analysis of the literature. The term skills, abilities, and competencies are closely related and often used interchangeably. In add- ition personal traits are only slightly different from abil- ities. All of these aspects of an individual are difficult to isolate when discussing skills necessary to perform a role. As a result, the individual responses of the chairpersons supported the proposition that little consensus exists at a detailed level as to the skills necessary for department chair- persons. Although each person interviewed had a concept of what was needed, each described the skills in a slightly different way. At a more aggregate level, three kinds of skills emerged most frequently: 1) the ability to provide direction; 2) the ability to deal with personnel; and 3) the ability to understand the university. The ability to deal with personnel 120 was the most frequently mentioned group of skills with 93% of the chairpersons and 75% of the administrators discussing them although over 50% of both chairpersons and administrators also mentioned the other groups. This pattern did not vary when the responses were arranged by either years of experience or type of discipline. Table 5.17 displays the frequencies. In addition to skills, respondents also described a number of personal traits or characteristics a chairperson should have. Again, no clear consensus emerged although 63% of the administrators and 21% of the chairpersons said chair- persons should be credible in their field. The virtue which emerged most frequently (49%) in the chairpersons' responses was patience. Table 5.18 contains the personal traits de- scribed as necessary for chairpersons. Proposition 8: Chaippersons and administrators will express a need for preparation or experience for chaippersons prior to or soon after they assume the position. With role skills as essential to the performance of a specific role, the expectation would be that where possible persons taking on-a new role would either have the necessary skills upon taking the new role or shortly after. Ideally the skills and abilities are developed prior to taking the role. Historically this has not necessarily been the case with new department chairpersons. The growth of the administrative role of the department chairperson has been documented through the literature. In addition, a number of studies on the position of department chairperson have resulted in recommendations that some sort of 121 Table 5.17.-—Skills and Competencies Needed by Chairpersons Chairpersons Skills Needed Personnel Know the Direction Skills University No. % No. %_ No. % ‘N Years of Experience 6 or More Years u 67% 6 100% u 67% 6 Type of Discipline Hard 3 43% 6 86% 4 57% 7 80ft 5 71% 7 100% 5 71% 7 All Respondents Skills Needed Personnel Know the Direction Skills University N2, % No. % No. % N Chairpersons 8 58% 13 93% 9 64% 14 Administrators _5 63% _6 75% _5 63% _8 Total 13 59% 19 86% 1A 64% 22 122 Table 5.18.--Personal Traits Needed by Chairpersons A A A A A vA; AA. A .AL AA A Traits Identified by Chairpersons (N=l4) patience (6) compassion credibility in field (3) fortitude honesty or trustworthiness (2) willing to sacrifice career sense of humor (2) ability to express value of fairness (2) academe ability to listen (2) loyalty to department diplomacy loyalty to institution ability to take a lot able to handle frustration ability to get angry and initiative cool off quickly like students Traits Identified by Administrators (N=8) competence in field (5) fairness and impartiality honesty ability to listen ability to express oneself ability to take criticism interested in the job empathetic, but not too able to read a situation involved 123 orientation or in-service education be developed for chair- persons. Based on these factors the expectation was, as stated in Propostion 8, that the chairpersons and administrators' interviewed would also express a need for education or exper- ience for chairpersons. After interviewing both chairpersons and administrators, a definite distinction was seen between having preparation or experience prior to becoming chairperson and receiving prep- aration or assistance agpgp assuming the position. Admin- istrators were definitely more supportive of the need for previous administrative preparation or experience. Central academic administrators discussed the desireability of a type of apprentice system for providing administrative opportunities and the acquisition of personnel skills through departmental and college committee assignments. Sixty percent of the deans said some previous experience would be desireable, particular- ly in the management of budget. One dean also discussed the need for an apprentice-type approach to preparing administra— tors. Faculty would be given the opportunity to spend periods of time in some administrative positions. Ideally, you bring people in and out of management positions. The university men- tally says that if you spend some time as an administrator and go back to the faculty, you've failed. Chairpersons on Experience Chairpersons were not as inclined to say that previous preparation or experience was necessary. Twenty—eight percent said that chairpersons should have previous experience; 124 14% said no experience was necessary; and 21% felt the need for preparation or experience would depend on the situation. Although no clear support for prior preparation or experience was voiced by the chairpersons, 58% did suggest the kinds of experiences that might be helpful for a person becoming a new chairperson. Four items were mentioned with any frequency: 1) be experienced as a faculty member in the discipline; 2) have some knowledge of budget; 3) have experience on a key departmental committee; and 4) understand the university. One of the respondents, who had experience and preparation in dealing with budget matters, spoke at length about things a chairperson didn't know about resources while a faculty member. The problem is there are resource questions which as a faculty member you know of, but not about. How much does a graduate assist— ant get? How competitive are we with other graduate assistant salaries? How many posi- tions do we have? How many are unfilled? You don't really know what questions to ask. You have to learn how budgets are construct- ed: how money follows or doesn't follow pos- itions; where graduate assistant money comes from; how much secretaries are paid; and where that money comes from. Central Academic Administrators on Support On the issue of whether or not chairpersons should re- ceive assistance or support and what form it should take, administrators again seemed to be more inclined to say chair- persons needed it. Two central administrators advocated a training program which would help to develop skills in a number of areas. Both respondents identified the need for skills in budget and planning; while one also included basic . 125 economics and communication skills, the other chose leadership and personnel. In addition to such workshops or training pro— grams, the central academic administrators identified two other types of support chairpersons need. The first was the need for chairpersons to have information. -- Information should be presented at the de- partmental level in a manner such that they can use it. ~— Chairpersons need to know better the direct- ions and needs of the university that are being discussed in central administration. They need more open channels and sources of information other than the 'News bulletin' and 'State News.' Too much is treated as private information. -- Chairpersons need to have as much about personnel policies written down as possible. The second need discussed was to have a sense of commun- ity and a sense of the university. Two ways suggested to try to develop this were to identify a way for the Provost to recog- nize individual accomplishments and to sponsor social events where the university community could meet. Deans on Support None of the deans had any formalized orientation or pro- cedures for assisting new chairpersons. Three of them did describe the manner in which they were supportive of new chairpersons. All three emphasized that they were available to answer questions and provide support. They also spoke of meeting with chairpersons to "point out their responsibili- ties;" "being straightforward about where their department stands in the college;" and "leading them through the first budget and planning cycle." Although no one had a formalized 126 orientation program or workshops, three of the deans said that they may be helpful. Possible topic areas mentioned were budget and personnel. One dean felt that some of the work- shops sponsored by the professional organization for his discipline were more effective than the institutional sessions because they discussed the role of the chairperson as faculty and administrator. Another dean stated that workshops were more helpful "if things are specific to the institution. If it's an institutional program, it has to be a dialog. You’ can't just stand up, lecture, and try to impart skills in that setting." Chairpersons on Support Chairpersons were generally more favorably disposed to orientation sessions than to workshops although neither re- ceived enthusiastic support. Thirty-six percent commented positively on orientation, while 14% were neither supportive of the concept nor pleased with their past experiences. On the supportive side one chairperson said I think that you could lay out the kinds of things that would help organize the workload that the chairman has to face be- cause it is sort of overwhelming if there isn't some way to organize it. This, however, depends on the nature of the in- dividual. Some other things you could discuss are organization, budget handling over the year, some helpful hints on how to handle money over the year, the legal processes we are getting into. I think that the responsibilities in relationship to the whole land grant philosophy needs to be dis— cussed more. Only one chairperson had what could be considered a favor— able comment about workshops. Two others stated outright that 127 you cannot train a person to be a chairperson; two thought workshops were ineffective. A chairperson with expertise in training and development commented The problem with most training sessions is that they are more inspirational than any- thing else. There's no follow-up. A great deal is known about training and evaluation and none of it is applied that I can see. Overall workshops were not seen as a very useful method of assisting chairpersons to acquire the necessary skills. In summary, administrators did express a need for chair- persons both to have previous experience and to have support of various types while in the position including orientation sessions and to some extent workshops to develop skills. Chairpersons themselves were less inclined to express a need for previous experience and were slightly more receptive to orientation rather than workshops. Workshops were viewed very negatively. Proposition 9: Management skills will be identified as increasingly important to the chairperson. A number of authors cited management skills, such as budgeting, planning and managing resources, as a type of skills new chairpersons frequently lack. Given the current trends in increased accountability for resources, it was logical to pro- pose that those interviewed would echo the literature. Management skills were identified as important to the chairperson of the future by 88% of the administrators and by 67% of those chairpersons with 6 or more years of experience. Although the need for management skills was discussed by only 128 29% of the respondents, 86% discussed a future not much different from that described by the administrators. Admin- istrators described a future with "an increased adversarial climate with continued pressure for unionization;" "more accountability and less freedom for self-assignment;" "increasing legal issues;" and "more formal paperwork." Chairpersons saw a future which included less time for teach— ing, an increase in paperwork, "pressure to become rational- ized, bureaucratized, to become more clerical and less of a kind of curricular leader, scholarly leader sort of position." The future will bring a time when "resources are not going to be easy to come by" and "the chairman is going to have to fight more for what they think is right for the department." The chairperson of the future will need strength, energy, imagina- tion, resourcefulness, and pragmatism according to the chair- persons interviewed. The chairpersons who had served 6 or more years were most descriptive of the need for management skills. Besides being business-oriented and able to make decisions quickly, the chair- person will need "experience or preparation as an administrator," the ability to raise outside funds, and the ability to deal with information. There needs to be quick access to a central data base. We need more information on budgets accounts and students for planning academic programs. Or as one chairperson put it, chairpersons need increased knowledge and appreciation of problems related to information handling —- more sophisticated approaches to handling 129 information, prognosticating better pro- posals. I think that the department chair- person is going to have to be somewhat more broad-based. We tended to think in the past of the chairman being an eminent scholar in the field, and that will continue to be desireable, but I think that the university is going to have to be more responsive to the general society and the problems of society. It's going to have to be more conscious of the service function of the department which isn't the traditional role which a scholar thinks about. They are more interested in research and teaching. The chairperson will have to be more business-oriented, much more pragmatic, a person who will have a greater ability to get more outside funds. The unit administrator will need a great deal of energy. The job will demand a great deal of effort in fund raising. It will take a strong person. . . A fighter. From the standpoint of discipline, 43% of the people from the hard discipline and 29% from the soft discipline iden- tified the need for management skills. In summary administrators did identify management skills as increasingly important to chairpersons as did those chair— persons who had served 6 or more years. Overall, chairpersons did not speak specifically of the need for management skills, but most described a future where such skills will become more important in the same manner as for the administrators. Summary of Propositions Nine propositions relative to the results of the inter- views were formulated based on the conceptual framework and the analysis of the literature. In this chapter, the rela- tionship among the role theory, the review of the literature 130 and the results of the interviews was discussed in respect to those propositions. The nine propositions were: 1. Little agreement will be expressed among chairpersons about their primary responsibilities. The chairperson will show signs of being caught between the varying expectations of administrators and faculty. The expectation that chairpersons will continue to teach and do scholarly activities to the same extent as they did as faculty members will not be expressed. The assumption of the position of chairperson will necessitate adjustments on the part of the incumbent to accommodate the new role of unit administrator. Administrators will identify different problems for chairpersons than the chairpersons themselves will. Chairpersons will view the roles of other academic administrators as important in the performance of the chairpersons' role of unit administrator. No consensus will emerge regarding the skills necessary for department chairpersons. Chairpersons and administrators will express a need for preparation or experience for departmental chair- persons prior to or soon after they assume the position. Management skills will be identified as increasingly important to the chairperson. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Purpose of the Dissertation The purpose of the dissertation was threefold: (l) to provide a framework for viewing and understanding the position of academic department chairperson and the role of unit admin- istrator; (2) to synthesize information concerning the depart— ment 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. Design of the Study 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 application of role theory to formal organiza- tions; and (3) interviews with central academic administrators and department chairpersons. The interviews were guided by a set of open-ended questions. Fourteen chairpersons and eight administrators were interviewed at a large midwestern university. The purpose of the interview was to elicit ideas and opinions to be analyzed in conjunction with the literature on the de- partment chairperson to arrive at some conclusions and suggest— ions on the administrative support needs of administrators. 131 132 Conceptual Framework Conceptually the study of the chairperson could be addressed from a number of viewpoints: l) as a faculty member; 2) as the leader of the department; or 3) as supporter and facilitator of the faculty. The viewpoint chosen was as the occupant of a position within the organizational line designa— ted as the academic administrative line. As such the chair- person's primary role was that of unit administrator. 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 pgif, the individual occupying the position. This conceptual framework was used to examine the existing literature on the department chairperson and to analyze data collected through the interviews with administrators and chairpersons. The framework helped to focus the analysis on 1) the role ex— pectations for the chairperson; 2) some aspects of role per- formance or behavior; and 3) the role skills necessary to the position.. The Propositions Based on the analysis of the literature within the con- ceptual framework, nine propositions were formulated to focus the analysis of the interview data. These propositions represented the researcher's expectations about the results of the interview. 1. Little agreement will be expressed among chair- persons about their primary responsibilities. 133 2. The chairperson will show signs of being caught between the varying expectations of administrators and faculty. 3. The expectation that chairpersons will continue to teach and do research and scholarly activities to the same extent as they did as faculty members will not be expressed. 4. The assumption of the position of chairperson will necessitate adjustments on the part of the incum- bent to accommodate the new role of unit admin- istrator. 5. Administrators will identify different problems for, chairpersons than the chairpersons themselves will. 6. Chairpersons will view the roles of other academic administrators as important in the performance of the chairperson's role of unit administrator. 7. No consensus will emerge regarding the skills necessary for department chairpersons. 8. Chairpersons and administrators will express a need for preparation or experience for departmental chairpersons prior to or soon after they assume the positions. 9. Management skills will be identified as increasingly important to the chairperson. Summary of Findings A summary of the synthesis of the literature with the interview data is presented within the conceptual framework 134 of role expectations, role behavior or performance, and role skills. Role Expectations 1. V3. Despite the contention in the literature that the position of chairperson lacks a clear formal defin- ition, considerable agreement was expressed by de- partment chairpersons regarding their primary re- sponsibilities. According to role theory the position of chair- person has the potential for conflict on the part of the incumbent. Research with chairpersons bears this out. Although the chairpersons interviewed showed no overwhelming signs of being caught between the varying expectations of administrators and faculty, the potential for conflict was evident from the manner in which administrative expectations and faculty expectations were expressed. Through the analysis of the literature the increase in the administrative demands of the chairperson have been documented. As this role increases the time available to dedicate to the other roles should de— crease. Yet chairpersons were still expected to teach and do research and scholarly activity by the majority of the administrators. Role Behavior 4. Chairperson's behavior as affected by role expecta- tions will change when the administrative role is adopted by the former faculty memeber. This change 135 should entail a number of adjustments. Deans and chairpersons not only confirmed the need for adjust- ments on the part of the person becoming a chairperson, but also expressed considerable agreement on the type of adjustments, particularly the loss of control over time. 5. Problems perceived in the performance of a role logically would be affected by a person's expecta— tions for that role. Since little relationship was found in the ranking of the descriptions of chair- person's responsibilities identified by chairpersons and administrators, the two groups should see dif- ferent problems. Chairpersons agreed among themselves about the problems they faced while central academic administrators saw the problems from an issue-oriented perspective. The deans expressed a view which had elements of both. \/6. A chairperson's performance is also influenced by his/her expectations concerning the role of the administrators. Chairpersons saw the role of the dean as a supporter and hence important in the per- formance of their role as unit administrator. No consensus was expressed regarding the importance of the central academic administrators' role. Role Skills 7. Successful role performance in part is dependent on the role skills and abilities of the incumbent. 136 The analysis of the literature revealed the difficulty in identifying and assessing role skills. At a detailed level no consensus emerged regarding the skills necessary for department chairpersons. On a more aggregate level chairpersons should have 1) the ability to provide direction; 2) the ability J to deal with personnel; and 3) the ability to under- stand the university. With role skills an important factor in role perform- ance, the development of such skills is also import— ant. The literature emphasized the 1ack of admin- istrative or management skills on the part of chair- persons, and a number of authors called for some sort or orientation or in-service education for chair- persons. Administrators interviewed also expressed a need for chairpersons both to have had previous experience and to have support of various types while in a position including orientation sessions and to some extent workshops to develop skills. Chairpersons were less inclined to express a need for previous experience and were slightly more re- ceptive to orientation rather than workshops. Workshops were viewed very negatively. A number of authors cited the need for chairpersons to develop management skills to deal with the growing role as unit administrator. Administrators inter- viewed also identified management skills as 137 increasingly important to chairpersons as did chairpersons who had served six or more years. Overall, chairpersons did not specifically address the need for management skills, but most described a future where they will become more important. CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this dissertation was to synthesize within the concept of role theory and its components the in- formation in the literature and the opinions and ideas of a number of administrators and chairpersons to arrive at some conclusions or suggestions concerning the need for orienta— tion or in-service education for chairpersons. Although the results of the interviews are not generalizable beyond the individuals and the environment at that time, the concepts could have relevance to other universities. Based on the analysis just presented, 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 expecta— tions 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 138 provide a basis for performance evaluation, an activity which is growing under the pressure for accountability. As the bridge between the administration and faculty the position of chairperson is a position of poten- tial 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 eleviated by a program to provide chairpersons with a university perspective, to dis— cuss the adjustments a chairperson is likely to encounter, and to present the rudiments of the processes the chairperson must deal with. The issue of orientation and in-service education for chairpersons is more complex than might be ex- pected. 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. 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 139 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. APPENDIX INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRES 140 Interview Questionnaire CENTRAL ACADEMIC ALI/[[NISTRA'IORS 1. 2. What are the primary responsibilities of the department chairperson? Are there any other responsibilities or activities which chairpersons have or are involved in by virtue of their positions? What do you think are the major problems chairpersons face? What sort of preparation or experiences should a chairperson have either prior to becoming chairperson or during his tenure as chairperson to help him be an effective adnunistrator? Are there any special skills or competencies a chairperson should have or acquire to be a chairperson? What sort of non-monetary support, (information, access to policies and procedures , role orientation , skill development) do you think chairpersons need to perform effectively? What sort of' competencies and assistance do you think the department chairperson of the future will need to function effectively? 141 To the Dean Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. The prupose of this interview is to get your description of the primary responsibilities and problems of the department chairperson today and your ideas as to the kinds of assistance he/she could use to effectively do the job. The kinds of assistance I am interested in is the non-monetary assistance such as information, interpretation of policies and procedures, advice on decisions, role orientation and other types of support other than an increase in budget. I would like to be able to answer the following question: If an institution were to set out to design a program to provide a strong support structure for department chairpersons, what should that structure include? The questions which will be used to guide the interview are attached. Jacqueline Skubal Interviewer Interview Scheduled: hleGJ-Vficfl gucabévbbiacibc ’7 " DEANS 142 1. What are the primary responsibilities of the department chairperson? 2. What do you think are the major problems department chairpersons face today? 3. What can be done to help chairpersons deal with these problems? 4. Are there any special skills or competencies which you feel a chairperson needs to do his job? 5. What kinds of preparation or experiences do you think a person should have to prepare him to be a chairperson? 6. What sort of adjustments, if any, must a person make after becoming a chairperson? 7. What role should the dean play in helping the new chairperson? 8. What sort of competencies and assistance do you think the department chairperson of the future will need to function effectively? 143 To the Department Chairperson Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. The purpose of this interview is to get your description of the primary responsibilities and problems of the departmental chair- person today and your ideas as to the kinds of assistance he/she could use to effectively do the job. The kinds of assistance I am interested in is the non-monetary assistance such as information, interpretation of policies and procedures, advice on decisions, role orientation and other types of support other than an increase in budget. I would like to be able to answer the following question: If an institution were to set out to design a program to provide a strong support structure for department chairpersons, what should that structure include? The questions which will be used to guide the interview are attached. Jacqueline Skubal Interviewer Interview Scheduled: Interview Questionnaire lug CHAIRPERSONS l.- What are your primary responsibilities as department chairperson? 2. What do deans consider the primary responsibilities of the department chairperson? 3. What do faculty members expect from department chairpersons? 4. What are the major problems the department chairperson faces today?. 5. What can be done to help chairpersons deal with these problems? 6. Are there any special skills or competencies which you feel a chairperson needs to do his job? 7. What kinds of preparation or experiences do you think a person should have to prepare him to be a chairperson? 8. What role should the dean play to help the chairperson do his job? 9. What role should the central administration play to help the chairperson do his job? 10. What sort of adjustments, if any, must a person make after becoming a chairperson? ll. What sort of competencies and assistance do you think the department chairperson of the future will need to function effectively? BIBLIOGRAPHY 145 Bibliography Adam, J.S. The structure and dynamics of behavior in organisa- tion boundary roles. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational PSychOIOgy. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976f Aguon, S. Status of department chairpersons, and faculty at Western Michigan University (Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts Interna- tignal, 1977, 38,1755A. (University Microfilms No. 77- 20, \ 95 v(Ahmann, J. S. The emerging role of the departmental chairman: be an activist! In J. B. Brann and T. A. Emett (Eds. ) Th2 Academic or Division Chairman: A Complex Role. Detroit, Michigan: Balamp Publishing, 1972. Aldmon, H. F. Critical behavioral requirements of heads of departments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University f of Tennessee, 1959. //Anderson, G.L. Organizational diversity. In J. C. Smart and J. R. Montgomery (Eds.) ExaminingDepartmental Management. New ’ Directions for Institutional Research, 1976, (Summer). ./ Anderson, K.J. The ambivalent department, Educational Record. 1968, 32 (2), 2064213. .-Andres, J. (Ed.) New academic deans, Proceedings of an Institute for Newly Appointed Academic Deans. Gainsville: Institute of / Higher Education, University of Florida, 1968. Angiolillo, P. F. Reflections of a department head. Improving College and University Teaching, 1965, 13, 8-11. Bailey, S. K. People planning in postsecondary education: human resource development in a world of decremental budgets. In J. N. Nesmith (Ed.) More for Less: Academic Planning with Faculty withOut New Dollars. Society for College and Univer- sity Planning and Educational Testing Service, 1975, 3-11. Blau, P.M. and Scott, W.R. Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962. ogue, E.G. Administrative malpractice: the limits of common sense. Educational Record 1978,59, 77- 86. V/Booth, D. Some reflections for prospective chairmen of academic departments. In J. B. Brann and T. A. Emmet (Eds. ) The Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex Role. Detroit, / Michigan: Balamp Publishing, 1972. i/Bowles, N.W. Who should be in charge of the department -- head or chairman? Journal of Higher Education, 1962, 1;, 315-318. xBoyer, W.W. The role of department chairmen in collective bar- gaining: the University of Delaware experience. Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, 197H, gg, /1(2), 49-5”. zBrann, J.B. The chairman: an impossible job gets tougher. In J.B. Brann and T. A. Emmet (Eds.) The Academic or Division Chairman: A Complex Role. Detroit, Michigan: Balamp Publishing, 1972. Brown, D.S. and Hanger, W.S. Pragmatics of faculty self-develop- ment. Educational Record, 1975, fig, 201-206. 1&6 v/Brown, J.D. Departmental and University leadership. In D.E. McHenry and Associates (Eds.) Academic Departments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1977. - .1 ¢//Browning, E. R. The ideal department chairman. The National Business Education Quarterly, 1962,30, 42-47. Bruening, J. H. Mid-south department chairmen. a study of back- brounds and interest patterns through the use of the strong vocational interest blank (Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, 1967). DiSSertation Abstracts'International, 1967,.28, l908—A. (University Microfilms No. 67—13, 771). Buhl, L.C. and Greenfield, A. Contracting for profe- sional develop- ment in academe. Educational Record, 1975, 56,111-121. V/Bullen, R.A., Jr. A study of the perceptions of selected deans and departmental chairmen and faculty on the role of the departmental chairman at the University of Alabama (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 3Q, 32l3-A. (University Micro- films No. 70-1369). Caplow, T. PrinCiples'of organization. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 196A. ~‘Carroll, A. B. Role conflict in academic organizations: an explora- tory examination of the department chairman's experience. Educational Administration Quarterly, 197A, 19) 51-6“. Cohen, A.R. Situational structure, self-esteem, and threat- oriented reactions to power. IN D. Cartwright (Ed.) Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social vResearch, 1959. x/Copeland, B. Jr. Faculty perception of the professional role of the administrator of the academic department (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, 36, A89N-A. (University Micro- films No. 76-2925). Corson, J.J. Governance of Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1975. Danserau, F. Jr., Graen, G. and Haga, W.J. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: a longitudinal investigation of the role-making process. Eggagizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, ii: _7 , Darkenwald, G. Organizational conflict in colleges and univer- sities. Administrative Sc ience Quarterly, 1971,16, AO7-Al2. ..\/Darkenwald, G. G. Jr. The department chairman role in _relation to the social organization of colleges and universities (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 31, 2700-A. (University Micro- films No. 70- -23, #30). ~/’ Davidson, R. C. The administrative role of department chairmen in public four-year colleges (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1968, 28, 2935-A. (University Microfilms No. 68-2H16). y/Davis, J.H. Selected perceptions of chairmen in high innovative and low innovative departments. (Doctoral dissertation, Univ- ersity of Florida, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, 36, 783l-A. (University Microfilms No. 76-12, 061). 1&7 v/Delahanty, J. What do faculty want in a department chairman? In J.B._Brann and T.A. Emmet (Eds.) The ACademic or DiviSion Chairman: A Complex Role. Detroit, Michigan: Balamp Publishing, 1972. ‘/ Dilley, E.B. The department chairman as academic planner. In J.B. Brann and T.A. Emmet (Eds.) The Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex Rele. Detroit, Michigan: Balamp Publishing Co., 1972. \q/Doyle, E.A. The Status and Functions of the Departmental Chair- man. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1953. Dressel, P.L., Johnson, F.C., and Marcus, P.M. The anfidence Crisis. San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass, 1970. V'Dressel, P.L., Johnson, F.C., and Marcus, P.M. Departmental opiratgons: the confidence game.‘ Educational Record, 1969 27 -27 . , »“Dresse1, P.L. and Reichard, D.J. The university department: retrospect and prospect. Journal'Of Higher Education, 1970 31, 387-402. . Dykes, A.R. Faculty Participation in Academic Decision-Making. Washington: American Council on Education, 1968. Edelson, P.J. A descriptive study of the congurence between department chairmen and faculty perceptions of the role of department chairmen in selected collective bargaining and non- collective bargaining private higher education institutions (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1973). Disserta- tion Abstracts International, 1974,‘3§, 211A (University Micro- films No. 74-12, 837). Ehrle, E.B. Selection and evaluation of department chairmen. Educational Record, 1975, 56, 29-38. Ehrle, E.B. and Barley, J.F. The effect of collective bargaining on department chairpersons and deans. Educational Record, , 1976, :1 (3), 149-154). K] England, T.H. The selection, orientation, and in-service education of department chairmen in selected schools and colleges of education (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1968, 28, 4846-A. (University Microfilms No. 68—7889). Euwema, B. The organization of the department. Educational Record, 1953, 83, 38-43. Faricy, W.H. Grouping departments. Journal of Higher Education, 1974, 35, 98-111. Fellman, D. The departmental chairman. In G.K. Smith (Ed.) In Sezrch of Leadership. Current Issues in Higher Education, 19 7 . Feltner, B.D. Training programs for College administrators: impact on governance. Educational Record, 1975, 56, 156-159. ,v Fisher, C.F. (Ed.) Developing and Evaluating Administrative Leadership. New Directions for Higher Education, 1978, 6, (22). \,Fisher, C.F. The evaluation and development of college and univer- sity administrators. In Part One: Evaluation of Administra- tors. ERIC Research Currents, Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, March, 1977. 148 V/Fisher, C.F. The evaluation and development of college and university administrators. In Part TWo: PrOfessional Develop- ment of AdministratOrs. ERIC Research Currents. Washington, xj D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, March, 1977. ./V Fisher, C.F. The use and effectiveness of the case study method in the inservice training of college and university adminis- trators (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 33, 6686-A. (University Microfilms No._73-15, 020). Freimuth, J.E. Guidelines for determining the inclusion/exclusion of department chairmen in faculty collective bargaining units in American higher education (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 33, 2719-A. (University Microfilm No. 74-25, 452). Galucci, S.L. The effect of collective bargaining on the gover- nance of the physical education department chairperson (Doc- toral dissertation, West Virginia University, 1975). Disser- tation Abstracts International, 1976, 36, 4325-A. (University of Microfilm No. 76-750). Gardner, C. Faculty participation in departmental administrative g, activities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 3g, 1292-A. (University Microfilms No. 71-23, 763). Gellerman, S.W. Training and behavior change. Training and Development Journal, 1977, 31 (2), 3-5. Getzels, J.W. and Guba, E.G. Role, role conflict and effective- ness: an empirical study. American Sociological Review, 1954 19, 164-175. Gordon, L.J. Starting a management development program. Thg’ Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, 1975, gfi. (2), 19-24. Graen, G. Role-making process in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976. Graen, G., Orris, J. B., and Johnson, T. Role assimilation in a complex organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1973, a. 395-420. Gross, E. and Grambsch, P.V. University Goals and Academic Power. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968. Gross, N., Mason, W. and McEachern, A.W. Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendency Role. New York: Wiley, 1958. Guntee, C.G. The role of departmental chairmen in the governance of state universities (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State Univegséty, 1964). Dissertation Abstracts Internationa1,1964, 25, 2 2 -A. »J HaEE, E. and Collen, L. Administrative practices in university departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1963, 8, 44-60. Hedrick, S.H. Leadership behavior and organizational climate as related to department chairpersons (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national, 1976, 31, 3500-A, (University Microfilms No. 76-27, 390 . )K Heimler, C. H. The college departmental chairman. Educational Record, 196] 48 (2), 158- 173. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. So you want to know your leader- ship style? Training and Development Journal, 1974, g8, 22- 37. Heyns, R.W. Leadership lessons from Watergate EducatiOnal Record, 1973. ii, 172-174. Hill, P. J. A case study for executive leadership. The Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, 1975, 26(2), 38-40. Hill, W. W. and French, W.L. Perceptions of the power of depart- ment chairman by professors. AgministratiVe Science Quarterly, 1967, 11, 548- 574. ‘ Hobbs, W. C. Academic departments and the law. In J.C. Smart and J. R. Montgomery (Eds. ), EXaminingyDepgrtmental Management New Directions in Institutional Research, 1976 (Summer). Hobbs, W.C. and Anderson, G.L. The operation of academic depart- ments. Management ScienCe, 1971, 38, 134-144. Hollander, E.P. Leadersi Groups, and Influence New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. ,-V HOpper, C. Selected Michigan State University deans: their View of the chairpersons' role. Unpublished paper, 1978. Hughes, C.E. The crisis of departmental leadership in academic governance. College Student Journal, 1976, 38 (1), 69-72. , Hugine, A. Jr. The relationship between selected dgpartmental variables and publication productivity in three academic areas at Michigan State University. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1977. Johnson, F.C. Data requirements for academic departments. In J.C. Smart and J.R. Montgomery (Eds.) Examining Departmental Manggement New Directions for Institutional Research 1976, (Summer). Kahn, F.L. Conflict, ambiguity, and overload: three elements in job stress. In A. McLean (Ed. ) Occupational Stress, Spring- field, I11.: Thomas, 1974. Kahn, R.L. and Quinn, R. P. Role stress: a framework for analysis. In A. McLean, (Ed.) Mental Health and Work Organizations, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970. Kahn, F.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snock, J., Diedrick, and Rosenthal, R.A. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, New York: Jehn Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1966. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L., The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978. Kingston, G. W. The problems of academic management and a ray of hope. Journal of College and University Personnel Association, 1972,23 (4), 148-68. /Knapp, D. C. Management: unwelcome intruder in the academic dust, Educational Record. 1969 38 (1), 55-59. v Korfhage, M. M. An examination of the leadership behavior of chair- persons of academic departments in high and low paradign disciplines (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 81, 4897A. (Univ- sity Microfilms No. 77-2433). 150 Lee, C.B.T. Relationship of the department chairmen to the academic dean.> In.J..Brann and T.A. Emmet (Eds.), The Academic kLMALAkLLLA‘Lng‘L; Balamp, 1972. . ‘vLeslie, D.W. NLRB rulings on the department chairmanship. Educational Record, 1972, Q3 313-320. JLeslie, D.W. The status of the department chairmanship in univer- sity organization. AAUPyfiplletin, 1973, 39, 419-426. Likegt, R. New PatternsdoflMagaggment. New York: McGraw-Hill, 19 1. . Likert, R. The Human Or anizatiOn. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1967. Linton, R. The Study ofJMan. New York: Appleton-Century, 1936. Luchins, A.S. and Luchins, E.H. Learning a complex Vitualized social role. PSychQIOgicalyfiepord, 1966, 16, 177-187. Lutes, R. Personal variables of university faculty members as related to their perception of the leader behavior of an administrator (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1972). DissertationAbstracts International, 1972, 33, 590-A. (University Microfilms No. 72-21, 231). McGrath, J.E. (Ed.) Social;and Psychological Factors in Stress, New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1970.” McHenry, D.E. and Associates (Eds.) Acadgmgc Departments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1977. McKeachie, W.J. Memo to new department chairman. Educational Record, 1968, 49 (2), 221-227. v McKeachie, W.J. Reactions from a former department chairman- In J.C. Smart and J.R. Montgomery (Eds.), Examining Departmental Management. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1976 (Summer). McLaughlin, G.W. and'Montgomery, J.R. Satisfaction and commit- ment of chairmen. In J.C. Smart and J.R. Montgomery (Eds.) Examining Departmental'Management. New Directions for Insti- tutional Research, 1976:’(Summe_7. g/McLaughlin, G.W., Montgomery, J.R. and Malpass, L.F. Selected fl Characteristics roles, goals and satisfactions of department chairmen in state and land grant institutions. Research in , Higher Education, 1975, 3, 243-259. a, VMcLaughlin, G.W., Montgomery, J.R., and Sullins, W.R. Role and characteristics of department chairmen in state universities as related to law of decision-making. Research in Higher Education, 1977, _6_ (4), 327-341. Mahoney, J. Chairman as messmaker. In J. Brann and T.A. Emmet (Eds.) The Aoademic_Department or Division Chairman: A Complex Role. Detroit: Balamp, 1972. Mangelson, W.L. Attitudes of academic department chairpersons and faculty about the importance of various formal abilities for chairpersons (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1978, 38, 6564-A. (University Microfilms No. 7804761). Mannweiler, R.A. Leadership research and education. The Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, 1975, _2_§ (2), 25-37- 151 Mead, G. H. Mind, SelfL3andASociety Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Merton, R.K. SocialATheoryAand380cia1'8tgucture. (Revised Edition) New York: Free Press, 1957. Millett, J.D. Professional development of academic administra- tors. In C. F. Fisher (Ed. ), Developing and Evaluating Administrative ALeadership_. New Directions for Higher Educa- tion, 1978, (22). Mobley, T.A. Selecting the departmental chairman. Edugational Record, 1971, 33 (4), 321-327. Monson, C.H., Jr. The University of Utah's department chairmen training program. In J.B. Brann and T.A. Emmet (Eds.) The Academic Department or Division Chairmen: A‘Cbmplex Role. Detroit, Michigan: Balamp Publishing Co., 1972. Morena, J.L. Who shall surviye? Beacon, N.Y.: Beacon-House, 193 . Murray, R. K. On departmental development: a theory. Journal of General Edugatign, 1964,16 (Oct. ), 227-236. fl/Murray, R. K. On departmental development: “a theory. In J.T. Brann and T. A. Emmet (Eds. ) The Academic Department gr Division Chairman: A Complex Role. Detroit, Michigan: Balamp Publishing, Co. , 1972. . Newcomb, T. M. Social psyAchology_. New York: Dryden, 1950. Newcomb, T. M. Turner, R. H., and Converse, P.E. Social Psychology: The Study of Human Interaction. New York: Holt, Rinihart, Winston, 1965. Nicoll, G.D. Implications for role of college department chairman. Education, 1971, 33 (2), 82-84. Novick, J. The role of department chairmen in university gover- nance in large midwestern universities as perceived by faculty, chairmen, and administrators (Doctoraldissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 31, 5090-A, (University Microfilms No. 71-10, 040). Olswang, S.G. A comparative study of role prescriptions, percep- tions, and performances of provosts, deans, and department chairpersons (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 38, ll61-A. (University Microfilms No. 77-18, 4027. Parker, J. An analysis of the perceived and expected roles of the department head at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International 1972, 3g, 4300-A. (Univ- ersity of Microfilms No. 72- 5472. ‘ Parsons, T. The Social System. New York: Free Press, 1956. Patterson, L.M. PrEference in administrative styles based on inquiry into perception of the ideal structure of the univer- sity department and the ideal role of the department chairmen (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1966). Disser- tation AbstractsAAIntAernAational, 1966,27, 304-A. (University Microfilms No. 66-7365). fPatton, R.D. The department chairman. JOurnal of Higher Educa— tion, l96l,[33 (November), 459-461. . lPeabody, R.L. Perceptions of organizational authority. Adminis- tratiVe Science Quarterly, 1962, 6, 461-482. 153 Perkins, J.A. The UniversityAAsAanAOrgahization. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973. JPeterson, M.W. The academic department: perspectives from theory and research- In J.C. Smart and J.R. Montgomery (Eds.) EXamining DepartmentAManagemegt, New Directions for Institu- tional Research, 1976, (Summer). Peterson, M.W. The Organization of Departments. Research Report, Number 2. American Association of Higher Education, 1970. Podemski, R.S. Leadership behavior role, conflict, and role ambiguity: the university department chairman (Doctoral disser— tation, State University of New York-Buffalo, 1973). Disser- tation Abstracts IAnteArAnatAionAal, 1973, 34, 2986-A. (University Microfilms No. 73- 29, 123). . n \/PoEter, K. E. Department head or chairman? AAUP Bulletin, 1961, _7_. 339- 2. - Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E. III, and Hackman, J.R. Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Quick, W.R. The university departmental chairman: his role patterns of faculty selection, promotion and termination (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1966). DiSSerta- tion Abstracts IntAernational, 1967, 27, 3237A. (University Microfilms No. 67- 4026) X Ramer, H.R. Perceptions of university departments and of the role of their chairmen: a study of some attitudes and opinions of selected professors, department chairmen, deans and central administrators of the Ohio State University(Doctoral disser- tation, Ohio State University, 1963). DiSsertation Abstracts International, 1963, 24, 5144-A. Richardson, R. C. Staff development: a conceptual framework. Journal of Higher Education, 1975, 46 (May/June), 303-311. Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., and Lertzman, S. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15 (June), 150-163). v Roach, J.H.L. The academic department chairperson: functions and responsibilities. Educational Record, 1976, §1_(Winter), 13-23. x/Ryan, D. W. The internal organization of academic departments. Journal of Higher Education, 1972,43 (June) 464-482). Sarbin, T. R. Role theory, In G. Lindzey (Ed. ) Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridge, Mass. : Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1954. Sarbin, T. R. and Allen, V. L. Role theory. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds. ) Handbook oAf SocialA Psychology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. 1968 Schroeder, G. B. Leadership behavior of department chairmen in selected state institutions of higher education (Doctoral dis- sertation, University of New Mexico, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 3Q, 5209-A. (University of Microfilms No. 70-10, 132). JSchultz, R.E. The preparation of college and university adminis— trators. Phi DelAta KaAppan, 1968 (March, 390- 394. Siegel, S. NonparametAriAc statistics for the behaviAoral sciences. ykA A. _ New York: McGraw-Hill Book CO. 1956— J/Siever, R. G. ,Loomis, R. J. and Neidt, C. 0 Role Perceptions of department chairmen in two land grant universities. The Journal of Educational_Rgsearch,1972,] 6: (9), H05— 410. \/ Smart, J.C. Duties performed by department chairmen in Holland's model environments. Journal‘of‘Educational Psychology, 1976 68 (April), 194- 20M. Smart, J. C. and Elton, C. F. Administrative roles of department chairmen. In J. C. Smart and J. R. Montgomery (Eds. ) Examining Departmental Management, New Directions for Institutional Research, 1976 (summer). v Smart, J.C. and Elton, C.F. Goal orientations of academic depart- . ments: a test of Biglan's theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, fig (October), 580—588. ., . ‘ Smart, J.C. and Montgomery, J.R. (Eds.) ExamininggDepartmental Management. New Directions for Institutional Research, San Francisco: Jossey—Bass, Inc. 1976. , Startup, R. The role of the departmental head. Studies in Higher Education, 1976, l (2), 233- 243. n \/Strong, E. W. Shared responsibility. AAUP Bulletin, 1963, L9, 109-113. ,JTrow M. The American academic department as a context for learn- ing. Studies in Higher Education, 1976, 1 (March), 11- 22. Tucker, A. The Department Chairpersonls Project. Institute for Departmental Leadership, Florida State University, 1978. Ullrich, R.A. Speaking from experience -- management development where universities have gone wrong. Training and Development & . Journal, 1977, 3l_(9), 36-38) g \\¢Walker, D.E. and Holmes, D. C. The university professor and his‘ department. Educational Record, 1960, L1, 34- 36. Woodburne, L. S. Principles of College and University Adminis- tration. Stanford, California. Stanford University Press, 1958. Wyrick, R.I. The effect of departmental leadership on faculty satisfaction-and departmental effectiveness in a big ten univ- ersity (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 33, 132A (Univer- sity Microfilms No. 72- -l9, 26¢). / Ebrn, J.C. The Chairman' 8 return. Educational Record, 1978, i2 (2), 121-133. Zucker, J.D. A model for determining the role perceptions of department chairmen at a large university (Doctoral disserta— tion, University of Florida, 1973). DissertatiOn Abstracts International, l97U, 33, 6929-A. (University Microfilms No. 73-10, 100). " T %- MEN‘WW¢;.MW .2 LIBRARY Michigan State Univm‘xity IIIIIIIIIIIIIIZIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII8IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII6IIIIIIIII