LIVING IN THE MIDDLE:
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ROLE OF NEW DEPARMENT CHAIRS
By
Timothy G. Campbell

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education
2012

ABSTRACT
LIVING IN THE MIDDLE:
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ROLE OF NEW DEPARMENT CHAIRS
By
Timothy G. Campbell
Making contributions as a new department chair is first dependent upon a chairs’ sense of
role certainty. What is interesting is that after two decades of conference presentations, journal
articles, and books on the department chair role we still have few data-based studies for
understanding how individuals perceive themselves and their professional challenges in the post
of department chair (Gmelch, 1991). The present research suggests a way of understanding how
new chairs might see the barriers to understanding their role more clearly than current theory and
research has offered. The combination of a role’s characteristics (role confidence), a newcomer’s
individual characteristics (personality needs), and the role’s context (role support) are predicted
to explain the degrees of difference among and between new department chairs’ sense of role
certainty.
A survey was used to collect data from individuals who were first-time department chairs
and had been in the job between 0 and 3 years. Standard multiple regression was used to help
explain how well role confidence, personality needs, and role support were able as a group to
explain the variance of role certainty among new department chairs. Separate tests were run to
discern the relative contribution of each scale on role certainty.
The data from the present study show that making contributions as a chair is bound up in
finding (Ashford & Cummings, 1983, 1985; Miller & Jablin, 1991) and making sense (Gioia &
Thomas, 1996) of the contextual knowledge (Dutton, Ashford, O'Neill, & Lawrence, 2001)
surrounding the role of department chair. New chairs who fail to realize the knowledge that one

“lives” as a subordinate, an equal, and as a superior (Clegg & McAuley, 2005; Uyterhoeven,
1972) will miss leveraging change for the department (Huy, 2001) resulting in a lack of upward
influence for the benefits of the colleagues they represent (Falbe & Yukl, 1992).
Based upon the findings of this study institutions ought to look strongly at the role of the
dean, the personal attributes and career aspirations of chair candidates, and current organizational
development offices and programs in providing support to newcomer department chairs.
Additional recommendations include a consideration of how the more general literature on
middle management research might be a benefit to higher education, and in particular how
institutions may integrate the idea that management is a multifaceted phenomenon and not
limited to specific disciplines, industries, or a small group of individuals.

Copyright by
TIMOTHY G. CAMPBELL
2012

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As I have worked to finish my dissertation there are more than a few individuals who
have been critical along the way. I owe my greatest gratitude to my advisor, Marilyn Amey, who
challenged my assumptions, answered countless emails, and helped shape this research to its
conclusion. Her constant support, both as scholar and friend, and her ability to push me towards
new and different thinking remains a hallmark of my time in graduate school.
To Jim Fairweather who graciously took on last minute reviews of my analyses, asked
incisive questions, and who can turn around a dissertation draft quicker than should be humanly
possible. Thank you. I also extend my gratitude to Vernon Miller for the weekly meetings at
Starbucks where the idea for this study developed. And, also to Roger Baldwin who early on in
my graduate work put up with my endless harassment for funding opportunities.
I want to thank my parents who have always supported my endeavors regardless of the
subject area or the destination where my studies took me. You made it possible for me to pursue
further education beyond what I had ever anticipated.
Finally, I am forever thankful to my wife, Jenny, who takes the brunt of the chores at
home despite her own workloads and scholarship demands. You are a constant source of calm
and unconditional love always adjusting your own deadlines so I could have time to complete
my dissertation. And, finally to my son, Clive, whose endless imagination at playtime kept me
laughing and lighthearted reminding me that the most important title to be associated with my
name, other than husband is, Dad.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
Background of the Study ...........................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem ...........................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................8
Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................10
Research Design and Questions .................................................................................11
Conceptual Framework ..............................................................................................12
Definition of Terms....................................................................................................16
Role confidence .............................................................................................16
Personality needs ...........................................................................................16
Role support ...................................................................................................16
Role certainty .................................................................................................17
Population ..................................................................................................................17
Overview of the Dissertation .....................................................................................17
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................19
Overview ....................................................................................................................19
Nicholson’s Work Role Transition Theory (1984) ....................................................20
Limitations .....................................................................................................23
Dependent Variable: Role Certainty ..........................................................................25
Predictor Variables.....................................................................................................28
Role Confidence.............................................................................................28
Personality Needs...........................................................................................30
Role Support ..................................................................................................33
Summary ....................................................................................................................37
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................39
Introduction ................................................................................................................39
Research Method and Design Appropriateness .........................................................39
Population ..................................................................................................................40
Sampling Design/Participant Selection......................................................................41
Confidentiality ...............................................................................................45
Geographic Location ......................................................................................46
Instrumentation ..........................................................................................................46
Predictor Variables.....................................................................................................47
Role Confidence.............................................................................................47

vi

Personality Needs...........................................................................................49
Role Support ..................................................................................................50
Dependent Variable .......................................................................................52
Role Certainty ....................................................................................52
Validity ......................................................................................................................54
Data Collection ..........................................................................................................55
Scale Construction: Principal Components Analysis ................................................56
Predictor Scales ..............................................................................................61
Discretion ...........................................................................................61
Novelty...............................................................................................61
Intolerance for ambiguity ...................................................................61
Need for control over department performance .................................62
Need for control over own tasks ........................................................63
Department climate ............................................................................63
Leader feedback .................................................................................64
Opportunity for feedback ...................................................................64
Indirect feedback ................................................................................64
Career aspirations...............................................................................65
Mode of entry.....................................................................................65
Dependent variable ........................................................................................65
Role certainty .....................................................................................65
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................66
Limitations .................................................................................................................68
Summary ....................................................................................................................69
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................70
Description of the Participant Sample Used ..............................................................70
Descriptive Statistics..................................................................................................71
Demographic Data .........................................................................................71
Structural Demographics ...................................................................72
Profile Demographics ........................................................................73
Inferential Statistics ...................................................................................................80
Research Question .........................................................................................80
Multiple Regression Model............................................................................84
Relative Contribution of Predictor Variables ................................................89
Career aspirations...............................................................................90
Department climate ............................................................................90
Discretion ...........................................................................................91
Need for control over department performance .................................92
Leader feedback .................................................................................92
Conclusion .................................................................................................................93
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................94
Model Explained ............................................................................................95

vii

Department climate ............................................................................96
Discretion ...........................................................................................97
Leader feedback .................................................................................98
Need for control over department performance .................................99
Career aspirations...............................................................................100
Implications for Theory & Research..........................................................................101
Implications for Practice ............................................................................................105
Conclusion .................................................................................................................107
APPENDIX A: SURVEY ......................................................................................................110
APPENDIX B: EMAIL INVITATION TEXT ......................................................................120
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................123

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Breakdown of New Department Chair Sampling Chronology .............................44
Table 3.2: Summary of Items, Reliability, and Factor Loadings ...........................................58
Table 4.1: Breakdown of New Department Chair Sampling Chronology .............................72
Table 4.2: Number of Persons Identifying with One or More Race Groups .........................73
Table 4.3: Mode of Entry into the Department Chair Role ...................................................76
Table 4.4: Means and Standard Deviations of Group Ratings for Select
Responsibilities as Part of the Department Chair Role ..........................................................77
Table 4.5: Reporting Relationship by Percent .......................................................................78
Table 4.6: Length of Time a Department Chair’s Supervisor has Served in the
Supervisory Position by Percent ............................................................................................78
Table 4.7: Career Aspirations of Department Chairs.............................................................80
Table 4.8: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.....................................................83
Table 4.9: Coefficients Summary for Independent Variables Predicting Role
Certainty of New Department Chairs ....................................................................................89

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: A Model of Factors Influencing Role Certainty of New Department Chairs .....9
Figure 3.1: Revised Model of Factors Influencing Role Certainty of New
Department Chairs .................................................................................................................57
Figure 4.1: Total Number of Departments and the Total Number of Regular
Faculty within those Departments (Full-time and Tenure Track) .........................................74
Figure 4.2: Length of Service in Previous Position ...............................................................75
Figure 4.3: Scatterplot of Residuals Against Predicted Scores..............................................86
Figure 4.4: Histogram of the Dependent Variable, Role Certainty .......................................87
Figure 4.5: Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual.......................................88

x

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Faculty members experience a period of both “discontinuity and flux” (Ashforth & Saks,
1995, p. 157), as well as “surprises and unexpected sacrifices” (Gmelch, 1991) when
transitioning to a newly acquired department chair position. Pinder and Das (1979) suggest the
period of time when newcomer employees work out this uncertainty has economic implications
for an organization because the faster the development of the newcomer to the role, the more the
contributions; the slower the development, the fewer the contributions. One implication of Pinder
and Das’ belief that contributions are indeed a function of role understanding is that the
assumption does not account for contributions made outside the scope of the role. While it is true
their premise denies that contributions somehow may not “count” beyond the written job
description, what Pinder and Das, and later Pinder and Schroeder (1987), offer is a reasonable
platform for presenting the link between contributions and job parameters. The thinking behind
their argument begs further investigation into how one closes the time it takes for newcomers to
make these contributions, and more specifically what may influence getting to that point. Role
certainty is argued in this study as the gatekeeper of time to proficiency for new department
chairs and becomes important to understand prior to talking about what contributions are to be
made. The present study claims the combination of role confidence, personality needs, and role
support are major elements helping to explain the role certainty of new chairpersons.
A quick time to proficiency by the new department chair is critical in today’s resource
strained environment because public colleges and universities need to make better decisions in
lieu of having to do more with less and must rely on knowledgeable department chairpersons to
accomplish such goals at the local level. Adams, Robichaux and Guarino say (2010), “Reduced

1

state appropriations have forced public institutions to raise tuition substantially, while rising
costs, notably in health care benefits, likely have led public colleges and universities to seek
more frugal approaches to management” (p. 8). These “frugal approaches” have important
consequences for the broader domain of more “pronounced” hierarchies in public colleges and
universities (2010, p. 8), which could arguably result in additional pressures for the chairperson.
Additional reasons why chairs need to get up to speed quickly include far more policy
implementation and reporting than faculty are used to dealing with, budget and planning, as
well as a new chair’s role in developing junior faculty. The department chair also makes
decisions that span a larger, more complex relationship with other campus units like legal
services, diversity planning, and human resources (Boyko, 2009; Seagren, 1993; Wheeler,
2008). As such, department chairs would do well to know how to negotiate a contract,
interpret medical leave, and deal with formal grievance procedures before they require
attention. Finally, studying how new chairs get up to speed quickly contributes to
understanding the persistence of role ambiguity in the department chair post, the job
satisfaction of department chairpersons and their intent to leave, as well as the need to inform
the selection and subsequent training of new department chairs.
Background of the Study
Research about the department chair role is abundant within higher education and
includes notable scholarship around how people prepare for the role (e.g., Hecht, 2006;
Wolverton, Ackerman, & Holt, 2005), how to do it (e.g., Gmelch & Burns, 1993; Tucker, 1984),
and what the job involves (e.g., Boyko, 2009; Seagren, 1993). Though these works are an
important source of department chair scholarship, what is strangely missing from the group and
the larger body of higher education research is empirical studies of the transition and

2

development of faculty members into the new role of department chair (Gmelch, 1991). As such,
organizational literature is also used in the present study because of the extant research
addressing transitions and development of newcomers. The paucity of academic middle
management scholarship could be because professionalizing any role within the university,
similar to students being referred to as "client" or "customer," is "characteristically not expressed
as consensual" (Clegg & McAuley, 2005, p. 29) and is for some, unequivocally linked to
possible losses of academic autonomy (Gappa, Austin & Trice, 2007). Likewise, when it comes
to the topic of manager in academe, many take opposite positions ready to debate closely held
values as they pertain to collegial decision-making processes (Hellawell & Hancock, 2001). The
term "manager" is largely an un-welcomed one in academic circles and even balanced
perspectives acknowledging a "collegiate/managerialism dualism" have underlying tensions
(Clegg & McAuley, 2003; Duke, 2001; Eckel, 2006; Hancock & Hellawell, 2003; Rhoades &
Sporn, 2002; Santiago & Carvalho, 2008; Shattock, 2002). Boyko in her recently published and
seminal dissertation examining the academic department chair in Canadian universities offers
useful thoughts on what has been dubbed the "managerialist" movement:

	
  

It is understood that the “managerialist” movement is anchored in a number of free market
principles that are contributing to a reconsideration of financial structures internationally
and may shift toward strengthened accountability imperatives and government oversight in
certain jurisdictions for various sectors, with trickle down impacts on the academy and the
roles and responsibilities of department chairs. (Boyko, 2009, p. 6)
Despite the outcomes of free market principles, trying to understand the department chair

role is not a new phenomenon and research on the responsibilities of the position consistently
shows it to be ambiguous, unclear, and complicated to classify as faculty or administrator
(Bennett & Figuli, 1990; Boyko, 2009; Seagren, 1993; Westcott, 2000). Although the position
may be ambiguous as it sits between faculty and career administration, scholars often neglect to

3

consider the organizational meaning and context of the academic middle manager in the
university. Management is a fluid process not monopolized by one individual or enacted in only
one circumstance (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Jablin et al., 1994; Scarborough, 1998). Similarly,
management is not limited to generic recipes pulled when circumstances call for how-to guides
(e.g., Creswell, Wheeler, Egly, & Beyer, 1990; Lees, Malik, & Vemuri, 2009; McArthur, 2002;
Wheeler, Seagren, Becker, Kinley, Mlinek, & Robson, 2008).
Many in academia would object that a discussion about department chairs as middle
managers ought to occur, and they may be right. However, continuing pressures of
governmental and public accountability, as well as real market competition from for-profit
educational organizations, for example, provide a reason to consider steering an academic
middle management argument rather than fighting against it (Shulman, 2007). And although I
mostly agree with scholars who hold at a distance any hint of management language attached
to the department chairperson, I cannot accept their argument that department chair duties do
not beg for an integration of some ideas from management literature.
Giving space to the idea of the role of middle manager, and in an effort to situate an
argument for the present study, it is advantageous to explore various perspectives of middle
management found in the literature. Additionally, talking about the department chair as middle
manager appropriately emphasizes the "middleness" of the role within the organizational
structure of the institution.
Among those studying middle management few present a distinct definition of the term.
The way scholars speak about the middle level is usually by talking around it, hoping the reader
will somehow land on a view of what middle management means. This is not to say having
concise language is always more helpful, but perhaps clear words allow for a faster orientation to

4

an author's framework. Mintzberg (1989) provides such an orientation, defining a middle
manager as one who is in "a hierarchy of authority between the operating core and the apex” (p.
98), an idea not unlike what exists for the department chair in higher education who is at the
same time a link between faculty and administration (Smith & Wolverton, 2010; Westcott, 2000;
Williams, 2007). Clegg and McAuley (2005, p. 21) capture different definitions of middle
management including one from Uyterhoeven (1972) who said a general manager is someone
with responsibilities for a specific unit in the middle of the structural hierarchy and Dopson,
Risk, and Stewart (1992) who claim middle managers are people underneath a handful of top
executives yet above front-line supervision. In a similar way, Clegg and McAuley (2005) discuss
Kanter’s (1979) description of significant power attributed to middle managers due to the
position’s central nature within the organization. Other scholars explain the position from a
relational standpoint establishing place within the organization by talking about the fact middle
managers are "living" between superiors and subordinates (cf. Jaeger & Pekruhl, 1998;
Uyterhoeven, 1989) nurturing the internal connections of the organization while being
simultaneously pinched between policy obligations they do not guide (Couch, 1979; Clegg &
McAuley, 2005; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1998; Kanter, 1986).
“Living” between superiors and subordinates in an institutional context and specifically,
for the department chair means “living” between deans and faculty. Existing between faculty and
administration means that chairs as conductors of vital information must posture themselves in
such a way that does not undercut their effectiveness with peers in the department or the senior
administration above them (Lees et al., 2009). Chairpersons are not only the target of
accountability from senior administration but also in the middle of navigating a complicated,
turbulent, and sometimes convoluted and drawn out process of decision making and realization

5

(Waltzer, 2002). This complexity is exacerbated by the fact chairs instinctively hold that their
role is to take on most of the administrative overhead, which is taxed further when senior
administration interferes with such efforts (Kelly, 2004; Murray, 2003). Furthermore, the
department chair’s list of functions comes from deans, which is heavily influenced by the dean’s
own personnel philosophy and work ethic and not limited to policies and institutional histories
(2002).
In their study “Preparing for leadership: What academic department chairs need to know,”
Wolverton et al. (2005) lay out a plan to prepare new department chairs to cope with being
caught in the middle. From one dean’s perspective the ability to navigate the relationships from
the middle included being able to, “…successfully stand their ground with both deans and
faculty without irritating either group to the point of insurrection’’ (p. 230). Though likely
unintended, the dean’s comment only mentioned irritating groups beyond a “point of
insurrection,” possibly leaving room for the idea that department chairs will still have to sort out
how to manage the proverbial irritation of being in the middle in the first place.
Admittedly, simply stating there are folks above and below department chairs does not give
license to adopt any "managerialist" orientation, but recognizing the placement of the department
chair within the institutional structure does warrant a different kind of discussion. My point is
that talking about the role of department chair from endless lists of tasks and duties, as so much
of the higher education literature does (Wolverton, Gmelch, Wolverton, & Sarros, 1999), is not
helpful in comprehending how such a pivotal leadership role may benefit from more theorybased research (Gmelch, 1991). Moreover, according to Amey, Eddy, and Campbell (2010), the
placement of one's position affects how one is viewed in that role and gives credence to the
notion that being in the middle may actually attract double the pressure.

6

I have talked about the "middleness" of the department chair within the organizational
structure of the institution emphasizing the role as opposed to lists of tasks and functions. I have
attempted to affirm the value of considering the department chair within the framework of
middle management by dissuading the addition to or creation of more and longer lists of
activities. What is needed in the higher education literature is discussion on developing the role
of new department chairpersons. I am not referring to a discussion of training programs, which
are necessary given the shortage of socialization procedures for new department chairs though
prominent ones exist, e.g., Department Leadership Program at the American Council on
Education (ACE). I am referring to discussions about those factors that help explain how new
department chairs figure out answers to questions like, "What's going on here?" "What can I do
about it?" and “Do I have the latitude to do something about it?” Part of understanding a
department chair’s certainty of their role may lay in the operationalization of the experience
brought to the position (i.e., role confidence), the personality needs of the individual in the chair
job, and the support they receive while in the role (i.e., leader support).
Statement of the Problem
Making contributions as a new department chair is first dependent upon how new
chairs see themselves in the role (Gmelch, 1991). The period of “discontinuity and flux”
(Ashforth & Saks, 1995, p. 157) unique to the department chair job impairs a newcomer’s
ability to be certain about what the role entails and subsequently how to react to any
conclusions reached. My research suggests a way of understanding how new chairs might see
the barriers to understanding their role more clearly than current theory and research has
offered. Specifically, I propose that a new chair’s role confidence, personality needs, and role
support help to explain the degrees of difference among and between new department chairs’

7

sense of role certainty. After two decades of conference presentations, journal articles, and
tomes on the department chair role, we still have few data-based studies for understanding
how individuals perceive themselves and their professional challenges in the post of
department chair (Gmelch, 1991). This should not come as too much of a surprise when we
know little, if any, institutional training is available for helping chairs navigate their new and
multiple roles (Bensimon, Ward, & Sanders, 2000; Gmelch, 1991; Werkema, 2009, p. 127).
Even so, the purpose of this scholarship is to offer an empirical study to begin meeting the
need.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to discover to what degree role confidence, personality needs,
and role support predict the role certainty of new department chairs (see Figure 1.1).
Through quantitative and non-experimental survey research, I sought to discover how
select variables might steer higher education research away from descriptive checklists of
department chair tasks and towards unrealized governing variables (Argyris & Schön, 1976),
which may help predict how to help new department chairs get up to speed. Though helpful at
one level, Amey (1989) best sums up the futility in defining roles by virtue of descriptive
checklists within the context of the chief academic officer, a position with similar managerial
characteristics to the department chair. Says Amey,
Identifying functions of the chief academic officer can be useful in assessing daily
behavior of an individual or perhaps in providing evaluative job performance criteria. But
the chief academic officer is being called upon to assume a greater leadership role in
shaping educational strategy and direction. In trying to understand the academic vice
president as a leader, it takes more than a title, a list of job functions and anecdotal
refrains. (p. 12)
	
  
	
  

8

Figure 1.1.
A Model of Factors Influencing Role Certainty of New Department Chairs
Role confidence
Novelty
Discretion
Personality needs
Need for control
Need for feedback
Intolerance for ambiguity

Role certainty

Role support
Leader feedback
Department climate

As a central point where the managerial and academic sectors of the institution converge,
Gmelch and Burns (1993) argue the department chair offers a locus of consideration for
comprehending the job, but grant it is also where the difficulty in understanding the precarious
nature (Williams, 2007) of the role starts. Better understanding the role of department chair as a
point of reference in the institutional hierarchy is important if only for one reason. Department
chairs are in the middle of relationships, and are responsible for crucial tasks and activities in
areas such as institutional policies and procedures, faculty appointments, promotions and tenure,
budgets, class schedules and teaching assignments (Boyko, 2009; McDaniel, 2002; Seagren,
1993; Sieg, 1986; Tucker 1984, 1992; Watson, 1979, 1986; Wolverton, Gmelch, Wolverton &
Sarros, 1999). Focusing on points of convergence (Gmelch & Burns, 1993) also necessarily
includes a discussion that department chairs bring with them various meanings including living
as a subordinate, an equal, and as a superior (Clegg & McAuley, 2005; Uyterhoeven, 1972). It is
also reasonable to say attention is drawn to the department chair as a point of convergence in part

9

because of the department itself.
Significance of the Study
By better understanding how new chairs might see the barriers to understanding their role
more clearly than current theory and research offers, the present study addresses the general
problem of role uncertainty among new department chairs. If it is true that 80% of all
institutional decisions occurs at the department chair level (Roach, 1976) and that approximately
one quarter, or 20,000 of the 80,000 plus scholars currently serving as department chairs will
need to be replaced each year (Gmelch, 1991), then the academic community ought to be
interested in mechanisms aiding new chairs in making good decisions right away. The quick
timing is because external accountability, diminishing public support, and reduced state
appropriations are already a reality for many institutions of higher education (Adams,
Robichaux, & Guarino, 2010). Placed in today’s terms there exist 50,275 scholars currently
serving as department chairs (College Faculty & Administrators, 2011) based upon self-reported
data to Market Data Retrieval (MDR). Arguably this number is low, however, even a quarter of
this figure indicates that 12,569 department chairs will need replaced at the end of this academic
year, i.e., 2012, raising a concern for me to the extent and effects of widespread role uncertainty
among new chairs.
In providing data-based research for understanding what affects getting to role certainty
for new chairs, this project contributes to the body of higher education literature in four major
ways. One, it offers a model for thinking about reducing the role ambiguity of new chairs – a
response intuitive to the commonly accepted view the job is vague. Two, it stresses the need for
more conversations about what help is offered new chairs given they cannot in general draw
upon experience from their faculty role due to vast differences. Three, this study extends the

10

work of department chair scholarship from prominent specialists like Gmelch (1991, 1993, 1995,
2004, 2004, & 2006), Carroll (1991, 1992, 2004), Smith (1998, 1999, 2010), and Wolverton
(1998, 1999, 2005). Lastly, by simultaneously considering how experience, personality, and
context explain role certainty among and between new chairs this project offers findings based
upon a fundamental acknowledgement of the complexities surrounding how people and social
systems interact (Ashforth & Saks, 1995; Kozlowski 2003; Louis, 1990; Nicholson 1984; Ostroff
& Kozlowski, 1992; Smith 1999; Sutton 1987; Van Maanen 1979).
Research Design and Questions
Ultimately, this study proposes that making contributions is dependent first upon the
perception a new department chair has of their role and draws upon the newcomer’s individual
characteristics, the role’s context, and the role’s characteristics in forming such a view. This
combination provides a way of explaining the degrees of difference among and between new
department chairs’ sense of role certainty. This research attempts to correct a hole in the research
of earlier authors that did not take elements like intolerance for ambiguity, leader feedback, and
work climate into account together to form a broad understanding of the role certainty of
newcomers. This thinking led to the following research questions for the present study:
1. How well do a new department chair’s role confidence, personality needs, and role
support predict role certainty among new department chairs?
2. What is the relative contribution of each scale to the role certainty of new chairs?
The purpose of the present study is to describe new department chairs as a group
comparing differences between independent experiences of large numbers of people, and
uncover patterns that may exist among them. A quantitative design was chosen for this research
to be able to generalize from a sample to a population about the role certainty of new department

11

chairs. Also, a survey was employed to collect data on the same variables from many cases and
to report not only the characteristics of a set of cases, but any variations from specific variables
across cases (DeVaus, 2002).
The survey instrument was designed primarily to collect data on three categories and
their subsequent variables: (a) role confidence (i.e., novelty, and discretion); (b) personality
needs (i.e., need for control, need for feedback, and intolerance for ambiguity); and (c) role
support (leader feedback and department climate) (see Appendix A). All scales were adapted
from prominent studies in the higher education and organizational literature.
Conceptual Framework
The present study is broadly connected to two different frameworks in two adjoining
disciplines: academic middle management in higher education and career transitions from
organizational literature. The work of Dill (1982, 1984) and Clegg and McAuley (2005) provide
a framework of academic middle management in higher education. For career transitions I drew
upon the work of Pinder and Schroeder (1987) and Nicholson (1984).
The first component of my conceptual framework is built around the writings of Dill
(1982, 1984) and Clegg and McAuley (2005). Dill, author of “The Management of Academic
Culture” (1982) and “The Nature of Administrative Behavior in Higher Education” (1984)
argues that drawing on managerial techniques makes sense if institutions are vying for reduced
financial resources, quality students, and for capable faculty, not to mention the pursuit of greater
institutional recognition. He continues by highlighting that like the corporate sector there is
within higher education personnel concerns, budgets that need reworked, and priority-based
decisions about areas that will grow and develop quality programs. Ultimately, he posits the
institution that chooses to promote individual development will produce superior loyalty and

12

longevity from workers, an idea far from some practices in higher education where getting
everything out of someone and hoping they last can be a theme (Cullen, Joyce, Hassall, &
Broadbent, 2003). Agreeing with Dill, I argue that methods for recruiting, socializing and
training department chairs are worth considering in a more systemic way, and are motivation for
the present study.
In a similar way, the work of Clegg and McAuley (2005) brings to the structure of my
research both support of Dill’s work, but also a tempering of his thoughts suggesting the
discussion that ought to occur in higher education is one that moves beyond the
“managerialism/collegiate duality” (p. 19) so prevalent in the literature. Furthermore, and
perhaps more critically Clegg and McAuley offer an invitation for how the more general
literature on middle management might be a benefit to higher education. Their work brings to
light the idea that management is a multifaceted phenomenon and is generally poorly understood
in academic circles. They point out that the growth of discussions about academic middle
management occurred due to many higher education institutions transforming from highly select
to largely open institutions, a perspective supported in the selection of my sample of
comprehensive regional universities. They go on to say there exists evidence that academic
middle management is key to any long-lasting change in important areas such as teaching and
learning and the shaping of significant pedagogical and institutional goals. In making this
comment, Clegg and McAuley point out the significance for conversations about academic
middle management, in general, and at the same time create a platform for my study. This
platform supports an investigation into the claim that role certainty is the gateway of time to
proficiency for new department chairs and ultimately is the factor controlling contributions made
to the university.

13

The second component of this study’s conceptual framework is the thinking from
organizational scholars on career transitions. Specifically, I draw upon Pinder and Schroeder’s
(1987) idea of time to proficiency following a work role transition, and Nicholson’s (1984)
own theory on work role transitions.
The significant contribution made by Pinder and Schroeder (1987) to my own framework
is their attention to leader support. What they found was that the perceived amount of support
someone receives after a work role transition is critical as a predictor of the time to proficiency at
a new job. In making this finding, they stress the importance of the supervisor/supervisee
relationship and highlight the predictive value of role support. Essentially, the discovery of
leader support for new department chairs is expected in the present study to confirm Pinder and
Schroeder’s observation that while “Support does not by itself cause change…it makes change
possible” (p. 341).
Another important aspect of the work of Pinder and Schroeder (1987) is their thinking on
how a transition affects both the individual and the larger organization, a notion paralleled in
Nicholson’s (1984) work. When it comes to the topic of transitions, most individuals readily
agree interruptions of schedules and habits both at work and at home can result in anxiety and
stress (Brett, 1982, 1984) among people who transfer from one job to another. Where this
agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how transitions affect the larger
organization. Pinder and Schroeder help extend the conversation. They suggest the total
investment an organization provides in a new employee is far more than the return of actual
contributions a newcomer makes for some time after a work role transition (Pinder & Das,
1979). In short, the longer the time it takes for someone to make sense of things and become
proficient, the “greater the cost of a transfer to an organization” (1987, p. 338). In other words,

14

transfers initially hurt the organization or institution due to the time taken to get up to speed in
the new job.
Prior to the work of Pinder and Schroeder (1987), Nicholson (1984) posited that transfers
affect the organization with the caveat that the personal attributes of individuals play a more
critical piece in time to proficiency. Specifically, Nicholson (1984) presents a conceptual
framework around four defined modes used to label how individuals personally adjust to the
role, or adjust the role to better fit their needs when changing to a new role. Nicholson developed
the theory by focusing on transitions to a new role together with organizational and personal
adjustment outcomes, as well as the attributes of the individual, the role, and the organization.
He argues transfers in and out of organizations can have definitive significance for the growth of
employees and the organizations where they work and believes studying transitions offers insight
about the development of organizations. Nicholson’s theory is used to look at both the role and
the individual, and to operationalize a "person's subjective perceptions of job requirements"
(1984, p. 179). While I agree that the extent to which a new role appears to be different from and
more complex than a previous role, the longer it takes for newcomers to get up to speed after a
transfer (1987), I cannot accept that how individuals see themselves within the role can be
minimized or left out from the equation.
My research is consistent with previous research on three commonly accepted ideas about
transitions. One, I consider the individual when thinking about the transition process, an idea
consistent with Nicholson’s (1984) thinking. Two, I consider leader support critical to the
discussion on transitions, which is in line with Pinder and Schroeder (1987). And three, I
investigate the relative contribution of prior experience, an idea central to both Pinder and
Schroeder and Nicholson.

15

Finally and most essential, all of the scholars claimed here as contributors to the
conceptual framework of my study agree on one thing: those in the middle of organizations make
significant contributions oftentimes without recognition by senior administration and are in
effect the catalysts for profound institutional change (Clegg & McAuley, 2005; Dill, 1982; 1984;
Nicholson, 1984; Pinder & Das, 1984; Pinder & Schroeder, 1987).
Definition of Terms
The following section consists of all the variables to be investigated in this study.
Variables are presented and briefly defined in alphabetical order. Characteristics of the sample
are also explained and incorporate both inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Role Confidence
Role confidence is the first of three independent variables and is defined as a person’s
ability to rely on previous work experience and apply that experience to the present position
increasingly over time. Role confidence includes scales for novelty and discretion.
Personality Needs
The second independent variable is personality needs, or psychological characteristics,
and is defined in this study as an individual’s requirement for regulating the clarity of taskrelated knowledge as it applies to the role. The scales comprising personality need for control,
need for feedback, and include intolerance for ambiguity. These scales are explained in detail in
chapter three.
Role support
The last variable to make up the list of independent variables is role support. Role support
is defined as the availability of performance related assistance cues to employees from one’s
direct supervisor and the daily work environment. The construct role support is comprised of the

16

scales leader feedback and department climate.
Role Certainty
The dependent variable for this study is role certainty and is defined as a firm
conviction that one’s belief about a role is true. The term role certainty has been offered to
establish a baseline for talking about socialization and time to proficiency paradigms within the
higher education context. Role certainty is made up of three scales: role development, role
ambiguity, and role self-efficacy.
Population
The population of interest for this study is new department chairs. New department chairs
has been defined for this study as those persons who have been in the role between 0 and 3 years;
respondents were asked to round up to the nearest year. The population selection was figured
first from the lens of institutional type, then by a series of filters including a selection of public,
4-year or above institutions, as well as those having a 0% change in state appropriations and
other revenue sources for fiscal year 2009 – 2010. The data were collected via a questionnaire
designed by the author and housed on SurveyMonkey.com. The primary method of data
collection was a census. Every department chair of the identified institutions was asked to
participate in this study. As a result, a census of the 64 institutions was taken in the hopes of
qualifying through the first few questions on the questionnaire those for whom I wished to
collect data.
Overview of the Dissertation
The second chapter of the dissertation is a review of pertinent scholarship from both
higher education and organizational literature. Specifically, I provide a justification,
examination, and commentary surrounding the topic of academic middle management in higher

17

education. Each of the variables is described against appropriate research, and evaluated for its
contribution to the present research. Chapter three provides a full account of how I carried out
the study. In chapter four I present a report of the data with supporting tables and figures. The
final chapter provides an interpretation of the research findings as related to existing theory and
research. Finally, I relate the research findings to new department chairs and the institutions at
which they work.

18

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Through a presentation of past research in the fields of higher education and
organizational theory this chapter provides justification, examination, and commentary of the
problem under consideration. Results of relevant research including gaps and conclusions that
have been reached will be discussed in light of the research question, “How well do a new
department chair’s role confidence, personality needs, and role support predict role certainty
among new department chairs?” First, I will review research on the role certainty of new
department chairs setting up a methodological framework for this study’s analysis. Second, I will
address each of the study’s predictor variables, namely, role confidence, personality needs, and
role support. Throughout, I will synthesize the findings by discussing broader themes in an effort
to summarize the rationale for this study, as well as evaluate the studies reviewed and their
relationship to the present scholarship.
This study proposes that making contributions in one’s role is indicative of the perception
one has of the role and suggests the combination of role confidence, select personality needs, and
role support help explain what influences this perception.
Overview
The literature I reviewed focused on department chairs, management, and organizational
behavior, including socialization and career transitions in the work place. What I found was that
organizational theory is often more useful than the higher education literature in talking about
new department chairs because it looks at the place of the middle manager in the organization,
something the higher education scholarship does less often when talking about the department
chair position. More particularly, organizational theory offers ideas that deal with the demands of

19

one’s job mixed with a person’s individual characteristics and how those things work together.
As a result, I first give an overview of Nicholson’s work role transition theory (1984) and then
mention five studies from organizational theory, elaborating on two studies in particular.
Nicholson’s Work Role Transition Theory (1984)
Work role transition theory developed by Nicholson (1984) helped to guide the present
research because it offers a way to talk about how individuals personally adjust to a role, or
adjust the role to better fit their needs when changing to a new role. The theory is used to look at
both the role and the individual, and to discover a person’s individual view of job responsibilities
(Nicholson, 1984, p. 179). Nicholson suggests little has been done to see how the attributes of
people might factor into or influence the socialization processes and outcomes of organizations
and asks, "How does the interaction between individuals and social systems affect either?"
(1984, p. 172). Using the demands of the roles between which the person is moving (i.e., role
requirements), the mental aspects and motives (i.e., motivational orientations), the previous
socialization into new roles (i.e., prior occupational socialization), and any current socialization
by the employee's organization, the theory centers around transitions to a new role together with
organizational and personal adjustment outcomes, as well as the attributes of the individual, the
role, and the organization. Nicholson argues transitions into and out of organizations can
significantly affect the growth of people and the organizations they work for and believes
studying transitions offers insight about the development of organizations. Other scholars agree
with Nicholson’s proposition and have used his theory for the basis of their own work.
Ashforth and Saks' (1995) study, "Work-role transitions: A longitudinal examination of
the Nicholson model" is one example and is an exemplar among the others. In particular, their
study is important because the authors compare and contrast others who also utilized

20

Nicholson’s work role transition theory and brings to one place the differences and similarities
found in testing Nicholson's (1984) theory. For example, Ashford and Saks highlighted West
et al. (1987) who discovered the novelty met by managers transitioning into new roles
predicted personal development. Other studies mentioned include West and Rushton (1989)
who learned nursing students trained in a culture of low discretion and high novelty selfreported high levels of personal development and a low realization of role development. Also,
West (1987) found managers recognized high levels of personal and role development in jobs
where discretion and novelty were both high. West may be a central investigator in all of these
studies because he was a former student of Nicholson’s and had a role in testing the theory
three (1987) and five years (1989) after its development in 1984.
In the same piece that Ashforth and Saks (1995) reviewed all others who had used
Nicholson’s theory (1984), they also tested its value. In particular, they determined the
influence of three of four areas from which Nicholson proposed modes of work adjustment are
drawn including role requirements (i.e., discretion and novelty), motivational orientations (i.e.,
desire for control, desire for feedback), and prior occupational socialization (discretionary
shift, novelty of role demands). The authors did not look at socialization processes. What they
found was only moderate support for Nicholson’s model and a realization that work
adjustment concepts may be better suited to populations of experienced people within a
specific career path. Furthermore, Ashforth and Saks did not find a significant correlation
between personal and role development, agreeing with weak correlations reported by others.
One of the self-admitted limitations of Ashforth and Saks’ (1995) study is that in order
to discover whether work experience influences discretion, one needs to include those with
work experience, something their sample of undergraduates likely did not have. Even so, the

21

study offers a reasonable argument for evaluating work role transition theory. The authors
suggest future researchers use different sources of data (e.g., peers, supervisors) to supplement
self-reporting measures. Additionally, they propose that new research ought to look at the
strength of the theory among persons in other work role transitions, such as, "promotions,
international job transfers, occupational changes and appointments to task forces" (Ashforth &
Saks, 1995, p. 171). Also, the authors suggest work role transition theory assumes the position
of work adjustment as experiences in isolation as if to say newcomers react apart from other
personal and organizational influences. This idea reinforces the larger point that work role
change is a complex array of personal and contextual elements.
Despite the shortcomings of Nicholson's efforts, Ashforth and Saks (1995) conclude
work role transition theory offers a useful beginning for future discussions about the nuances of
changing to a new job and positively contributes to the larger literature on work role transitions
theory. In closing, the authors suggest, new research might consider the intersection of personal
and role development and how the pieces of each work together.
The work by Black and Ashford comes close to this goal. In their study "Fitting In or
Making Jobs Fit: Factors Affecting Mode of Adjustment for New Hires," Black and Ashford
(1995) also look at role requirements, motivational orientations, and prior occupational
socialization as possible predictors of personal and role development. This makes their study the
fifth in a line of research (West et al., 1987; West & Rushton, 1989) testing the utility of
Nicholson's (1984) theory. By examining nearly all the categories and commenting on previous
work, Black and Ashford provide a helpful summary of past research on work role transitions.
Additionally, according to the authors, no research has looked concurrently at Nicholson’s
variables as predictors of both work and personal adjustment making the findings important.

22

What they found was that individuals likely employ a number of adjustment tactics that go
farther than only changing themselves (i.e., personal development) or changing their jobs (i.e.,
role development), suggesting, more modes of adjustment need to be studied. Moreover, the
results of the variables measured only show a nominal influence on personal development and
even less influence on role development as modes of adjustment. In short, the study shows the
variables appear to be more related to "self-change" than changing one's job, a result that begs
asking in what ways we can learn about “self-change.”
Limitations
While work role transition theory provides an initial way of talking about how
newcomers specifically may adjust personally, adjust their role, or both, the theory fails to
address how newcomers face organizational “histories, cultures, and structures” (Black &
Ashford, 1995, p. 422) not easily conquered by individuals. Moreover, Nicholson’s theory does
not acknowledge that people are engaged mentally and behaviorally with their dynamic
environment (Mitchell & James, 1989) supporting the idea people cannot effectively be
separated from their context.
Both Black and Ashford's (1995) and Ashforth and Saks' (1995) studies are vital in
understanding some of the value and limitations of Nicholson's (1984) work role transition
theory. Moreover, they help to underscore where future research ought to go. Both studies draw
our attention to the fact Nicholson's theory, while a great basis for thinking and talking about
work role transitions is too limited and narrow, resulting in mixed support for work role
transitions theory. Using Nicholson's theory does not consistently predict modes of adjustment
from role requirements, motivational orientations, prior occupational socialization, and
socialization processes. Additionally, the studies conclude modes of adjustment may involve

23

much more than personal and role development.
Though there have been challenges to Nicholson's theory, none has called for an
elimination of the theory, or even questioned its core worth. In a similar declaration of the
theory’s value the present study uses it as a backdrop from which to think and talk about the role
certainty of new department chairs resulting from their transition into the position. Nicholson’s
theory is used for this study over Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) well-known theoretical work
on socialization in the workplace because Nicholson emphasizes the personal attributes of the
individual in question. Specifically, it is Nicholson’s emphasis and combination of the demands
of the job (i.e., role requirements) and an individual’s own characteristics (i.e., motivational
orientations) as influential factors leading to role certainty that is of interest. And because
Nicholson's theory is the only theory to date to address one's ability to alter the "networks of
goals and means-end relationships involving both people and materials" (1984, p. 177) related to
work role transitions, it offers a rich point of departure for talking about role certainty. By using
Nicholson's theory I continue the conversation about work role transitions and bring attention to
the study of transitions from faculty member to new department chair, something missing in the
higher education literature overall. Few studies exist in the higher education literature
specifically related to chair transitions and socialization at all (cf., Gmelch, 1991; Gmelch &
Burns, 1993; Smith & Stewart, 1999; Staton-Spicer, 1987; Werkema, 2005). As such, and in
addition to Nicholson’s work role transition theory, the literature most closely aligned with the
present study comes from the emerging literature on career transitions and extensive body of
socialization work in organizational theory. As a caveat the research presented here is a
shortened representation of the socialization literature. For a thorough investigation of the topic,
the reader should consult Ashforth, Sluss, and Harrison (2007); Cooper-Thomas and Anderson

24

(2005); Crant (2000); Jablin (1984, 1987, 2001); and Sonnentag, Niessen, and Ohly (2004).
Dependent Variable, Role Certainty
The dependent variable for this study is role certainty and is defined here as a firm
conviction that one’s belief of what the role is about is true. Role certainty is also used as an
umbrella term to capture a number of other concepts presented in organizational theory including
role ambiguity (Ashford & Cummings, 1985; Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Ashforth, Sluss, & Saks,
2007; Black, 1988; Cicerto, Pierro, & Van Knippenberg, 2010; Hart & Miller, 2005; Haynes,
Wall, Bolden, Stride, & Rick, 1999; House & Rizzo, 1972; Miller & Jablin, 1991; Rizzo, House,
& Lirtzman, 1970), role innovation (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Ashforth & Saks, 1995; 1996; Black
& Ashford, 1995; Hart & Miller, 2005; Munton & West, 1995; Nicholson, 1984), role
development (Ashforth & Saks, 1995; Jain & Maltarich, 2009; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, and
Gardner, 1995; Nicholson, 1984), and newcomer adjustment (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Bauer,
Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007). What is central to the notion of role certainty
though is newcomer learning, which is not explicit in these other terms.
Newcomer learning is the premise behind adjusting to a work situation and is therefore
related to the role certainty of the new department chair. More than a few socialization stage
models highlight newcomer learning as a critical component of socialization (cf., Chao, et al.,
1994; Cooper-Thomas, & Anderson, 2005; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Morrison, 1993, 1995;
Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Whereas, some have tried to simplify the immense research in
organizational socialization through various models (e.g., Taormina, 1997) and others have tried
to refine previously used measurements (cf., Haueter, Macan, & Winter, 2003; Myers & Oetzel,
2003; Taormina, 1994), my review first looks at selected research on newcomer learning often
cited by others, and then presents recent studies that have drawn on these experts.

25

One study often cited by others is the work by Chao et al. (1994) who focused on the
subject matter for learning within concentrated socialization periods. What they found among a
study of individuals with six plus years on the job was that the socialization process – and
subsequent learning – extends well beyond the newcomer stage and continues the longer a
person is in the role. This finding is consistent with Werkema’s (2009) dissertation, “Making
Sense of Roles and Responsibilities: A Socialization Study of College and University Music
Department Chairs.” Werkema’s study is the most recent empirical work found addressing the
socialization of department chairs. The impetus for his study was the claim many new
department chairs were not well supported for their “troubled,” “lonely and isolated experience”
upon entry into the role. As such, he sought to study how people learn to function as department
chairs. Werkema’s qualitative study contributes to the department chair literature by drawing
personal reflections of department chairs’ learning their role. Others like Klein, Fan, and
Preacher (2006) focused on the influence of realism of pre-entry knowledge and agent
helpfulness – a term similar to the present study’s role support – on socialization content and
outcomes. They found that realism of pre-entry knowledge of the role and agent helpfulness was
correlated with role clarity suggesting newcomer learning has a relationship with how much an
interviewee knows about the job before starting it. Moreover, Klein and Fan (2000) found that
newcomer learning enhanced the influence of an orientation program on employees’
commitment to the organization. These findings have important relevance to the current study’s
emphasis on role certainty and the assertion that newcomer-learning matters for the employee
and the organization.
Other scholars studying newcomer learning frequently cite two studies: Miller and
Jablin’s (1991) “Information Seeking During Organizational Entry: Influences, Tactics, and a

26

Model of the Process” and Ostroff and Kozlowski’s (1992) “Organizational Socialization as a
Learning Process: The Role Of Information Acquisition.” These studies deal with information
seeking, which is a recognized factor in the socialization process. Miller and Jablin’s (1991)
research on the successful organizational assimilation of new members is a watershed work
because they address how new hires get information. In particular, Miller and Jablin (1991)
addressed what others missed by considering those elements that may affect new hires selecting
one information-seeking tactic over another. As such, they provide a divergent view on the
information-seeking tactics of newcomers to those previously presented in the literature (cf.
Ashford, 1986; Ashford & Cummings, 1985). Ostroff and Kozlowski’s (1992) work was about
newcomers’ information gathering from varying sources within the organizational context. They
found, among other things, that new hires depend mostly on watching others, immediate
supervisors, and coworkers to gather information and that the intent for information seeking is
foremost on the perceived responsibilities and job-specific aspects. These conclusions have
significant applications for the present study because they underscore the need for newcomers to
figure out “What’s going on here?” Moreover, the findings support the argument put forth by
Louis (1980), who said,
Until newcomers develop accurate internal maps of the new setting, until they appreciate
local meaning, it is important that they have information available for amending internal
cognitive maps and for attaching meaning to such surprises as may arise during early job
experiences. (Louis, 1980, p. 244)
Examples of current research drawing upon Miller and Jablin (1991), as well as Ostroff
and Kozlowski (1992) in part or in whole include work on role clarity (Fang, Duffy, & Shaw,
2011; Scott & Myers, 2010; Kammeyer-Mueller, Livingston, & Liao, 2010; Kramer, 2010;
Krasman, 2010), expatriate adjustment (Farh, Bartol, Shapiro, & Shin, 2010; Moeller, Harvey, &

27

Williams, 2010), as well as further development of socialization theory and practice (Saks &
Gruman, 2011; Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010).
Predictor Variables
Role Confidence
Role confidence is a person’s ability to rely on previous work experience and apply that
experience to the present position increasingly over time. No study in either higher education or
organizational theory focuses directly on “role confidence.” As a result the following words were
used to identify research applicable to the notion of role confidence: (a) skills, competencies, and
functions; (b) knowledge; and (c) background.
In general, only a handful of studies found in higher education and organizational theory
mention the experience of workers (Allen 1990; Davies 2009; Gmelch 1993; Krasman 2009;
Mercer 2009; Paulus 2003; Smith 1999; Unferth 2001; Wood & Bandura, 1989) let alone their
tendency to draw upon it for the present job. Moreover, the experiences to which these authors
refer are the experiences workers have while in the role of department chair or as a middle
manager, not prior to the role. Though Gmelch (1991) provides data on how new chairs may
look back to their full-time faculty work experience for help in the new role, his work is more
about the “surprises” and “unexpected sacrifices” rooted in the department chair role.
Specifically, he describes the personal and professional tradeoffs faculty members face when
moving into the new job. What is interesting about Gmelch’s findings is that when asked, “Do
[department chairs] now perceive themselves as ‘administrators’ or do they retain their faculty
identity?” 60% identified themselves as faculty, whereas only 23% identified as administration
(p. 5). Such a comparison reaffirms Seedorf (1990) who discovered that making contributions in
the short-term is made worse when numerous department chairpersons never make a complete

28

mental transition from faculty member to the role of department chair. As a result Gmelch argues
there is a leadership crisis in higher education. Other research related to the experience of
workers primarily focuses upon the skills, competencies, and functions of a role (Bartram, 2005;
McLaughlin, Montgomery, & Robert, 1977; Seagren, 1993; Sieg, 1986; Smith & Wolverton,
2010; Spendlove, 2007; Staton-Spicer, 1987; Wolverton, Gmelch, Wolverton, & Sarros, 1999)
and is less relevant to the orientation of my study.
Assuming knowledge is the antecedent to the application of experience reveals a number
of studies related to the notion of role confidence though not particular to department chairs.
These include studies investigating contextual knowledge as an aid to persons in a role (Dutton,
Ashford, O'Neill, & Lawrence, 2001), knowledge as a navigational tool (Hancock & Hellawell,
2003), knowledge for leveraging organizational change (Huy, 2001), and seeking knowledge as a
form of organizational socialization (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992).
With the exception of Carroll’s (1991) and Schaffer’s (1985) scholarship, no studies were
found dealing strictly with the background of department chairs. Carroll’s (1991) “Career Paths
of Department Chairs: A National Perspective” looked at the career movement of department
chairs prior to them becoming chair. She found that most chairs (i.e., 65%) go back to faculty
work after their time as chair and that gender, departmental hiring practices, and discipline all
influenced the chance a chair would return to faculty life or pursue more administrative jobs.
Though the findings were interesting, the study differed from this one in that the focus was not
about whether chairs drew upon previous experience, just if they had it and whether they could
use it for career movement. Schaffer’s (1985) work on the other hand has more in common with
the present study. In her dissertation, Schaffer investigated the role conflict of chairpersons at
eight universities in Canada and discovered in part that prior experience was important to role

29

learning. Schaffer’s conclusions were largely non-generalizable for two reasons. One, results
were based upon nominal non-parametric correlational techniques questioning the strength of her
argument, and two, her sample size was only 17.
In sum, no studies really focused on the experience (i.e., role confidence) a faculty
member brings to the role of department chair and their ability to draw upon it according to the
demands of the new role. Not surprisingly, there is a lack of research on how such previous
experience becomes a way of explaining variations in scores among and between new
department chairs’ sense of role certainty.
Personality Needs
The second in the set of three independent variables is personality needs, or more aptly
psychological characteristics. Personality needs is defined for the present study as an individual’s
requirement for regulating the clarity of task-related knowledge as it applies to the role. A
general search for psychological characteristics extends far beyond the scope of this research. As
a result, a review of the research was limited to include only “personality needs” and its
subsequent parts (i.e., need for control, need for feedback, intolerance for ambiguity) within the
purview of work roles in higher education and organizational theory. And, for ease of discussion
the term personality needs will be used henceforth.
The literature in higher education offers no comprehensive study on the personality needs
of new department chairs. Studies have to be combined loosely to arrive at a composite picture
of a new department chair’s personal requirements as related to a need for control, need for
feedback, and intolerance for ambiguity. Research loosely connected to personality needs of new
department chairs tends to be more about how people do the job (cf. Bone 2002; Carroll 1991;
Hecht 1999; Peters 1994), who is in the role (Boyko, 2009; Carroll, 2004; Moses & Roe, 1985),

30

and how people prepare for it (Bone, 2002; Hecht, 2006; Peters, 1994; Staton-Spicer & Spicer,
1987; Wolverton, Ackerman, & Holt, 2005).
Organizational theory may be useful for understanding the role of this factor. The need
for control shows up in a handful of key studies, two of which are notable: Greenberger,
Cummings, and Dunham’s (1981) piece, which seeks to discover the “conceptualization and
measurement” of personal control at work, and Greenberger, Strasser, Cummings, and Dunham’s
(1989) piece, “The impact of personal control on performance and satisfaction.” One’s need for
control holds a central place in the research of Nicholson (1984), which most closely influences
this study, as well as the work stemming from Nicholson’s research (Ashford & Black, 1995;
Ashforth & Saks, 1995; Black & Ashford, 1995).
Need for feedback is a variable well informed by scholarship from organizational theory
and includes thinking on individual topics like performance feedback (Chhokar & Wallin, 1984;
Larson, 1989; Lurie & Swaminathan, 2009; Morrison, 1993), work adjustment (Ashforth &
Saks, 1995; Black & Ashford, 1995; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995; Nicholson,
1984; Pinder & Das, 1979, 1987), and feedback behavior of persons (Ashford & Cummings,
1985; Crant, 2000; De Stobbeleir, Ashford, & de Luque, 2010; Krasman, 2009; Miller & Jablin,
1991). Whereas, several of these studies influenced the methodology of the current study in
general (Ashforth & Saks, 1995; Black & Ashford, 1995; Lurie & Swaminathan, 2009; Miller &
Jablin, 1991), Lurie and Swaminathan’s study was directly applicable. Their research brings is a
contemporary perspective to the issue of frequency of feedback. They observe that new
technologies provide greater frequency for feedback, but contend having more feedback
demands the employee to process extreme amounts of recent data and results in a diminished
performance.

31

Lastly, a person’s tolerance, or intolerance for role ambiguity, shows up often in
organizational theory and is typically tied to such outcomes as job satisfaction (Ashforth 1996;
Bauer et al., 2007; Boswell 2009; Cicero 2010; Downey 1975; Greenberger 1989; Haynes 1999;
Judge 2002; Roach 1991; Schmitt 1978; Selmer & Lauring, 2011), organizational commitment
(Allen 1990; Ashforth 1996; Bauer et al., 2007; Klein 2000), job performance (Bartram 2005;
Bauer et al., 2007; Crant 2000), and turnover (Bauer et al., 2007; Black 1995; Cicero 2010;
Louis 1980; Major 1995; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992).
Recent research within higher education hypothesizing role ambiguity as a predictor of
the aforementioned outcomes is scant and centers instead on issues of job related stress
(Gabbidon, 2005; Gmelch, 2006), lack of training upon entering the position (Giuffre, 2007;
Mutis, 2009), and more definitional studies looking at what the role is about (Edwards, 2006;
Johnson, 2011; Wisdom, 2007; Mutis, 2009; Young, 2008). Interestingly, nearly three quarters of
the recent research found in higher education specific to department chairs and role ambiguity
was from dissertations (Boyko, 2009; Buffone, 2009; Deurlein, 2007; Edwards 2006; Giuffre,
2007; Johnson, 2011; Mutis, 2009; Williams, 2006; Wisdom, 2007; Young, 2008) perhaps
indicating that more work is now being done on the topic.
Despite the fragmented nature of the research describing the personality needs of new
department chairs within higher education and newcomers in organizational theory, the studies
cited above provide room for new work about the influence of personality needs on the role
certainty of new department chairs. Moreover, the gap in the higher education literature solicits
research that may provide predictive answers useful in helping new chairs make contributions in
their role in spite of a typically short tenure.

32

Role support
The third and final variable considered to affect the role certainty of new department
chairs is role support. What is important here is the relationship between the dean and the
department chair, as it is assumed that deans are structurally in a position to provide
supervisory support to department chairs. However, apart from two distinct studies, the higher
education literature does not adequately cover the effects of the relationship between the
department chair and the dean, never mind dean support.
The first distinct study is by Hellawell and Hancock (2001). Using Handy (1976, 1977) and
Harrison’s (1972) organizational culture theories, Hellawell and Hancock found the thinking
behind middle managers’ view of being managed by their supervisors similar to life within a
'power culture'” (p. 183). The participants in this qualitative study felt pulled between external
and internal forces to "become more managerial" and that the pace of the job had dramatically
sped up since beginning the position. Additionally, participants felt pressure to be “at least as
much resource managers and fund-raising entrepreneurs as they are academic leaders” (p. 191).
The second study is Hancock and Hellawell’s (2003) investigation of fourteen academic
middle managers at universities in the United Kingdom. In particular, Hancock and Hellawell
found that the middle managers they interviewed agreed performing effectively required a keen
sense of the thinking by the administrative level above them. When this knowledge was missing,
middle managers believed their performance was handicapped. Interestingly, in extreme cases of
resource droughts when told to "make bricks" with "insufficient straw," middle managers felt
forced to hide from their peers and supervisors precisely what it was they did, essentially
managing the perception of their own image (2003, p. 7). Katz (1980) argued years earlier that
middle managers shaped their own image suggesting that newcomers require a need for feedback

33

as they construct cognitive frameworks about their new situations and themselves. Other scholars
argue that individuals do not react apart from other persons and organizational influences, which
usually have an effect on how people begin to make sense of a role (Louis, 1980; McCall &
Simmons, 1978). Additionally, while coworkers are traditionally seen as important sources of
information for newcomers, supervisors are identified more quickly as critical because new hires
must in the end win their blessing for role modification (Graen, 1976; Jablin, 1979). Pinder and
Schroeder (1987) support this position and point out the expanding literature on career
transitions also talks to the role of supervisor support in reducing, “uncertainties, assuaging
anxieties and feelings of coercion,” and generally helping to make transitions smoother for new
hires (1987, p. 340).
Within the higher education context, the dean is a source of feedback and ultimately,
support for new department chairs. And, because the dean-department chair dyad is a
relationship between two people, opportunities for information flow are established. This is not
to say that the quality of information flow is directly proportional to the amount (Lurie &
Swaminathan, 2009), nor is this study interested in delving into the matter. Rather an assumption
is made that quality of information or feedback is not dependent upon the frequency of
information offered, but may be a function of it. This study accepts the premise behind Miller
and Jablin’s (1991) work that individuals have multiple ways of seeking information, but is
focused on leader feedback as a variable having direct influence on the role certainty of new
department chairs.
According to Louis (1980), as well as McCall and Simmons (1978), relationships generally
have a significant influence on how people initially sort out how to respond to new situations and
jobs. In particular, leader feedback is critical to the proposed model of role certainty of new

34

department chairs because as Katz (1980) suggested, the newcomers ameliorate ambiguity
mostly through the interactions of information seeking and receiving. By considering leader
feedback as part of the development equation we build upon Nicholson’s theory (1984) and his
use of others’ perceptions as the unit of analysis – an idea supported by Gioia and Thomas
(1996). In fact, in their article, “Identity, Image, and Issue Interpretation: Sensemaking During
Strategic Change in Academia” they give significant attention to its utility. Specifically, they
looked at how senior administration in higher education’s colleges and universities make sense
of critical issues affecting the direction of their institutions. Gioia and Thomas argue that because
there exists a scarce amount of "bottom-line measures like profit or return on investment" in the
higher education context, shaping perceptions of identity and image becomes a strategy in and of
itself. What they found in addition to the fact individuals saw issues related to way they viewed
the institutions’ identity and image was that "strength-of-identity perceptions" also affected
understandings of key issues (p. 380).
Following Gioia and Thomas (1996), “strength-of-identity perceptions” supports a
discussion of the supervisor-supervisee connection be it the dean-department chair connection or
even the department chair-faculty connection (Roach, 1991; Seagren, 1993; Sieg, 1986;
Wolverton, Gmelch, & Sorenson, 1998). For example, Knight and Holen (1985) looked at
faculty perceptions of the effectiveness of department heads and showed that leadership styles
affected these perceptions. In the same way, Hargreaves (1995) offers an interesting commentary
about how perceptions can lead to inaccuracies within self-managing schools:
Managers frequently underestimate the capacity of staff and students to hide things from
them, and so they overestimate the accuracy of their own knowledge about 'what is going
on in this school' - or in individual classrooms, which are very loosely coupled to
management systems...In this, they may suffer an equivalent of the phantom-limb
syndrome, whereby amputees are confident they can still twiddle their toes, until the visual
evidence of their stump convinces them that their leg has gone. In the self-managing school

35

there may be nobody around to tell the head teacher that a whole limb of the school's work
has gone awry. (Hargreaves, 1995, p. 225)
	
  
What Hargreaves writes is important for the broader domain of understanding how
perceptions, when divorced from considering the influence of the supervisor-supervisee
association, may affect the role certainty of new chairs. Yet, despite the generally accepted view
that what is perceived is real, what remains unaccounted for is the fact the dean-department chair
relationship is critical to a new chair’s initial growth (Katz, 1985; Miller & Jablin, 1991; Ostroff
& Kozslowski, 1992). Furthermore, the dean-department chair relationship presents
opportunities for new chairs to test their initial perceptions, which may be exaggerated
(Nicholson, 1984). And, it is precisely this exaggeration where individuals attempt to change
their role’s tasks and responsibilities so they best align with their desires, skills, and image.
In sum, though bringing closer the effects of leader feedback on role certainty, these select
studies leave ample room for research that focuses on leader feedback as a major variable
explaining perceived role certainty. Essentially, the bottom line is that leader feedback is a
reasonable indication of the extent to which interactions may occur at all between a department
chairperson and their dean – a component essential to role certainty.
Finally, how chairs come to perceive themselves within their new role may be affected by
appointment related issues (Carroll & Wolverton, 2004). Whether appointed by senior
administration or a faculty search committee there remain differing ideas about the types of skills
new chairs ought to have. Moreover, the challenging nature of the job’s components including
departmental representative, communicator and staff developer, organizer, and leader (Benton,
Gross, Pallett, Song, & Webster, 2011) demand a set of attributes not typically nurtured in
faculty work (Seagren, 1993). As a result, the types of skills appointees emphasize may affect the
degree to which new chairs are able to sort out what it means to be a new chair. For example, a

36

faculty-centered search committee (Carroll, 1991) may emphasize scholarship at the expense of
knowing how to build upward influence with the dean (Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor, & Goodman,
1997). On the other hand, an administrative-centered committee may downplay scholarship and
invite a rejection of the new chair by the department (Wendling, 1997). Who is doing the
selecting of the chair will, despite good intentions, often look to their own interests rather than
considering the complexities and vagueness of the job and how that leads to an appointment
decision. Even when there exists much information about candidates knowing how they will do
as a department chair is an unknown factor (Grigsby, Hefner, Souba, & Kirch, 2004). For these
reasons the manner by which a chair is appointed may also be an important factor to consider
when thinking about the selection of chairs and how they are to be after assuming the role.
Summary
The purpose of this literature review was to synthesize varying points of view as related
to the effects of role certainty, role confidence, personality needs, and role support. In particular,
I sought to bring together those points within the context of the department chairperson and show
how the variables relate together. Specifically, each chair brings with them previous work
experience and personal attributes, which on some level interact with the immediate social
system around them, including the dean and department climate. I mentioned that how someone
comes to be appointed to the position of new chair may have something to do with role certainty
and is a reason for including it. These pieces work together in an effort to challenge higher
education to think about the department chair role more as a dynamic one and less as a static
profile void of shifting academic priorities. I suggest that what is needed in the higher education
literature is discussion about the role certainty of new department chairs specifically in response
to daily operations. These discussions invariably raise questions by those seeking to fulfill the

37

position’s demands such as, "What's going on here?" "What can I do about it?" and, “Do I have
the latitude to do something about it?” This thinking led to the decision to draw upon
Nicholson’s work role transition theory (1984) as a means of framing how role confidence,
personality needs, and role support predict the role certainty of new department chairs. Finally, it
is the case that no study has been done in higher education looking at the relative contribution of
these variables to the role certainty of new department chairs.

38

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study proposed that making contributions in one’s role is indicative of the
perception one has of the role and suggests the combination of role confidence, select personality
needs, and role support help explain what influences this perception. Though Nicholson’s (1984)
work role transition theory is used to assist in explaining what influences role certainty, the
theory alone does not account for how other variables may be a part of the equation. My study
stresses the importance of combining experience and the ability to draw upon it, personal
characteristics, and feedback in explaining the degrees of difference of role certainty among new
department chairs. This thinking led to the following overarching research questions.
1. How well do a new department chair’s role confidence, personality needs, and role
support predict role certainty among new department chairs?
2. What is the relative contribution of each scale to the role certainty of new chairs?
Research Method and Design Appropriateness
This is a quantitative non-experimental study using survey research as the means of data
collection. The central reason for choosing a quantitative study was to examine the robustness,
stability, and general cohesiveness of relationships between select portions of Nicholson’s work
role transition theory (1984) i.e., discretion, novelty, need for control, need for feedback, as well
as additional variables supported by theory and research from organizational theory, i.e.,
intolerance for ambiguity, feedback, and department climate. I sought to examine strengths of
association (i.e., direction and strength) between the proposed variables and explain how some
cases vary on some characteristics. While I attempted to locate causes that influence role

39

certainty, I understand that merely finding two items that go together does not show a causal
relationship.
I designed a survey for purposes of generalizing from a sample to a population about the
role certainty of new department chairs, to look at variation in specific variables across cases,
and to look for other elements connected with it (DeVaus, 2002, p. 5). Also, survey method was
employed to collect data on the same variables from many cases and to report on the
characteristics of a set of cases.
Population
The population for this study is new department chairs. New department chairs has been
defined as those persons who have been in the role between 0 and 3 years; respondents were
asked to round up to the nearest year. The choice of 0 is an obvious number representing
newness, whereas 3 years of experience warrants further explanation. Three years was chosen as
one of the cut off points because the number supports a generally accepted view that comfort in a
job only begins to take place in year three. Though this may not be true for all jobs especially
ones where repetition is high and therefore role certainty is gained more quickly (e.g., machine
line worker, chef, tax preparer), it is true for jobs like the department chair because many tasks
are dependent upon the academic calendar year, e.g., budget cycle, class organization. The new
department chair does not go through various projects more than once before another academic
cycle has taken place. In year one, the person is merely getting by. In year two, the employee is
recalling their experience from year one in the hopes of doing better but oftentimes making
similar errors. In year three I make the argument the job cycle is performed with a notion of
confidence that has not existed before and therefore supports the term, new. Year three is the
time when an employee discovers regularity in their awareness to anticipate the tasks demanded

40

of the job.
Also important to mention about the target population of new department chairs is an
attempt to get respondents on the same page about what it means to be a department chair.
Common sense suggests wide variations about the understanding of department chair tasks exist
between persons. Accordingly, respondents were asked to rate how much each of the following
responsibilities was a part of their role as department chair/head: (a) Departmental representative
- Promote a positive image and gain financial support for the department; (b) Communication
and staff development - Provide feedback to the faculty from the dean and communicate needs of
faculty to higher administration; (c) Organizer - Engage in planning, allocating faculty
responsibilities, and delegating responsibilities equitably; and (d) Leadership - Stimulate faculty
research, teaching, and service, and guide curriculum development (Benton, Gross, Pallett, Song,
& Webster, 2010). At the very least respondents’ thinking was triggered to presume the provided
list of responsibilities was a baseline of department chair tasks and conceivably prompted survey
takers’ thinking to answer the remaining questions with a common perspective of role.
Additionally, while I acknowledge there are variations in how those in different disciplines
understand department chair tasks, those differences are not the focus of this study, and are
admittedly a limitation.
Sampling Design/Participant Selection
The total number of department chairs in the continental U.S. is unknown. By extension
so too is the total number of new department chairs. As a result, the group to be surveyed was
figured first from the lens of institutional type, which is known in part because of the definitions
provided by The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.
The institution type chosen was Basic Master’s Colleges and Universities, which includes

41

institutions awarding at least 50 master’s degrees and less than 20 doctoral degrees per year (The
Carnegie Foundation, 2010). The rationale used in choosing this type of institution is that it has a
recognizable administrative level without being too small (e.g., liberal arts college) or too large
(e.g., major research university), thus representing "common" group of institutions. By
extension, what I am assuming is that the “look” of the department chair position as middle
manager is also “common” among the institutions selected. This list of institutions does not
include Tribal Colleges or Special Focus Institutions. The total number of Basic Master’s
Colleges and Universities is 345. However, it was decided this number was still too unrefined.
The 345 institutions were further refined by selecting only those institutions that were 4year or above and public. The remaining institutions totaled 166. An additional measure used to
try and make common the types of department chairs being examined was the identification of
institutions within the pre-defined 166 institutions that had a 0% change in state appropriations
and other revenue sources for fiscal year 2009 – 2010 as reported by the “Grapevine” annual
survey from Illinois State University and State Higher Education Executive Officers (The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 2010). This added filter resulted in a total of 76 institutions from
across the U.S. The financial piece of this is important as public colleges and universities need to
make better decisions right now in lieu of having to do more with less (Boyko, 2009) and
suggests that business as “normal” is ongoing despite reductions in governmental revenue
streams.
A random number generator was used to produce 20 numbers between 1 and 76. The
institutions represented by each of the 20 numbers were called to determine if there would be
enough new department chairs to support a survey and in particular, specific analyses. Of the 20
institutions called 8 executive assistants to the provost were able to identify right away the

42

number of new chairs currently serving. A total of 81 new department chairs were identified with
a phone call over a four-day period. Stevens (2002) suggested having 100 or more subjects is a
large enough sample where the power of tests will not be an issue. As such, this study seemed
feasible with the initial identification of 81 new department chairpersons from 20 institutions, as
well as the fact that some suggest that the number of participants required for a standard multiple
regression analysis is at a minimum five times the number of predictor variables (Brace, Kemp &
Snelgar, 2003). The actual study comprised a census from 76 institutions, which rendered well
over that figure.
Each of the 76 institutions was called with a request for a comprehensive list of current
department chairs. The purpose for the request was explained and contact information was
offered. In most cases the request for this list was asked of the executive assistant to the provost
who was called by using publicly available information on each of the institution’s websites. If
this person was unable to help, they transferred me to someone who could. In a couple of cases
the request for a list of department chairs was denied and the institution asked to be removed
from the census list. This was immediately done. For a majority of the institutions I was
redirected to the website to look up each department chair email individually. Most institutional
websites had the predictable navigation elements (e.g., Academic Affairs/College/Department).
The decision was made to not collect the email addresses of directors (e.g., Director of
the Center for Teaching and Learning). Too many questions arose as to what being a director
meant to justify including them on the list. Moreover, there is an assumption made that in order
to be a department chair you must first be a faculty member, whereas this may not be the case for
a director. And, since this study is centered on the transition from faculty member to department
chair not including directors was decided. An additional lesson learned from the manual

43

collection of emails was to include the term “Interim” and “Acting” in the survey for future
research purposes; I did not include them in this study.
Email addresses of department chairs from 64 of the previously identified 76 institutions
were collected. The 12 institutions not included in the study were removed from the list due to
either a request by the university or due to non-disclosure of email addresses on an institution’s
website. The emails that were obtained were recorded in an Excel file and stored on a secure
password-protected computer in a locked office. The number of participants identified to be
surveyed totaled 1,820 (see Table 3.1).
!
Table 3.1.
Breakdown of New Department Chair Sampling Chronology
Description of Eligibility Criteria

N

Total number of persons initially emailed, i.e., census

1,820

Total number of persons who started the survey*

659

Total number of persons who answered at least one question on the survey

607

Total number of persons meeting eligibility criteria for “new department chair”

279

Total number of new chairs with complete data (i.e., no missing values in responses)

238

*Individuals who clicked on the emailed link and read at least the first page.
The census of 1,820 persons was recruited through an email invitation to participate in an
online questionnaire developed through SurveyMonkey.com. An email was then sent to each of
the email addresses from the master call sheet in the late spring of 2011 (see Appendix B). Email
addresses were copied into the “Bcc:” field to maintain privacy of other addresses.
After the initial invitation was sent a number of addresses came back as “permanently
failed.” These emails were taken off the list of emails to be sent with the first reminder. Only one

44

person sent the initial invitation requested to be taken off the list. Many “out-of-office” replies
were also noticed. A few individuals wrote me directly with suggestions for improving the
clarity of the data collection. One such suggestion was that the email address I used to send the
invitation be a university email (e.g., @msu.edu) and not a @gmail.com address. The reason for
the @gmail.com address was purely logistical and allowed me to avoid some of the cumbersome
features of the university email system. Since, an initial invitation had already been sent
changing the sending email address was considered too risky for consistency of reminders. Even
so, the suggestion is a good one. An additional suggestion was made to include some of the IRB
information directly in the email and not just on the opening page of the survey (Persons in the
study granted their consent by submitting the survey.). This way anyone concerned about the
authority of the study would not have to access the study in order to discover permissions from
IRB. Though only two individuals out of the 1,820 persons mentioned this, the advice was taken
and the subsequent email reminder adjusted accordingly (see Appendix B).
Confidentiality
Respondents of the survey were assured that their information would be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law, and that all of the information recorded from the survey
would be kept in confidence. This was done by not tracking names, email addresses, or even IP
addresses in the survey. As such the names, email addresses, or computer locations of
respondents could not be used in any written records or reports. Moreover, the participation by
persons in the study was completely voluntary. At any time during the survey participants could
refuse to provide information or discontinue their participation without giving a reason and with
no negative consequences. Contact information for The Office of Human Research Protection
Program of Michigan State University was also included.

45

Geographic Location
For purposes of generalizing the study’s results to the larger population of new
department chairs the census included institutions and participants all across the U.S. All
institutions having a 0% change in state appropriations and other revenue sources for fiscal year
2009 – 2010 as reported by the “Grapevine” annual survey from Illinois State University and
State Higher Education Executive Officers (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2010) were
potentially included in the group. The survey mentioned above is public information and anyone
can access the states that would have been considered in the present study.
Instrumentation
The survey instrument was designed primarily to collect data on three categories and
their subsequent variables: (a) role confidence (i.e., novelty, discretion) (b) personality needs
(i.e., need for control, need for feedback, and intolerance for ambiguity), and (c) role support
(leader feedback and department climate). All scales were adapted from prominent studies in
the higher education literature, organizational literature, and portions of The IDEA Center’s
IDEA Feedback for Chairs System. Specifically, items 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 30 were reprinted
in whole or in part with written permission from The IDEA Center (Note: No part of the
Center’s instrument can be reproduced or used without prior written consent of The IDEA
Center.).
Each of the measures used was previously established (e.g., Ashford & Cummings, 1983;
West, Nicholson, & Rees, 1987; Benton, Gross, Pallett, Song, & Webster, 2010) as having
internal consistency (i.e., reliability). Moreover, nearly all of the scales adapted for the present
study are also highlighted in Cook’s (1981) seminal and often cited work, The experience of
work: A compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. The original Likert-type format

46

of the scales (e.g., Strongly disagree to Strongly agree) was preserved. However, 5-point
continuums were newly employed as response options allowing for more nuances among degrees
of difference in scores. A description of each variable is discussed next.
Predictor Variables
There are three independent variables in this study: role confidence, personality needs,
and role support. Simply put, role confidence refers to the experiences of the individual and the
job. The variable personality needs refers to select concepts about a person’s psychological
attributes related to work. Role support refers to environmental components associated with the
job. Within each of those variables are scales, which together make up the totality of the
respective predictor variable. The variable role confidence includes the scales novelty and
discretion. Personality needs includes the scales need for control, need for feedback, and
intolerance for ambiguity. And, role support includes leader feedback and department climate
scales.
Role confidence
Role confidence is a person’s ability to rely on previous work experience and apply that
experience to their present position increasingly over time. Unfolding role confidence into its
component parts first gives us novelty. Novelty is one of two components identified by
Nicholson (1984) in adjusting to a new role. The novelty of a job is the extent a role allows the
use of previous knowledge, abilities and habits. Low novelty occurs when the new role looks
identical to the last, whereas, scenarios of high novelty may not have opportunity for the
individual to repeat what he or she did previously. The present study assumes that for the
department chair, there is little overlap between the role of a faculty member and the role of the
department chair either in tasks and functions or in reporting patterns. For example, as a faculty

47

member one really does not have a boss to report to on a daily or weekly basis, whereas a new
department chair has before them a hierarchical reporting structure.
An additional component of role confidence and one identified by Nicholson (1984) in
adjusting to a new role is discretion. Discretion is a "multidimensional construct having as many
dimensions as there are elements of a role," and in a word represents the "incumbent's
opportunities to alter networks of goals and relationships" (p. 177-78). Different levels of
discretion require different ways of adjusting. For example, Nicholson proposes high-discretion
roles such as owner/presidents of entrepreneurial companies make conforming to a specific job
description, or the performance of individuals who came before you unrealistic. Conversely, low
discretion roles like "machine-paced operations, allow little latitude for the new operator to
change the work" (p. 178). This study proposes the position of department chair is one of high
discretion because of the ambiguity of the role’s chief objectives, which while sometimes
explicitly laid out in formal job descriptions, are never fully realized by newcomers until the
individual begins the actual work of the position. Discretion is then critical for the purposes of
thinking about the role certainty of new department chairs.
Though Nicholson’s research on work role transition theory (1984) included novelty and
discretion, time was not a part of his work. Nicholson’s theory does not address the time it takes
individuals to test perceptions and build a “perceptual framework.” This seems key to
understanding how persons adjust to work role changes if it is true that only after a person’s
perceptions are exaggerated do they really learn (1984). Responding to Nicholson’s point, this
study limited the sample of participants to new chairs (i.e., 0-3 years) setting up an assumption
going into data collection that “perceptual frameworks,” or at least the foundations of those
frameworks, are created within 3 years of entering the new chair role. By doing so, this study

48

affirms the generally accepted view that during the first year a department chair is just trying to
make it through one full cycle of events, e.g., budget cycle. In year two the department chair tries
to do better than they did the first year, and in year three it is arguable the department chair has
only established some routines and can predict most of what the job entails. Thus, time in the
role matters if for no other reason than to provide a means by which individuals test their
perceptions to see whether or not they are exaggerated.
Personality needs
The second in the set of three independent variables in this study, personality needs, is
defined as an individual’s requirement for regulating the clarity of task-related knowledge as it
applies to the role. The scales for personality needs include intolerance for ambiguity, need for
control, and need for feedback.
Nicholson (1984) suggests one's need for control influences whether a person adjusts the
job to meet their own needs, or a person adjusts themselves to the requirements of the job. One’s
need for control is a critical aspect in this study’s model because people make up organizations
(Schneider, 1987) and bring to their jobs individual differences, which ultimately affect their
development. Utilizing a person’s need for control allows the present study to challenge the
commonly accepted view that more feedback should increase subordinates' confidence in
performing their role. Deci (1972) put forth that the need for personal control is a requirement
for self-motivation. If this is true, then frequent feedback given to individuals with a high need
for control results in a diminishing return to the clarity of role certainty because self-motivation
has been replaced. In fact, Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor (1979) argue that not only does more
frequent feedback given to a subordinate with a high need for control fail to result in better
performance, but in reality may be harmful to it.

49

Second, need for feedback is included not only as a check against the scale leader
feedback, but also to discover if Katz’s notion (1985) that new employees rely on leader
feedback to mitigate doubt about their own effectiveness applies to new department chairs.
Third in the list of scales for personality needs is intolerance for ambiguity. At one
level establishing both the need for control as well as the need for feedback implies an
individual cannot handle uncertainty. But, the question emerges, at what level and under what
conditions does this uncertainty become controlled? In other words, how much intolerance do
new department chairs have for ambiguity? For this reason a measure is included in the
instrument.
Role support
The last variable to make up the list of independent variables is role support. Role
support is defined as the availability of performance-related assistance cues to employees
from one’s direct supervisor and the daily work environment. The construct role support is
comprised of the scales leader feedback and department climate.
As previously mentioned, Katz (1980) suggested that the newcomer increases certainty
by establishing patterns of communication and regular interactions with others. This information
gathering is primarily bound up in the source of a newcomer's immediate supervisor whose
approval it is they are ultimately trying to win. For this reason leader feedback is claimed to
influence the role certainty of the new department chair. A point mentioned earlier that needs
emphasis here is that Nicholson’s work role transition theory looked to operationalize a "person's
subjective perceptions of job requirements" (1984, p. 179). Katz (1980, p. 97) argues this
operationalization is because new employees require information as they construct “perceptual
frameworks” (p. 97) about their new work environment and personal selves. Other scholars

50

argue that individuals do not react apart from other persons and organizational influences, which
more often than not have a prominent affect on how someone comes to see a job and how one
responds to the position (Louis, 1980; McCall & Simmons, 1978). Additionally, while coworkers
are traditionally seen as important sources of information for newcomers, supervisors are
identified more quickly as critical because new employees have to win their approval for role
negotiation (Graen, 1976; Jablin, 1979). Within the higher education context the dean is a
supervisor from which new department chairs can receive feedback. And, because the deandepartment chair pairing is a relationship between two people opportunities for information flow
are established. What is assumed in this study is that the quality of feedback may be an outcome
of the amount offered by deans, but is not a guaranteed outcome. This study accepts the premise
behind Miller and Jablin’s (1991) work that individuals have multiple ways of seeking out
information, but is focused on leader feedback as a scale having direct influence on the role
certainty of new department chairs.
Department climate is the second scale proposed to make up role support. The word
climate refers to a group of characteristics that can be gleaned about an organization and its
component parts, which may be perceived from the way the organization treats their employees
and the environment of employment (Hellrigel & Slocum, 1974). Including department climate
as part of the model makes sense because a department chair does not work in a vacuum
separated from others and the surrounding environment. Specifically, the measure calls for the
department chair’s “cognitively based description of the situation” (Jones & James, 1979, p. 205)
as it relates to the group with whom he or she works. Additionally, by adding the department
climate I am addressing Nicholson’s (1984) shortfall of leaving out context from his research.

51

Dependent Variable
Role certainty
The dependent variable for this study is role certainty, which is defined as a firm
conviction that one’s belief about a role is true. Role certainty is made up of three scales: role
development, role ambiguity, and role self-efficacy.
Role development from Nicholson’s work role transition theory (1984) is about adjusting
the job requirements to suit one's wants, skills and identity. In role development someone may
introduce adjustments to systems of tasks and responsibilities, procedures, resources, scheduling,
and other characteristics connected to relationships critical for performance effectiveness. At this
point some may suggest role development can be measured solely through effectiveness
outcomes and conclude this is where the emphasis really should begin and focus. Although
examples of effectiveness ratings and measurements like the results of the decade-long program
of research on leadership behavior by the Personnel Research Board at Ohio State University can
be valuable, such tools may not capture "behaviors inherent to a particular circumstance" and
exclude "significant leadership behavior" (Amey, 1989, p. 21). Despite this wisdom some still
view prescribed instruments as "key" to any professional development for effectiveness (Knight
& Holen, 1985). On the other hand making a connection to judgments of performance
effectiveness by looking not at the level of effectiveness in carrying out the prescribed list of
tasks, but at factors that influence at what level of quality the tasks are completed is ultimately
more helpful. Although implications for training from effectiveness research may advance
leadership towards better performance useful to the future of departments and their institutions
(e.g., American Council on Education Department Leadership Programs), looking only at
performance output qualified as effective or not is still too near-sighted. Essentially, seeing

52

through this lens only catches the immediate foreground of proactive behaviors and not the
possible items influencing such behaviors. Thus, because effectiveness describes performance,
studying it in isolation fails to help us understand how individuals respond to situations. With
this in mind, this study is not about the effectiveness of the role per se (see Caroll & Gmelch,
1992; Hoyt and Spangler, 1978; Knight & Holen, 1985; McDaniel, 2002; Middendorf, 2009;
Smith & Wolverton, 2010; Spendlove, 2007; Williams, 2007); rather, it is about those factors
that influence the role certainty of new department chairs, of which, role development is one.
Role ambiguity is also an important factor to consider when talking about new
department chairs because the higher the role ambiguity, the less the person is able to anticipate
the outcome of different actions and the less the individual is sure of drawing on previous
experience or nurturing new behaviors (Harvey1982; Misa & Fabricatore, 1979; Pinder &
Schroeder, 1987). Moreover, research has found that facing uncertainty about one’s position
causes anxiety and tension (Ashford & Cummings, 1985) leading to poor performance and a host
of other outcomes like stress, intent to leave, and job dissatisfaction (Cicero, 2010). As a result
role ambiguity makes up the second dependent variable under the umbrella term role certainty.
Role self-efficacy makes up the third and final scale of the dependent variable in the
proposed model of role certainty for new department chairpersons. Bauer et al. (2007) has
defined the term as “Learning the tasks of the new job and gaining confidence in the role” (p.
708). He goes on to say that individuals who are confident in the tasks required of the new job
will find greater fulfillment, become loyal to the organization, and be less willing to find work
elsewhere. What affects self-efficacy in the new department chair becomes an important aspect
to understand since research has found a link between it and the behaviors of individuals in their
work (Crant, 2000). Other research has shown a link between self-efficacy and newcomer

53

adjustment in the role (Fenner & Selmer, 2008) finding that positive self-efficacy will lead to
“positive choices,” “motivational effort,” and “perseverance” (Luthans, 2002, p. 60) in the job.
The variables of role development, role ambiguity, and role self-efficacy are argued here
to comprise what shapes a firm conviction about what is true of the role of the department chair.
Their inclusion in the model is because of their direct effects on the dependent variable
(Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).
Validity
To investigate the validity of the instrument I looked for evidence of both face validity
and content validity.
Face validity is claimed based upon the feedback from respondents of the pilot
questionnaire. Before sending out the final survey, a pilot was administered to a convenience
sample of department chairs in early spring 2011. The sample for the pilot survey was put
together with the help of a nationally recognized association that maintains a network of
department chairs. An invitation was sent out on my behalf to a listserv requesting a general call
for participants. Sixty-four individuals responded directly to me and served as the sample for the
pilot study. As a result of their feedback several questions were revised for clarity and one
question fixed for a missing demographic component. On the whole respondents were favorable
towards the direction of the questions and expressed appreciation for the value of the research
being conducted.
Content validity is claimed first because of the clarification in question 14 of what is
meant by the department chair role. This clarification is important for orienting the reader on
how the study is viewing the department chair role. The questionnaire asks persons to rate how
much the listed statements are a part of their role as department chair, thereby, either confirming

54

their own perspectives of the job before proceeding with the survey, or reorienting their mindset
to a picture of how the study is viewing the role of department chair.
Additionally, content validity exists because the content in each of the four variables or
constructs (i.e., role confidence, personality needs, role support, and role certainty) has been
specified through the scales to represent “the full content” (Neuman, 2011, p. 212) of the
definition of each of the four variables provided in the study. For example, in the independent
variable of role confidence the idea of the experience an employee brings to the work role is
captured from the items listed under the novelty scale – a scale of the construct role confidence.
The items listed in the novelty question ask persons to rate the differences between their present
and previous jobs in relation to the tasks involved, the skills required for the job, and the
methods used to do the job. Similarly, the items listed under discretion and time in role together
form a clear concept of the idea of role confidence and when combined with novelty make a case
for content validity.
Data Collection
The data were collected via a questionnaire designed by the author and housed on
SurveyMonkey.com. The website (i.e., SurveyMonkey.com) housed the instrument, provided the
link to the actual survey, and stored all responses under a secured account, which was password
protected. The data collection period ran from the beginning of May 2011 through the end of the
same month. The invitation was sent May 5, 2011, a reminder was sent the following week on
May 12, 2011, and the final reminder to take the survey was sent on May 25, 2011. The survey
was officially closed on May 31, 2011.
The primary method of data collection was a census. Every department chair of the
identified institutions was asked to participate in this study. The reason for this was because there

55

was no database at the time of this research and/or available to the public listing new department
chairs. As a result, a census of the 64 institutions was taken in the hopes of qualifying through
the first few questions on the survey those for whom I wished to collect data. Ideally, the provost
offices contacted would have provided a comprehensive list of new department chairs, however,
this proved impossible for a number of reasons that included both a lack of knowledge about
who was a new department chair and about who was a department chair at all. As a result, a
certain amount of caution should be taken when generalizing the findings of this study to the
whole of new department chairs within comprehensive regional universities (i.e., Basic Master’s
Colleges and Universities).
Scale construction: Principal Components Analysis
I used a principal components analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation using the 29 role
certainty items to create scales. The nine-component solution explained a total of 70.9% of the
variance with both Components 1 and 2 contributing the most with 15.1% and 13.6%
respectively. The rotated solution showed very little ambiguity in the components, i.e., no item
loaded highly on more than one component. I used these results to form 9 scales, all but one
with multiple measures (one scale—opportunity for feedback—contained one item). I created
the scales by using unit weights, i.e., adding together the responses to items that loaded
significantly (loading > .5) on a component. For example, component 2 included 5 items, each
with a possible value of 1-5. The scale combining these items then had a range of 5 to 25.
These scales included (sorted by size): (1) department climate (Items 10.a, 10.d., 10.e,
10.c, 10.b), (2) intolerance for ambiguity (Items 24.b, 24.c, 24.e, 24.f, 24.a), (3) discretion (Items
16.b, 16.c, 16.a, 16.d), (4) novelty (Items 17.b, 17.a, 17.c), (5) need for control over department
performance (Items 18.d, 18.c), (6) need for control over own tasks (Items 18.a, 18.b), (7) leader

56

feedback (Items 27.a, 28), (8) indirect feedback (Items 27.c, 27.d), and (9) opportunity for
feedback (Item 23) (see Appendix A). Each scale has good internal consistency as measured by
Cronbach’s alpha. Figure 4.1 represents the revised model of factors influencing the role
certainty of new department chairs as a result of the PCA. Table 3.2 displays the rotated loadings
for a nine-component solution, as well as the Cronbach’s alpha for each and Pearson productmoment correlation coefficient where two items are present.
Figure 3.1
Revised Model of Factors Influencing Role Certainty of New Department Chairs
Role confidence
Novelty
Discretion
Personality needs
Intolerance for ambiguity
Need for control/dept. performance
Need for control/own tasks
Role support
Department climate
Leader feedback
Opportunity for feedback
Indirect feedback

57

Role certainty

Table 3.2
Summary of Items, Reliability, and Factor Loadings (n = 238)

Item
10.a. My department is an atmosphere in which
there is cooperative effort among individuals to
carry out difficult tasks.
10.d. Within my department there is open
communication and trust among faculty and staff
and the atmosphere is characterized by friendly
relations.
10.e. Within my department individuals feel the
atmosphere is conducive to the expression of
individual opinions, ideas, and suggestions.
10.c. The faculty who comprise my department
take pride in the department.
10.b. My department is seen as able to produce
work of higher quality and quantity than other
groups in the institution.
24.b. I don't like to work on a problem unless
there is a possibility of coming out with a clearcut and unambiguous answer.
24.c. I function very poorly whenever there is a
serious lack of communication in a job situation.
24.e. If I am uncertain about the responsibility of
my role, I get very anxious.

Rotated Factor Loadings
Scale*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(α=.89) (α=.76) (α=.75) (α=.82) (r=.69) (r=.63) (r=.45) (r=.37)
.904
.018
.073
.055
-.032
.161
.008
.047

9
.015

.885

-.004

.027

-.007

-.087

.155

-.036

.021

-.033

.861

-.025

-.004

-.096

-.006

.098

-.025

.045

-.027

.796

-.028

.122

.076

.054

-.109

.030

-.111

.040

.692

-.081

-.047

-.081

.093

-.195

-.052

-.108

.206

.035

.790

.067

-.026

-.027

.005

.010

.075

-.062

-.051

.741

.078

-.061

.088

.083

.020

-.071

-.030

.095

.696

.079

.055

.081

.034

-.056

-.282

.037

58

Table 3.2 (cont’d)
24.f. A problem has little attraction for me if I
don't think it has a solution.
24.a. In a decision-making situation in which there
is not enough information to process the problem,
I feel very uncomfortable.
16.b. Freedom to set my own work
objectives/targets
16.c. Freedom to prioritize when different parts of
the role are done
16.a. Freedom to act independently of my
immediate supervisor
16.d. Freedom to choose whom I deal with in
order to carry out departmental work
17.b. The skills required for the job

-.076

.663

.183

.158

.110

-.147

.037

.096

.138

-.131

.631

-.044

.101

-.104

.238

.017

-.147

-.029

.043

.112

.830

.027

.002

.170

.048

.035

.157

.037

.089

.762

.224

.084

-.074

.114

-.054

-.099

.011

.086

.704

.011

-.233

.139

-.102

.015

.300

.111

.098

.662

.093

.207

.011

.083

.085

-.340

-.013

.065

.072

.860

.110

.051

.011

-.008

-.010

17.a. The tasks involved

-.033

.032

.070

.841

-.042

.116

-.027

-.010

-.050

17.c. The methods used to do the job

.006

.038

.123

.840

.003

-.031

.031

-.006

.066

18.d. Performance standards in the department
18.c. The quality of the faculty’s work
18.a. The variety of tasks performed
18.b. Decisions as to when things will be done in
the department
27.a. Ask the [immediate supervisor]
28. To what extent do you find out from the
[supervisor] how you are doing on the job?

.024
-.036
.085
.060

.042
.076
.077
.102

.013
.030
.173
.031

.062
-.007
.047
.110

.845
.835
.236
.370

.192
.295
.811
.748

.036
-.069
.004
.070

.026
.036
.021
-.038

.029
.091
-.001
-.034

-.111
.072

-.053
.105

.036
.103

-.043
.081

-.040
.029

.108
-.067

.860
.783

.087
-.015

-.110
.378

59

Table 3.2 (cont’d)
27.c. Compare yourself with others
.002
-.116
-.058
.052
-.065
.040
-.115
.822
.189
27.d. Observe the characteristics of those praised
-.082
-.110
.123
-.080
.145
-.055
.230
.759 -.098
by the [immediate supervisor]
23. How much opportunity exists to find out how
.126
.007
.051
.005
.118
-.023
.118
.094
.822
well you are doing in your job?
Note: Boldface indicates highest factor loadings.
*Scales: (1) Department climate, (2) Intolerance for ambiguity, (3) Discretion, (4) Novelty, (5) Need for control over department
performance, (6) Need for control over own tasks, (7) Leader feedback, (8) Indirect feedback, (9) Opportunity for feedback

60

Predictor Scales
Discretion (Items 16.a, b, c, d). Originally called “Job discretion” the scale used for this
study is a 4-item, 5-point continuum response scale developed by West, Nicholson, and Rees
(1987) (α = .92). The scale was utilized primarily because of the importance it holds in
Nicholson’s work role transition theory (1984). Questionnaire respondents were asked to remark
on whether their current roles offered “Hardly Any” through “A Good Amount” of freedom (i.e.,
discretion) than the roles they had before. The following prompts for respondents were used on
the questionnaire: (a) Freedom to act independently of my immediate supervisor, (b) Freedom to
set my own work objectives/targets, (c) Freedom to prioritize when different parts of the role are
done, and (d) Freedom to choose whom I deal with in order to carry out departmental work.
Novelty (Items 17.a, b, c). Originally called “Job novelty” the scale used was also derived
from West, Nicholson, and Rees (1987). The 3-item, 5-point continuum response scale (i.e.,
“Completely Different” through “The Same”) consists of prompts in response to the question,
“How would you rate the differences between your present and previous jobs in relation to the
following areas.” Both of the discretion and novelty scales were utilized from West, Nicholson,
and Rees (1987) because of good levels of reliability reported and because these scales are
directly associated with the subsequent studies utilizing Nicholson’s work role transition theory
(1984) that was used in this study (cf. Ashforth 1995; Black 1988; Black 1995; Nicholson 1984;
West 1989; West 1987). Previous research shows the scale to have good internal consistency
(cf., West, Nicholson, and Rees, 1987; (α = .92)) an aspect maintained in this study (α = .75).
Intolerance for ambiguity (Items 24.a, b, c, e, f). The scale measuring intolerance for
ambiguity looked at an individual’s ability to live with a level of open-endedness with their
work. More particularly, individuals were asked the degree to which they required assurances of

61

success and definitive answers to problems connected to the job. Ashford and Cummings’ (1985)
own sense was that those people with intolerance for ambiguity will pursue more strongly
feedback and information regarding their ambiguous roles or situations. The scale required
participants’ to rate on a Likert continuum (1= “Strongly disagree” through 5= “Strongly agree”)
the following items: (a) In a decision making situation in which there is not enough information
to process the problem, I feel very uncomfortable; (b) I don't like to work on a problem unless
there is a possibility of coming out with a clear cut and unambiguous answer; (c) I function very
poorly whenever there is a serious lack of communication in a job situation; (d) In a situation in
which other people evaluate me, I feel a great need for clear and explicit evaluations; (e) If I am
uncertain about the responsibility of my role, I get very anxious; and (f) A problem has little
attraction for me if I don't think it has a solution. After doing a principal components analysis
(PCA) item (d) was left off. The scale has better internal consistency (α=.76) than Norton’s
(1975) original scale (α = .69).
Need for control over department performance (Items 18. c, d). After the PCA was run
the original “Need for control” (Greenberger, 1982) scale was broken out into two separate
scales. The “Need for control over department performance” was one of them – a 2-item, 5-point
continuum response scale. The scale includes two items in response to the question, “How much
control do you desire in the following work areas (1 = “Very little” through 5 = “Very much”):
(a) Performance standards in the department, and (b) The quality of the faculty’s work.”
Research indicates that when control over one’s tasks is perceived to be reduced people react
poorly to stress (Greenberger, 1989). As such, and given the stress already involved with the
complexities of “living” between colleagues and senior administration (Jaeger & Pekruhl, 1998;
Uyterhoeven, 1989), the measure was deemed a possible indicator of role certainty. The strength

62

of association between the scale and role certainty was large (r = .69) (Cohen, 1988).
Need for control over own tasks (Items 18.a, b). The second scale derived from the
original “Need for control” scale was, “Need for control over own tasks” (1 = “Very little”
through 5 = “Very much”) and included two items for participant response: (a) The variety of
tasks performed, and (b) Decisions as to when things will be done in the department. The
strength of association between the scale and role certainty was large (r = .63) (Cohen, 1988).
Department climate (Items 10.a, b, c, d, e). The items comprising the department climate
scale included statements relative to the perception of a new chair’s context derived from Jones
and James’ (1979) “Psychological Climate: Dimensions and Relationships of Individual and
Aggregated Work Environment Perceptions.” In particular participants are asked to rate (1 =
“Strongly agree” through 5 = “Strongly disagree”) the following items: (a) My department is an
atmosphere in which there is cooperative effort among individuals to carry out difficult tasks; (b)
My department is seen as able to produce work of higher quality and quantity than other groups
in the institution; (c) The faculty who comprise my department take pride in the department; (d)
Within my department there is open communication and trust among faculty and staff and the
atmosphere is characterized by friendly relations; and (e) Within my department individuals feel
the atmosphere is conducive to the expression of individual opinions, ideas, and suggestions. The
scale measures work group climate and was adapted for the context of the department and higher
education institution. The scale is important for two reasons. One, to establish the new chair’s
cognitive observation of their situation and two, to add the notion of context to Nicholson’s
(1984) work role transition theory – a theory largely drawn upon for the present study. Though
some will argue the scale is made weaker because it mixes both climate and communication
statements – a practice used in early organizational communication research – the scale shows

63

good internal consistency (α=.89) and serves the purposes of this study. Moreover, the author of
the present study views the scale as measuring more broadly the departmental life from the
chair’s perspective. Doing so moves the rating toward a more general outlook than a snapshot
designed to support the specifics of either organization climate or culture.
Leader feedback (Items 27.a and 28). The leader feedback scale included here is also the
result of PCA. In particular, items 27.a (“How frequently do you use the following strategies of
feedback: (a) Ask the [Q25]” where Q25 is the immediate supervisor) and 28 (“To what extent
do you find out from the [Q25] how you are doing on the job as you are working?) make up the
scale. New chairs experience the reality of having to report to the dean on a regular basis. This
newfound difference necessitates discovering to what extent the relationship produces feedback.
Extant research suggests that newcomers view their supervisor as critical for information
gathering (Graen, 1976; Jablin, 1979). For this reason, the scale is meant to provide a large
contribution to the role certainty of new chairs. The strength of association between the scale and
role certainty was moderate (r = .45) (Cohen, 1988).
Opportunity for feedback (Item 23). The opportunity for feedback scale was included
because the dean-department chair pairing is an opportunity for both parties to create information
flow. The quality of feedback may be an outcome of the amount offered by deans, but is not a
guarantee. Participants were asked to respond to the question, “How much opportunity exists to
find out how well you are doing in your job?” The scale was intended to do little more than
understand frequency of contact related to job feedback (Lurie & Swaminathan, 2009).
Indirect feedback (Items 27.c, d). The two items making up the indirect feedback scale
are 27.c “How frequently do you use the following strategies of feedback: (a) Compare yourself
with others, and (b) Observe the characteristics of those praised by [Q25]” where Q25 is the

64

immediate supervisor. The indirect feedback scale is also the result of PCA. Reasons for
including it are based upon the theory and research finding that newcomers seek information
through indirect means more often than in direct ways (cf., Ashford & Tsui, 1991; Miller &
Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1993). The strength of association between the scale and role certainty
was moderate (r = .37) (Cohen, 1988).
Career aspirations (Item 31). The career aspirations scale includes those who have a
desire to pursue further administration and those who wish to return to faculty work. A medium
strong positive correlation of .30 (p < .01) existed between role certainty and career aspirations
suggesting there was some relationship worth exploring.
Mode of entry (Item 9). The mode of entry scale includes persons who were either
appointed by senior leadership or those who were elected by faculty. The nature of how a chair is
appointed becomes important to consider when thinking about how the faculty within a
department may respond to their new leadership. The scale is primarily descriptive in nature and
meant to provide an account of how new chairs came to their new role.
Dependent variable
Role Certainty (Items 5, 6, 7, 8). The scale used for role certainty is a sum of three other
separate scales. The details of each follow. Originally called, “job change” (Jones, 1986), the
role development scale (Item 5) is a 4-item, 5point continuum response scale (i.e., “Strongly
Agree” through “Strongly Agree”). It measures the extent to which the respondent re-defined the
role, altered procedures, instituted new work goals, and changed the mission of the role. Black
and Ashford (1995) reported a Cronbach alpha of .90 indicating good internal consistency. Role
ambiguity (Item 6) is a 6-item, 5-point scale (“Strongly Disagree” through “Strongly Agree”).
The role ambiguity scale comes from role theory and from classical organization theory and

65

subscribes to the idea that formal positions in an organization ought to have clear expectations of
tasks and responsibilities (Cook, 1981, p. 199). The measure seeks to address the extent to which
a task is unclear in demands, criteria, or relationships with other tasks (Jones & James, 1979).
Adapted from Jones’ (1986) scale role self-efficacy (Items 7, 8) – 8-item, 5-point (“Strongly
Disagree” through “Strongly Agree”) – measures individuals’ assumptions that they are capable
of performing the duties asked of them. Examples include, “My new job is well within the scope
of my abilities,” and “I do not anticipate any problems in adjusting to work in this department.”
Bauer suggested role self-efficacy is about gaining an understanding of the tasks in the role and
growing in confidence respectively (2007).
Other data collected includes: demographic information (Items 15, 34, 35, 36, and 37),
length of time in roles (Items 4, 26, and 33), size of departments (Item 13), disciplines
represented (Item 11), colleges represented (Item 12), rating of supervisor (Item 29), career
aspirations (Item 31), historical experience (Items 32 and 33), and greatest challenges (Item 30)
(see Appendix A).
Data Analysis
I used SPSS Version 20 software to analyze the data. Before describing the relationships
between the independent and dependent variables, I first ran an analysis using univariate
statistics such as frequency distributions, means, and standard deviations (see Chapter 4). Next, I
employed standard multiple regression to describe the relationships between variables because it
allowed a “more sophisticated exploration of the interrelationship among a set of variables”
beyond just correlations (Pallant, 2007, p. 146). Moreover, the regression model permitted
contrasts to be made between criterion and predictor variables. Likewise, standard multiple
regression allowed me to see if adding a variable helped with the predictability of the model

66

(2007) separate from the independent variables already provided. This method also showed how
much unique variance in the dependent variable (i.e., role certainty) each of the independent
variables explained. Standard multiple regression was chosen over hierarchical regression
because the author believes, based upon theory and research, each of the variables proposed has
equivalent influence on the outcome of role certainty.
The author recognizes the assumptions necessary for doing standard multiple regression
and puts forth that all necessary conditions were met before proceeding with the statistical
procedure. These conditions included, but were not limited to, finding strong correlations
between the independent and dependent variables, as well as collecting a large number of
responses. The author accepts that a low response rate might be made worse by the reality
department chairs receive many requests to fill out surveys. However, because this study is
asking for data from new department chairs about their role the results are believed to be of
interest to respondents and therefore act as motivation for filling out the questionnaire.
After the data were cleaned for outliers, scatterplots were used (see Chapter 4) to explore
and verify that the relationships between the variables for the study were linear (i.e., the
scatterplot shows randomness in its scatter and the plot was not a u-shape – curvilinear) and
collate the information using Pearson’s correlation coefficient to make sure there was at least
some relationship of the independent variables with role certainty (i.e., r =.3 and above) (Pallant,
2007; Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). Additional checks were made to exclude independent
variables highly correlated with one another (i.e., r = .9 and above) (Ott & Longnecker, 2008)
though this was unlikely given previous studies. No moderate (i.e., +0.5 or -0.5) or strong
association(s) (i.e., close to or beyond 0.7 or -0.7) were found between each of the independent
variables and the dependent variable. As such multiple regression analysis was done to help

67

explain how well role confidence, personality needs, and role support were able as a group to
explain the variance of role certainty among new department chairs. The assumption made was
that there are differing degrees of role certainty for individuals, an intuitive conclusion not
needing a separate study.
Limitations
One of the restrictive limitations of this study is the fact that survey research is both
broad and shallow, leaving out the understandings and experiences of new department chairs’
sense of their role. The identified group of individuals is also dependent upon the accuracy of
institutional website records of current department chairs increasing the likelihood of coverage
error and non-response error. Also, this study is not about performance effectiveness of new
chairs (see Caroll & Gmelch, 1992; Hoyt and Spangler, 1978; Knight & Holen, 1985; McDaniel,
2002; Middendorf, 2009; Smith & Wolverton, 2010; Spendlove, 2007; Williams, 2007). As a
result, other possible contextual variables may influence role certainty and may not be accounted
for. Additional limitations include not addressing empirically whether the notion of transitioning
to the department chair from faculty ranks is becoming problematic in some institutions. My own
position was that there exist inherent problems when transitioning from faculty member to a
department chair. Even so, thinking there is a problem to begin with may distort any conclusions
made from the data. Also, including only self-reports implies the possibility of common method
variance (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991) and raises the question whether those who took the
survey were actually department chairs at all. Additionally, I could not control for the fact that
survey takers “tend to give socially desirable answers” (Smith & Wolverton, 2010, p. 68), which
brings to mind the correctness of respondents’ perceptions and their desire to respond without
qualifications.

68

Summary
In this chapter I detailed research method and design appropriateness. I described the
design, the independent and dependent variables, as well as the rationale of the research design.
Additionally, the population, sampling design, and participant selection, as well as procedures
for data collection were covered. The specifics of the instrument were addressed including
validity and reliability of previously used scales. Limitations of the present study were also
included. Finally, the plan for data analysis was laid out in full.
In chapter 4 I present the findings of the data analysis explaining the relationships
between the independent and dependent variables. In chapter 5 I discuss the results, implications
of the study, and recommendations for further study.

69

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter provides the results of the data analysis outlined in the previous chapter.
Specifically, I detail the relative importance of role confidence, personality needs, and role
support in explaining the differences in perception of new department chairs’ role certainty. The
chapter is organized into two sections. The first is the demographics of the survey respondents.
Next, the output of a standard multiple regression analysis is presented and interpreted in answer
to the main and subsequent research questions. The findings are discussed in the order of the
research questions asked. Tables, figures, and charts are supplied when appropriate.
Description of the Participant Sample Used
Because the number of new chairs in the U.S. is unknown a census of all department
chairs was conducted from a previously identified group of institutions. The data to be discussed
are derived from the 1,820 total number of department chairs invited to take the survey (see
Table 4.1). This number was achieved from filters applied to the 345 Basic Master’s Colleges
and Universities distinguished by The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher
Education. These institutions were selected because they have a recognizable administrative
level without being too small (e.g., liberal arts college), or too large (e.g., major research
university), thus representing a type of "common" group of institutions. Filters were applied to
this group to try and make common the types of department chairs being studied. These filters
included isolating 4-year or above and public institutions, as well as institutions having a 0%
change in state appropriations and other revenue sources for fiscal year 2009 – 2010 as reported
by the “Grapevine” annual survey from Illinois State University and State Higher Education
Executive Officers (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2010).

70

Descriptive Statistics
Demographic Data
The following is a description of the demographic data collected from the participant
sample. Details are broken into two broad categories: (a) structural demographics, and (b) profile
demographics, which are simply the “look” of the respondents from the survey related to the role
of department chair. Structural demographics cover gender, ethnicity, race, geographic regions
represented, as well as the total number of regular (i.e., full-time and tenure-track) faculty
members in the department.
Three qualifying questions were asked at the beginning of the survey to ensure the data
collected were from a group of new department chairs, as opposed to more experienced
department chairs (see Table 4.1). Out of the 659 people who began the survey – a response rate
of 36.2% – 176 of them had previously served as department chair at their present institution
thereby disqualifying them from the survey and leaving 478 respondents. This remaining group
then answered whether or not they were presently serving as department chair at their current
institution further eliminating eleven persons and leaving 467 in the pool. One final question
made sure those participating were new department chairs. Of the 467 who remained in the pool
after the first two qualifying questions only 456 answered the final qualifying question, “How
long have you served in your current position (please round to the nearest year)?” Of this group
38.8% (n = 177) were further disqualified from the survey because they were not considered to
be new chairs, which was defined for the present study as someone with zero through three years
of new department chair experience. This left 279 new department chairs as qualified to take the
survey. Data were cleaned to remove those cases containing a high number of missing values
among their answers. The removal of these cases ensured a complete set of data totaling 85.3%

71

(n = 238) of the original 279 participants. The remaining descriptions are based upon this group.
A breakdown of the structural demographics of this group is provided next.
Table 4.1.
Breakdown of New Department Chair Sampling Chronology
Description of Eligibility Criteria

n

Total number of persons initially emailed, i.e., census

1,820

Total number of persons who started the survey*

659

Total number of persons who answered at least one question on the survey

607

Total number of persons meeting eligibility criteria for “new department chair”

279

Total number of new chairs with complete data (i.e., no missing values in responses)

238

*Individuals who clicked on the emailed link and read at least the first page.
Structural demographics. Department chairs with two years experience were the most
representative of the group (32.8%, n = 78) with those having three years experience following
(29.0%, n = 69). Those with one-year experience comprised 20.6% of the group (n = 49) and
those with less than one-year experience made up 17.6% of the group (n = 42). The percentage
of interim/acting chairs was 38.7% (n = 92) and the percentage of the group identifying as
associate/co-chairs came to 3.4% (n = 8).
Of the 234 who answered the gender question, 60.1% (n = 143) were male and 38.2% (n
= 91) female. Those persons identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino was 6.3% (n = 15) of
the respondents, leaving 86.6% (n = 206) answering Not Hispanic or Latino. Table 4.2 gives an
account of persons indicating identification with one or more race group(s). Tables are offered
for purposes of efficiency and more specifically when the data could comprise two or more
columns and rows.

72

Table 4.2.
Number of Persons Identifying with One or More Race Groups (n =238)
Race Group

n

% of Group

American Indian or Alaska Native

8

3.4

Asian

6

3.0

Black or African American

11

4.6

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

2

0.8

202

84.9

More than One

4

1.7

Missing

5

2.1

White

Most of the respondents came from the Northeast region of the U.S. (32.8%, n = 78).
Participants from the South region came next providing 25.2% of the response (n = 60). People
from the Midwest region totaled 22.7% (n = 54) of the responses and 19.3% (n = 46) of answers
came from individuals in the West region.
The total number of regular (full-time, tenure track) faculty members in the departments
represented was broken down into four groups: (a) 1 – 10, (b) 11 – 20 (c) 21 – 30, (d) 31 – 40,
(e) 41 – 50 (see Figure 4.1). Departments having between 11 and 20 faculty were the most
typical. Between 1 and 10 was the next largest with between 21 and 30 the next. One department
reported having between 41 and 50 people.
Profile demographics. Profile demographics consist of four subsections. Chair snapshot
is the first and the most detailed, encompassing position/title held before present job, length of
service in previous position, mode of entry, and highest degrees held. Chair performance tasks
are the second of the profile demographics and involve agreement with listed responsibilities of

73

role, and self-report ratings on a chair’s own effectiveness. Structural picture is the third of the
profile demographics and accounts for reporting relationship, length of time supervisor has had
the position, and overall performance rating of the supervisor. Future glance is the last and fourth
subsection of profile demographics and takes in greatest challenges and career aspirations.
Figure 4.1.
Total Number of Departments and the Total Number of Regular Faculty within those
Departments (Full-time and Tenure Track) (n = 232; Missing, n = 6)

Number	
  of	
  Departments	
  

120	
  
98	
  

100	
  
80	
  

74	
  

60	
  

44	
  

40	
  
14	
  

20	
  

1	
  
0	
  
1-­‐10	
  

11-­‐20	
  

21-­‐30	
  

31-­‐40	
  

41-­‐50	
  

Number	
  of	
  Faculty	
  within	
  Departments	
  

The “look” of the average department chair from the sample was found to be largely
similar and uniform. Most of the chairs in the group came from faculty ranks (79.0%, n = 188)
and served in their previous role as faculty member between 0 and 10 years (70.0%, n = 160).
Other groups represented in the sample include in ascending order: director or coordinator of
programs (7.6%, n = 18); former deans be they associate or full (2.9%, n = 7); those coming
from positions outside education (0.8%, n = 2); and others representing positions like librarian,
assessment coordinators, and even a provost (3.4%, n = 8). Total missing entries was 7 or 2.9%
of respondents.

74

The percentage of persons who typed in “chair” for the question, “What position/title did
you hold prior to serving in your current position?” was 3.2% (n = 8). These same respondents
qualified for the survey by denying in the first question they were ever chairs at their present
institution. As such, they were included in the data because I assumed they were referring to
being chairs at other institutions. The decision to include them is based upon the claim that chair
roles differ widely from institution to institution due to varying departmental characteristics (e.g.,
hostile versus friendly political environment).
The minimum length of service in previous positions named in the proceeding question is
three months. The maximum time represented in a previous position is 40 years. Individuals
were grouped into six categories: 0-5 years experience, 6-10 years experience, 11-15 years
experience, 16-20 years experience, 21-30 years experience, and 31-40 years experience (see
Figure 4.2). The average length of time served in the previous position of new department chair’s
overall was 9.08 years.
Figure 4.2.
Length of Service in Previous Position (n = 232; Missing, n = 6)
100	
  

Number	
  of	
  	
  People	
  

90	
  

90	
  

80	
  

70	
  

70	
  
60	
  
50	
  

36	
  

40	
  
30	
  

18	
  

20	
  

17	
  

10	
  

1	
  

0	
  
0-­‐5	
  	
  

6-­‐10	
  

11-­‐15	
  

16-­‐20	
  

21-­‐30	
  

31-­‐40	
  

Number	
  of	
  Years	
  of	
  Experience	
  in	
  Previous	
  Position	
  

75

A majority of chairpersons were either appointed by the dean with the consultation and
approval of the faculty (42.9%, n = 102) or were elected by the faculty to serve a definite term
(42.0%, n = 100) (see Table 4.3). A small number of individuals were appointed by the dean
without meaningful faculty consensus (12.6%, n = 30) and an even smaller number elected by
the faculty to serve an indefinite term (2.5%, n = 6).
Table 4.3.
Mode of Entry into the Department Chair Role (n = 238)
Nature of Appointment as Chair

n

%

I was appointed by the dean with the consultation and approval of faculty

102

42.9

I was appointed by the dean without meaningful faculty
consultation/approval

30

12.6

I was elected by the faculty to serve a definite term

100

42.0

6

2.5

I was elected by the faculty to serve an indefinite term

More than three in four chairs surveyed had a doctorate as the highest degree earned
(90.8%, n = 216). Other degrees from the data representing the highest credential earned
included master’s (5.0%, n = 12), both doctorate and professional (2.5%, n = 6), and professional
(1.7%, n = 4).
Respondents were asked to rate their agreement about the degree to which the following
responsibilities were part of their role as department head: departmental representative,
communication and staff development, organizer, and leadership. Definitions were provided for
each of the responsibilities listed. Being an organizer (i.e., “Engage in planning, allocating
faculty responsibilities, and delegating responsibilities equitably.”) had the highest mean (M =
4.47, SD = .70) of a 5-point Likert-scale with the communication and staff development

76

responsibility following close behind (M = 4.38, SD = .75) (see Table 4.4). The leadership
category was agreed upon by respondents as comprising a good amount of their role as
department chair (M = 4.16, SD = .83), whereas, departmental representative carried less support
among individuals (M = 3.99, SD = 1.05) and included a greater variation in answers. Overall,
76.0% (n = 190) of individuals rated the suggested responsibilities either 4.0 or 5.0 on a Likert
scale of 1 = Hardly Any through 5 = A Good Amount. In short, there was agreement among
respondents the four categories presented was a fair representation of some of the responsibilities
shared by participating department chairs.
Table 4.4.
Means and Standard Deviations of Group Ratings for Select Responsibilities as Part of the
Department Chair Role (n = 238)
Responsibility

M

SD

Departmental Representative

3.99

1.05

Communication and Staff Development

4.38

.75

Organizer

4.47

.70

Leadership

4.16

.83

Table 4.5 shows nearly all responding department chairs report to their Dean. Several (n
= 5) report directly to their Chief Academic Officer and only a few (n = 3) said they report to a
Director.
The length of time each of these supervisors has served in the position (rounded to the
nearest year) is displayed in Table 4.6. Two (n = 50, 21.0%), three (n = 39, 16.4%), and seven
plus years (n = 47, 19.7%) are the most frequently reported answers. Five years (n = 19, 8.0%)
and six years (n = 14, 5.9%) are the least frequently reported answers.

77

Table 4.5.
Reporting Relationship by Percent (n = 238)
Item

n

%

Chief Executive Officer (e.g., president, chancellor, equivalent)

0

0.0

Chief Academic Officer

5

2.1

Vice President/Vice Chancellor

0

0.0

Vice Provost

0

0.0

230

96.6

3

1.3

Dean
Director

Table 4.6.
Length of Time a Department Chair’s Supervisor has Served in the Supervisory Position by
Percent (n = 238)
Length of time (in years)

n

%

Less than 1 year

23

9.7

1 year

23

9.7

2 years

50

21.0

3 years

39

16.4

4 years

23

9.7

5 years

19

8.0

6 years

14

5.9

7+ years

47

19.7

Of the 236 who responded to the question, “How would you rate the overall performance
of the <name of supervisor>?” 44.1% (n = 105) replied with a judgment of “Good.” An
additional 26.9% (n = 64) rated their immediate supervisor’s performance as “Outstanding.” The

78

bottom half of the ratings included 7.1% (n = 17) answering with “Poor” and 10.1% (n = 24)
responding with “Only So-So.” Eleven percent (n = 26) answered with “In Between.” The
average response leaned towards a positive outlook of supervisors’ performance, i.e., M = 3.74,
SD = 1.17. Those favoring their supervisor’s performance totaled 71.6% (n = 169) as compared
to 17.4% (n = 41) of persons rating their supervisor’s performance as negative.
Frequencies from the open-ended question, “What are the three greatest challenges you
have faced during your time as a department chair/head?” were not coded for general themes or
broad categories because the answers were too short. Rather, the number of times a specific word
showed up is reported. Specifically, the word “Faculty” showed up the most with a total of 209
times. Negative or positive context of the use of the word “Faculty” is also not clarified because
the brevity of responses did not provide enough detail to warrant categorization. No specific
word appeared as much as “Faculty,” but “Budget” surfaced next with 71 appearances.
“Students” were mentioned a total of 38 times. All other words had minimal redundancies and
are not reported.
The data showed 40.3% (n = 96) of responding chairs desire to return to full-time faculty
work once their time is up as department chair (see Table 4.7). Not as many wished to pursue
another term as department chair (31.1%, n = 74). Only a relative few decided to apply for a
dean position at the conclusion of their time as chair (12.6%, n = 30). A smaller group favored
applying for another administrative position (8.8%, n = 21) instead. Lastly, 6.7% of respondents
(n = 16) stated they wished to leave higher education altogether.

79

Table 4.7.
Career Aspirations of Department Chairs (n = 237; Missing, n = 1)
Career Aspiration

n

%

Pursue another term as department char

74

30.0

Return to full-time faculty work

96

38.9

Apply for a dean position

30

12.7

Apply for another administrative position

21

8.5

Leave higher education altogether

16

6.5

	
  
Inferential Statistics
Research question: How well do a new department chair’s role confidence, personality needs,
and role support predict role certainty among new department chairs?
Of primary interest in conducting this research is to understand the factors that most
influence the role certainty new department chairs have of their job. That is, how much of the
variation in new department chairs’ certainty of their role can be explained by a combination of
the role, themselves, and the support while in the role? In order to determine the relative
importance of each of these predictors I regressed role certainty on the nine scales derived from
principal components analysis in combination with two structural variables (i.e., career
aspirations and mode of entry) using multiple linear regression. Though an argument can be
made that one is a person first and in a role second, suggesting that personality needs ought to be
entered into the model as a block initially and then aspects of the role (i.e., role confidence and
role support), I maintain there cannot be a true separation of the self from the role (Ashforth &
Saks, 1995). The self and the role are so intertwined that understanding where one ends and the

80

other begins is difficult. Thus, this research is about studying persons who are already in a role
(i.e., new department chairs) and necessitates the predictor variables be considered
simultaneously. The analysis showed how well the scales of role confidence (i.e., discretion,
novelty), personality needs (i.e., intolerance for ambiguity, need for control over department
performance, and need for control over own tasks), and role support (i.e., department climate,
leader feedback, opportunity for feedback, indirect feedback) are able to predict role certainty.
Moreover, the analysis also indicated how much unique variance each of the scales is able to
describe of the dependent variable. The statistics selected to run with the regression analysis
included: estimates, confidence intervals, model fit, descriptive statistics, and collinearity
diagnostics. A normal probability plot was requested for reasons of inspecting the assumption of
normality of errors. Finally, SPSS was instructed to exclude cases pairwise.
The present study was framed under the larger concepts of role confidence, personality
needs, and role support. However, the analysis focuses on the nine scales – and additional two
structural variables – making up these larger concepts. The nine scales were developed through
principal components analysis as detailed earlier.
The relationship between perceived role certainty (i.e., the dependent variable) and each
of the nine scales (department climate, intolerance for ambiguity, discretion, novelty, need for
control over department performance, need for control over own tasks, leader feedback, indirect
feedback, opportunity for feedback), as well as two structural variables (career aspirations, mode
of entry) was first investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. All of the
scales and structural variables, except for novelty, indirect feedback, and mode of entry show at
least some relationship with the dependent variable, role certainty. And, though there exist some
correlations between scales (cf., Discretion and Intolerance for ambiguity, r = .23) indicating

81

they share something the correlation is never above .3 except between “Need for control over
department performance” and “Need for control over own tasks” (r = .48) (see Table 4.8).

82

Table 4.8
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations (n = 238)
Factor
(DV) Role certainty

M
3.48

SD
.60

(DV)
__

(1)

(1) Department climate

3.70

.91

.28**

__

(2) Intolerance for ambiguity

3.21

.79

.21**

-.05

__

**

.10

.23**

__

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(3) Discretion

3.86

.78

(4) Novelty
(5) Need for control over
department performance
(6) Need for control over own
tasks

2.52

.98

.08

-.02

.13

.23**

3.60

.95

.23**

.01

.12

.08

.08

.88

.22**

.11

.17**

.20**

.15*

.48**

3.24

1.07

.25**

-.05

.05

.13*

.02

.01

.03

(10)

(11)

__

(7) Leader feedback

(9)

__

3.86

(8)

__

__

(8) Indirect feedback

2.75

1.02

.34

(2)

.02
**

-.06

-.21

.04

-.02

.07

-.01

.09

__

.14*

.02

.06

.01

.10

.03

.12

.10

__

-.03

.11

.15*

.07

.10

.07

__

-.16*

.05

-.05

.00

-.12

(9) Opportunity for feedback

2.02

1.65

(10) Career aspirations

2.19

1.17 .30** .15* .17** .20**

(11) Mode of entry
2.04 .98
* Correlation is significant, p < .05 (2-tailed).
** Correlation

.17

**

-.11

.15*

-.14*

83

-.11

-.14* -.14*

__

Multiple Regression Model
Both variables “Career aspirations” (i.e., pursue further administration/not pursue further
administration) and “Mode of entry” (i.e., appointed by administration/elected by faculty) were
added to the model during the exploratory phase of analysis. Including them was based upon the
thinking they may have something to do with how new chairs view themselves in the role and
thereby might contribute to the model. In particular, career aspirations were identified as
important because of the various motivations that exist for faculty to take on the department
chair role. One such motivation is to pursue further administration, such as, a future deanship.
Another motivation may be to “take one for the team” with the intention to return to faculty life
after their tenure is up. The risk of “taking one for the team” is that faculty may never completely
make the mental shift over to job of the chair (Seedorf, 1990). Consequently, trying to figure out
what the job is about may never take root for someone who has little interest in understanding
middle administration and policy-directed tasks. The scale career aspiration was grouped into
those who have a desire to pursue further administration and those who wish to return to faculty
work. A medium strong positive correlation of .30 (p < .05) exists between role certainty and
career aspirations suggesting there is some relationship worth exploring.
Mode of entry was the other variable added to the model and includes persons who were
either appointed by senior leadership or those elected by faculty. The nature of how a chair is
appointed becomes important to consider when thinking about how a department may respond to
their leadership. If faculty peers elect the new chair, for instance, the faculty may have a
representative voice within administrative discussions. On the other hand, if senior leadership
appoints the chair there may well be accusations from faculty of administrative “creep”
(Fitzgerald, 2011), which could affect any future performance of the new chair. A small negative

84

correlation of .11 exists between role certainty and mode of entry proposing its inclusion in the
model may be questionable.
Multiple linear regression was used to evaluate the ability of eleven measures (i.e.,
(department climate, intolerance for ambiguity, discretion, novelty, need for control over
department performance, need for control over own tasks, leader feedback, indirect feedback,
and opportunity for feedback, career aspirations, and mode of entry) to predict the role certainty
of new department chairs.
Figure 4.3 shows the data points are randomly and evenly scattered with a majority of
them within the range of ± 2 standard deviations of the mean (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991)
ensuring no violation of the assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity occurred. Moreover,
the normality of residuals in the histogram (see Figure 4.4) displays a normal distribution. Figure
4.5 also shows a normal distribution of the data set because all the points lie on or close to the
line. Moreover, the model proposed poses no cause for concern given tolerance for each of the
variables is neither below 0.1 nor 0.2 supporting the conclusion there is no multicollinearity
within this study’s data.

85

Regression Standardized Residual

Figure 4.3.
Scatterplot of Residuals Against Predicted Scores

Regression Standardized Predicted Value

86

Frequency

Figure 4.4.
Histogram of the Dependent Variable, Role Certainty

Regression Standardized Residual

87

Expected Cum Prob

Figure 4.5.
Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual

Observed Cum Prob

The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 32.1%, F (11, 222) = 9.519, p
< .001 suggesting the model is a better fit of the data and is also better at predicting role certainty
than using the mean leading to an answer of “moderately well” for the research question, “How
well do a new department chair’s role confidence, personality needs, and role support predict
role certainty among new department chairs?” The difference between R2 and the adjusted R2 is
.321 - .288 = .033, signifying that if the study’s model began with the population instead of the
sample it would account for 3.3% less variance in the outcome.

88

What is the relative contribution of each scale to the role certainty of new chairs?
The following predictors were significantly related to the outcome, role certainty:
discretion, need for control over department performance, department climate, leader feedback,
and career aspirations. The following predictors were not significantly related to the outcome,
role certainty: novelty, intolerance for ambiguity, need for control over own tasks, opportunity
for feedback, indirect feedback, and mode of entry (see Table 4.9). The standard coefficients for
predictors significantly related to the outcome are: discretion (β = .210), need for control over
department performance (β = .172), department climate (β = .244), leader feedback (β = .201),
and career aspirations (β = .164).
Table 4.9.
Coefficients Summary for Independent Variables Predicting Role Certainty of New Department
Chairs
Variable
Role Confidence
Discretion
Novelty
Personality needs
Intolerance for ambiguity
Need for control over department
performance
Need for control over own tasks
Role support
Department climate
Leader feedback
Opportunity for feedback
Indirect feedback
Structural variables
Career aspirations
Mode of entry
Note. R2 = .321 (N = 238, p < .05)
* Correlation is significant, p < .05 (2-tailed).

β

p

.210
.001

3.48
.02

.001*
.981

.091

1.50

.134

.172

2.67

.008*

.013

.21

.837

.244
.201
.069
-.019

4.16
3.52
1.22
-.32

.000*
.001*
.225
.747

.164
-.075

89

t

2.78
-1.27

.006*
.205

Career aspirations
The career aspirations scale was meant to discover who among respondents had a desire
to pursue further administration versus those who wished to return to faculty work. A medium
strong positive correlation of .30 (p < .01) existed between role certainty and career aspirations
suggesting there was some relationship worth exploring. The data support this premise and show
that career aspirations matter at a level of significance (p < .05) in explaining role certainty and
uniquely contribute (β = .164) to its description. Results indicate that 47.1% (n = 112) of current
chairs were planning to pursue further administration, as compared to 52.5% (n = 125) who
would return to faculty work. Carroll (1991) reported that of his sample nearly 64.7% of the
chairs went back to faculty work right after holding the chair post compared to 18.7% who
pursued further administration (3.4% left academe, 7.8% retired). What is interesting is that new
chairs intending to return to faculty work were more certain about their role as chair than those
pursuing administrative careers (cf., M = 3.65, SD = .50; M = 3.28, SD = 3.28; p < .05; Cohen’s
d, .09). The findings of the present study are the first in the department chair literature to include
career aspirations as a factor in explaining the role certainty of new chairs. However, the findings
are consistent with other studies that found significant relationships between career transitions
and self-awareness in job tasks (Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994; Louis,
1980; Nicholson, 1984; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).
Department climate
The department climate scale proved to contribute the most in explaining the variance of
role certainty (β = .244) at a level of significance (p < .05) – a finding that was unexpected. The
scale was initially meant to establish a contextual basis for the model, however, the scale ended
up being more important in explaining how people were making sense (Gioia & Thomas, 1996)

90

of their environment. The findings should not come as a total surprise though as numerous
psychological climate studies have shown its influence on cognition, individual work outcomes,
job satisfaction and organizational commitment (cf., Carr et al., (2003) meta analysis of 51
relevant studies; Parker et al., (2003) meta analysis of 94 studies). Additionally, Brown and
Leigh (1996) found that an environment thought by employees to be psychologically “safe” was
positively related to an understanding of what the position required. On average most individuals
from the present study viewed their department with optimism (M = 3.70, SD = .91) agreeing
that their work environment displayed cooperation among individuals, as well as produced work
of higher quality and quantity than others on campus. The squared part correlation value for the
department climate scale is 5.6%, which represents only the unique contribution of this variable
with all shared variance removed.
Discretion
The scale was intended to capture the latitude individuals have to accomplish the
demands of the job as chair. High scores on the discretion scale mean that participants were
afforded the leeway to do the job of department chair. Responses on average were moderately
high (cf., M = 3.86, SD = .78). West, Nicholson, and Rees (1987) argue there exist a priori
reasons that job discretion will be higher among those entering into newly created positions than
for those entering well-understood ones. The results from the present study support their
argument if one accepts the chair’s role as inherently vague (Boyko, 2009; Bennet & Figuli,
1990; Werkema, 2009). The data indicate that discretion was the second largest contributor to
role certainty (β = .210) explaining 3.2% of the total variance of R2 at a positive level of
significance (p < .05).

91

Need for control over department performance
The need for control over department performance measure was meant to capture
whether new chairs had high needs for control. On average participants desired control over
department performance (M = 3.60, SD = .95) having a desire to develop the role where the
outcomes of their behaviors can be predicted, i.e., job change (Black & Ashford, 1995). Black
and Ashford (1995) found that need for control was not significantly associated with job change
– an aspect not dissimilar to role certainty. What I found was the scale positively contributed at a
level of significance in describing the role certainty (β = .172, p < .05). Moreover, the scale
explained 2.3% (i.e., squared part correlation value) of role certainty among new chairs showing
more explanatory power than originally thought. This finding becomes important particularly as
one considers that a desire for control over department performance may actually fuel role
development (Nicholson, 1984; West, Nicholson, & Rees, 1987) amidst circumstances of the
reported high discretion felt by participants (cf., M = 3.86, SD = .78).
Leader feedback
The data from this study indicate that leader feedback is the third largest contributor of
role certainty (β = .201, p < .05) explaining 3.1% of the total variance in R2 (i.e., squared part
correlation value). The finding that leader feedback is positively associated with an increase in
role certainty is consistent with previous research. Notably, Hancock and Hellawell (2003) found
that the middle managers they interviewed agreed performing effectively demanded an
awareness of the thinking by the administrative level above them. When this knowledge was
missing, middle managers believed their performance was handicapped. Others too have found
that new hires require information from supervisors in an attempt to figure out their
organizations and themselves (cf., Louis, 1980; Ostroff & Kozslowski, 1992). Also supporting

92

this finding is the expanding literature on career transitions, which highlights the importance of
relational support in reducing ambiguity and “generally making things easier” for newcomers
(Pinder & Schroeder, 1987, p. 340). Finally, in their meta-analysis of 94 studies with a total
sample size of 65,830, Parker et al. (2003) found elements relating to job tasks and leadership
had the strongest association with psychological well-being of employees. And, when upper
administration was thought to be supportive employees were more likely to be engaged in their
job and maintained greater determination (Brown & Leigh, 1996).
Conclusion
To summarize, of the initial eleven scales and structural variables thought to explain the
variance in role certainty scores, only five reached a level of significance and uniquely
contributed in describing the outcome, role certainty (i.e., department climate, career aspirations,
discretion, need for control over department performance, and leader feedback). The
contributions of department climate, discretion, and leader feedback, however, are relatively
more important in explaining the variation in scores of new department chairs than any of the
other factors posited. The regression model seems to be error-free for the sample and
generalizable to the population. Because the assumptions have been met we can safely suggest
that this model would generalize to the role certainty of any new department chair.

93

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an interpretation of the research findings as
related to the original research question, “How well do a new department chair’s role confidence,
personality needs, and role support predict role certainty among new department chairs?” A
summary of the research problem and purpose are offered followed by comparisons of the
study’s findings to the larger body of higher education and organizational literatures. I discuss
implications of the research findings making a connection to the broader professional practice of
the new department chair. Additionally, recommendations will be offered before concluding with
how the findings contribute to the overall understanding of the role certainty of the new
department chairperson.
The purpose of this research was to discover if the variables role confidence, personality
needs, and role support were predictive in explaining the role certainty of new department chairs.
More particularly, the research was intended to discover the relative contribution of each of the
scales making up the predictor variables. What I expected to find was a model that explained a
sizeable portion of the variances among and between new department chairs’ sense of role
certainty. Based upon theory and research I envisioned each of the three-predictor variables
having a similar amount of influence, making each of them important in their own right.
Guiding my inquiry were various points of view from the higher education literature
about the role of the department chair, as well as select studies on the middle manager from the
organizational literature. In particular, Nicholson’s (1984) work role transition theory from the
organizational literature was used as a means of framing how role confidence, personality needs,
and role support predict the role certainty of new department chairs. Research has not been done

94

in higher education looking at the relative contribution of these specific variables to the role
certainty of new department chairs. What is missing from the higher education literature is a
discussion about those factors that influence the role certainty of new chairs specifically in
response to daily operations. Instead, the extant literature provides descriptions about the role’s
apparent vagueness, as well as the difficulty in categorizing it as faculty or administrator
(Bennett & Figuli, 1990; Boyko, 2009; Seagren, 1993; Westcott, 2000). Adding to the
uncertainty of the position is the steep learning curve associated with the job. The curve is a
result of the changes that accompany the individual moving from faculty work where in most
cases very little administrative experience has been attained to department chair work where as
much as 80% of all institutional administrative decisions occurs (Carroll & Wolverton, 2004;
McLaughlin, Montgomery & Sullins, 1977; Roach, 1976).
As a result, discovering what affects such vagueness becomes important if new chairs are
to make contributions (Pinder & Schroeder, 1987) both to the department and the institution. The
frequently short tenures of department chairs combined with a definite period of “discontinuity
and flux” (Ashforth & Saks, 1995, p. 157), as well as issues of middleness for the department
chair within the university (Clegg & McAuley, 2005; Dill, 1982; 1984) presented an opportunity
to investigate how the time can be shortened for new chairs to make contributions.
Model explained
The results clearly show that a department chair position perceived by newcomers as
supported by the dean is positively related to role certainty through the mediation of discretion
and department climate. New chairs are confident in their role when the dean nurtures the
freedom to adjust the goals and relationships of a new chair’s department. The following is an

95

account of each of the predictor variables found to uniquely contribute to the role certainty of
new department chairs at a level of statistical significance.
Department climate
The relative contribution of department climate was greatest in uniquely explaining the
role certainty among and between new chairs. This finding shows that how chairs perceive the
workplace carries slightly more influence over their confidence about the role than does
receiving feedback from peers or the dean. Based on the data this means the degree to which new
chairs can make contributions to and on behalf of the department is first dependent upon the
perceived level of cooperation among faculty, faculty productivity, open communication, and an
environment conducive to the expression of opinions, ideas, and suggestions (Jones & James,
1979). The good news among this sample is that most people viewed their present departmental
climate as positive. On the one hand this perspective is coming from persons who may still be in
a transitory state (Nicholson, 1984) and enjoying the challenge of new leadership for the benefit
of their colleagues. On the other hand, the response may be entirely reflective of Hargreaves’
(1995) assertion that managers often miscalculate the ability of personnel to hide things from
them. As a result, they may perceive everything to be fine because there is no one around to tell
them the department is in disarray. The status of the climate by the observing new hire has a
direct bearing on their certainty of what the job is about. This is not to say the outlook of the
department must be a positive one, but rather that making quick sense of what is happening
around them is critical. However, there is an argument to be made that congenial departments
may contribute to a fast orientation for the new chair since at employees make contributions to
the organization when they sense the environment is secure thereby allowing them to work
without fear of destruction to their awareness, influence, or position (Brown & Leigh, 1996;

96

Kahn, 1990). The fact that department climate best explains role certainty for this model means
that new chairs ought to hone skills for assessing the departmental environment if they are to
move quickly towards figuring what to do about it, if anything.
Discretion
The present research shows discretion is the second largest contributor of role certainty
among and between new chairs. This means that the degree to which new chairs are afforded the
latitude to modify the structures of relationships and goals within their department affects what
they think the chair job is about (Fenner & Selmer, 2008; Nicholson, 1984). Increased freedom
precedes psychological adjustment and becomes important when it predicts the capacity for
making contributions to the department. In particular, the data say that when freedom is provided
for chairs to act independently of their dean, set their own work objectives/targets, prioritize
when different parts of the role are done, and choose whom to deal with in order to carry out
departmental work, chairs fare better psychologically than those who have limited or no
freedom. Admittedly, the idea of giving new chairs lots of freedom to do a job they have never
done before where little institutional and professional help is available is somewhat counterintuitive. The notion is made worse, when one considers the generally accepted difficulty of the
job (Bennett & Figuli, 1990; Boyko, 2009; Seagren, 1993; Westcott, 2000). This study originally
proposed the position of department chair is one of high discretion because of the ambiguity of
the role’s chief objectives, which while sometimes explicitly laid out in formal job descriptions,
are never fully realized by newcomers until the individual begins the actual work of the position.
Based upon the data, discretion is an essential element for sorting out role certainty among new
department chairs. Where there is high discretion the capacity for contributions increases
because the core questions of “What can I do about it?” and “Do I have the latitude to do

97

anything about it?” have been answered even if other peripheral ones have not. The most
common form for adjustments to discretion levels is through the dean-chair relationship (1984) a
feature of this research discussed next.
Leader feedback
Pinder and Schroeder (1987) found that in addition to the levels of difference between
new and previous roles being indicative of time to proficiency, the degree of seeming support for
newcomers was the most important factor predicting role certainty. One implication of
considering leader feedback alongside discretion is that the dean is a potential source for giving
new chairs the freedom to act independently, set objectives, establish priorities, and choose with
whom to carry out departmental work. As such, an assumption made going into the study was
that the dean is more or less a gatekeeper for the chair getting up to speed (Ostroff & Kozlowski,
1992). Perhaps this is why the relative contribution of leader feedback was the third largest
contributor in explaining role certainty among new department chairs. The finding that leader
feedback is important supports the work of Klein, Fan, and Preacher (2006) who found that agent
helpfulness – a term similar to leader feedback – is related with role clarity, or in this case, role
certainty. Offering regular opportunities for new department chairs to find out how well they are
doing in their job also supports Katz’s (1980) perspective that newcomers require ongoing
information to construct a view of their new employment situation and how they are to operate
within it. Additionally, according to Louis (1980) as well as McCall and Simmons (1978), key
people within organizations hold vast influence on how newcomers come to figure out their role,
making the dean a major player in how new chairs will respond to their new post. Thus,
increasing opportunities for feedback may be a start for addressing ambiguity among new
department chairs so long as the increased feedback is purposeful and useful (Lurie &

98

Swaminathan, 2009), which raises new questions on what exactly is helpful to new department
chairs. This too, however, is interesting as too much information may actually get in the way
(Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979) of sorting out what is going on and fail to encourage
contributions. My point is that each new chair requires different levels of support based upon
their desire for control, which places the skill of discernment at the top of a dean’s set of leader
support skills.
The fact that at least a portion of role certainty is dependent upon the thinking by those
administrators above department chairs is consistent with Hancock and Hellawell’s (2003) study
that discovered middle managers believed their own performance was handicapped when
knowledge of what supervisors were thinking was missing. The parallels between my study’s
findings and those of Hancock and Hellawell (2003) raises concerns as to how much cognitive
space new chairs take up managing the perception of their own image (Gioia & Thomas, 1996)
to cope with the deficit of what their deans are thinking. When deans are not forthcoming with
information role certainty is unlikely to take root among new chairs. Translating these
observations for the new department chair may mean newcomers need to develop strategies for
building trust with the dean to shore up a lack of supervisor discernment and feedback. Some
strategies for building trust may include initiating communication, making frequent contact, and
offering complete candor (Campbell, 2009; Hancock & Hellawell, 2003).
Need for control over department performance
The data show that need for control over department performance affected the role
certainty of new chairs at a level of significance. The results indicate that new hires are more
acquainted with the aspects of their job when they desire control over performance standards in
the department and the quality of the faculty’s work. This conclusion makes sense when three

99

assumptions coexist. One, that employees react poorly to stress when control over one’s tasks is
lessened (Greenberger, 1989). Two, the chair role is filled with stress (Boyko, 2009; Gmelch,
1991; Williams, 2007; Smith & Wolverton, 2010). And three, the department chair is responsible
to the institution for his or her faculty’s increased research activity, exemplary teaching, and
commitment to student and university service (Altbach, 2005; Clegg & McAuley, 2005;
Duderstadt, 2000). A call for public colleges and universities to find more prudent ways of
management (Adams, Robichaux, & Guarino, 2010; Shulman, 2007) creates an opportunity for
the higher education community to rediscover the types of chairs required in today’s highly
accountable environment. New chairs who know they require high levels of control may
strategize on ways to achieve more control and gain higher status for their departments as a
result. This thinking has significant applications for practice because the data imply that search
committees may wish to find new chairs who are resolute towards their department’s
performance. However interesting, finding a chair determined towards department performance
raises a question about the degree to which they are able to move forward on a performance
agenda once appointed. On a larger scale the contribution of need for control over department
performance in explaining role certainty offers a reason to consider how new chairpersons draw
upon other personal attributes for sorting out what is going on around them in their new post –
attributes that were not measured in the present study.
Career aspirations
Department chairs intending to return to faculty work were more certain about their role
as a new chair than those pursuing administrative careers. This finding is counter to Pinder and
Schroeder (1987) who found that new hires doing jobs that were more different than their
previous role (e.g., faculty in new chair roles) had the longest times to proficiency – an aspect

100

similar to role certainty. What is interesting is that we do not know if the faculty from the sample
look longingly to their former life and never make the mental leap over to the chair role (Seedorf,
1990), or live fully in the present. If looking longingly back to faculty life, new chairs may exert
little effort to understand what the role should entail resulting in little interest towards working as
middle administration let alone implementing policies they did not decide (Couch, 1979; Clegg
& McAuley, 2005; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1998; Kanter, 1986). With a focus on the present,
however, chairs may perform more reactively and avoid accruing the skills necessary for making
contributions to his or her department. On the one hand chairs not intending to pursue further
administration may be good for the institution because they are not distracted by career planning
and unrelated initiatives to the post. On the other hand, new chairs intending to pursue further
administration are more likely to create long-term goals (Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007).
Electing ambitious new chairs with long-range goals for further administration may pay
dividends for the department as these persons seek skills required for upward movement and may
subsequently draw on them to aid the department.
Implications for Theory & Research
Because this study is not about the effectiveness of new department chairs in the role (see
Caroll & Gmelch, 1992; Hoyt and Spangler, 1978; Knight & Holen, 1985; McDaniel, 2002;
Middendorf, 2009; Smith & Wolverton, 2010; Spendlove, 2007; Williams, 2007), other possible
factors, or triggers, may influence the outcome of role certainty. Such triggers may include
things like the hiring of a new dean, substantive changes in institutional policy, coworker
scandals and/or major accomplishments requiring new sensemaking (Gioia & Thomas, 1996).
Other triggers may relate to heightened and time-consuming external reporting, new curricular
standards, and even departmental infighting. How personal stress outside the workplace affects

101

newcomer learning (Jones, 1986; Louis, 1980) is also an important area to be explored going
forward.
Future research may include digging deeper into specific aspects of role confidence. One
such area for further research is how the academic experience of faculty members can be applied
to the scholar-advocacy metaphor of the department chair position (Williams, 2007). What
would be valuable is if new studies investigated how particular disciplines allow new chairs to
draw more from their experience as a faculty member than do others. Additional research is also
needed that looks at how the maturity of an individual – presumably resulting from more work
experience – affects the shock of entering the new chair role with its lack of support (Werkema,
2009) and “surprises and unexpected sacrifices” (Gmelch, 1991, abstract).
Whereas, the present study looked at how the personal attributes of individuals interacted
(Nicholson, 1984) with one aspect of an institution’s social system (i.e., leader support), further
study is needed on the effects of other types of institutional support offered for faculty members
transitioning into a new chair role, e.g., human resources, faculty and organizational
development offices. Doing so would aid in a greater understanding of how individuals and their
personal attributes interact with established services meant to quell much of the ambiguity
inherent in a new role. After discovering the degree to which institutions may or may not provide
help, scholarship on department chairs would benefit from research on best models of practice.
What would be equally useful is a discovery of the value added to new chairs who attended such
socialization programs versus those who did not.
Chao et al. (1994) propose that content learning and subsequent learning of one’s role
extends well beyond the newcomer stage, continuing the longer a person is in the role. As such, a
limitation of the present work is the concentration on the newcomer chair. While this single-

102

mindedness is the crux of my argument – that is, making contributions is determined by
shortening the learning curve of newcomers – this effort places undue strain on learning the role
at the front end of one’s career as a chair. As a result, department chair research would profit
from assessing the utility of different socialization models within higher education and in
particular how the continuous socialization model (Taormina, 1997) explains ongoing role
certainty among department chairs overall. Such studies may consider how learning occurs over
the career of a department chair and whether or not there exist various learning periods of
intensity and drought (Hellawell & Hancock, 2003).
Other inquiry will need to focus on what types of metrics appropriately portray role
certainty’s economic impact on institutions. For example, this study claimed that making
contributions to the institution is first indicative of having certainty about the role from which
such contributions are made (Pinder & Schroeder, 1987). However, what is needed is empirical
work tracing role certainty’s relative contribution on the economic language associated with
academic middle management. This language might consist not of dollars and cents on the front
end, but policies and tasks that necessarily translate into dollars at the back end. These things
would include the hiring and firing of faculty, budget and planning, as well as far more policy
implementation and reporting than faculty are used to dealing with.
Understanding how select factors predict the role certainty for new department chairs
applies to the broader research community interested in change and development of institutions.
In particular, the present research provides a glimpse into how the interaction between new
department chairs and institutional systems may affect each other (Nicholson, 1984). Groups
such as faculty and organizational development units within universities would be interested to
know how findings from this study apply to their individual institution. More specifically, the

103

findings from this study may be applicable in the development of particular seminars or
leadership retreats, and possibly for thinking and talking about the relevance of current
institutional socialization efforts for new chairs. Other experts in the field like the American
Council on Education (ACE) and their “Chairing the Academic Department” workshop series
may benefit from the present study’s emphasis on leader support given ACE’s own focus on
teamwork and leadership. And, while there appears to be no leadership initiative strictly focused
on department chairs within the American Association of State Colleges and Universities
(AASCU), the association may be interested in this study because of the match between their
membership and my targeted sample population. Others who may benefit from this project may
include new department chairs who do not know where to start on day one of their post, deans
who are concerned with the improvement of their college and recognize the prominence of the
department chair in accomplishing such a feat, and finally provosts or vice presidents of
academic affairs who understand the intensity of institutional policy implementation at the chair
level.
Finally, more research is needed on a model for predicting the role certainty of new
chairs. Faculty members are socialized to be experts, especially in research (Dill, 1982), but this
same faculty sometimes ends up in chairperson positions and must deal with the fact the two
positions demand different things. By discovering the significance of department climate,
discretion, leader feedback, need for control over department performance, and career aspirations
for the role certainty of new chairs we have a different way of thinking about the current
scholarship on department chairs. Research on how people do the job of department chair (cf.
Bone 2002; Carroll 1991; Hecht 1999; Peters 1994), who is in the role (Boyko 2009; Carroll
2004; Moses & Roe, 1985), and how people prepare for it (Bone, 2002; Hecht, 2006; Peters,

104

1994; Staton-Spicer & Spicer, 1987; Wolverton, Ackerman, & Holt, 2005) may be first more
dependent upon one’s desire for control, departmental context, dean support, and career
intentions than previously thought. Continuing to assess what the role of department chair is
about from a task-list perspective is not helpful in discovering how the chair is involved in larger
issues of “educational strategy and direction” (Amey, 1989, p. 12). As such, more department
chair research based upon theory is needed for refining a model that is better at explaining how
chairs see themselves in the role (Gmelch, 1991).
Implications for Practice
Dill’s (1982) sober analysis reveals that institutions can no longer rest entirely on
historical reputation in the face of increasing competition for funding from a wide class of
donors, top-notch students and faculty, as well as a spot in the top rankings of the day (Boyko,
2009; Smerek, 2010; Wolverton, 2005). Dill posits the institution that invests in the development
of its workforce will gain “uncommon loyalty and commitment” from workers resulting in a
university where contributions (Pinder & Schroeder, 1987) are made out of a surplus of goodwill
and not in reaction to pressing mandates (Cullen, Joyce, Hassall, & Broadbent, 2003). Dill’s
questions force the reader to at least consider how the professional development of new
department chairs may have something to say about the operations found in the administration of
higher education.
Other recommendations for practice include looking for faculty who can sum up a
situation accurately and quickly and present several perspectives simultaneously. By quickly
realizing the composite picture of the department climate new chairs will be able to get beyond
the question, what’s going on here, and work on answering, what can I do about it thereby
making contributions in much less time.

105

Search committees might also look for faculty based upon current levels of discretion
offered by the dean to other existing chairs. If there exists no practice of discretion, then a
stronger desire for control may be required in the candidate, as those persons are more resolute in
seeking information helping them clarify their role.
Based upon the findings of the present study we know there is need for deans to be
involved in the development of newcomer department chairs. This result should be evidence that
new conversations need to take place institutionally about the responsibility of the dean in the
future development of their middle managers, the department chair. Such efforts may translate
into less time spent by new chairs figuring out their role and more time spent in overcoming the
hurdles inherent in meeting the demands of internal and external decision-makers. By extension,
the social significance of organized and purposeful feedback by the dean to new department
chairs may mean everyday tasks (e.g., budgeting) become easier to accomplish sooner. As a
result, cognitive space would be freed up for chairs to ponder the bigger questions of teaching
and learning, as well as questions posed by today’s public and government officials like access,
accountability, and affordability of higher education (Altbach, 2005; Duderstadt, 2000; Gayle,
Tewarie, & White, 2003).
Finally, when looking to hire department chairs institutions ought to consider faculty who
have a desire to advance the institution and are not necessarily bent towards refining their own
national reputation. This may be a contrary position to some who feel that to qualify as an
academic manager one must have first won large grants, published more than anyone in the
department, and be well versed in matters of technology, governance, diversity, government
affairs, and fundraising. Institutions should not want faculty to become chairs simply because
they have checked off the right boxes, or because they can get along with faculty (Chao et al.,

106

1994). If the goal of the department is to provide for the advancement, maintenance, and
communication of knowledge (Coats, 2000), then a chair should have a proven record of being
engaged at all levels of the university. By engaging at various levels with a variety of people
would-be new chairs will have constructed systems of relationships, understand where to go for
information, and how to navigate the various complexities of the university (Rhoads & Tierney,
1990; Tierney, 1988; 1990).
Conclusion
My results support previous findings by Pinder and Schroeder (1987) who stated that
inhibitors of time to proficiency are more a result of situational concerns particular to the
movement between jobs. The data from this research show that making contributions as a chair is
bound up in finding (Ashford & Cummings, 1983, 1985; Miller & Jablin, 1991) and making
sense (Gioia & Thomas, 1996) of the contextual knowledge (Dutton, Ashford, O'Neill, &
Lawrence, 2001) surrounding the role of department chair. New chairs who fail to realize the
knowledge that one “lives” as a subordinate, an equal, and as a superior (Clegg & McAuley,
2005; Uyterhoeven, 1972) will miss leveraging change for the department (Huy, 2001) resulting
in a lack of upward influence for the benefits of the colleagues they represent (Falbe & Yukl,
1992). The interaction between new department chairs and the social system they enter offers
opportunities for new discussions about changing from faculty member to department chair
(Ashforth & Saks, 1995; Nicholson, 1984; Pinder & Schroeder, 1987) and supplies the higher
education literature with empirical data on the role certainty of new department chairs.
Furthermore, in an age of state appropriation reductions (Adams, Robichaux, & Guarino, 2010),
and increasing competition between and among for-profit and non-profit higher education
organizations, post-secondary institutions cannot afford to ignore getting new department chairs

107

up to speed for making contributions while in the role. Based upon the findings of this study
institutions ought to look seriously at the role of the dean, the personal attributes and career
aspirations of chair candidates, and current organizational development offices and programs in
providing support to newcomer department chairs. More measures of accountability will
invariably trickle down from state and federal policy makers (Boyko, 2009) in an effort to judge
the performance effectiveness of state employees (e.g., university). Therefore, what is needed
right now and is ultimately more helpful is to look not at endless lists of department chair
responsibilities, nor how those are being carried out (Seagren, 1993), but at factors that influence
the quality in completing those tasks. If the deficit of new department chair preparation is left
ignored, institutional knowledge gaps will continue and perhaps even grow. However, as many
universities transform from exclusive classrooms to public organizations, higher education must
recognize that department chairs can be the catalysts for change in critical areas such as teaching
and learning and in the implementation of pedagogical missions at the local level (Clegg &
McAuley, 2005). The institution that pays attention to the role of newcomer chairpersons has the
capacity to build superior loyalty and commitment in people living in the middle of
organizational decision-making (Tierney, 2008).

108

APPENDICES

109

APPENDIX A
SURVEY

110

Role Perceptions of Department Chairs
I am conducting research on department chairs/heads about their perception of their role. The purpose of this research is 
to understand the factors that most influence the perception a department chair/head has of their job. I invite you to share 
your experiences by taking this online survey. The survey should take no longer than 20 minutes.  
 
Your help with this study will be immensely important to my research and I value your contribution. If you have any 
questions about the study, please contact me: 
 
You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by submitting this survey. 
 
Timothy G. Campbell 
Doctoral Candidate 
Michigan State University 
(989) 546­7457 
chairfocus@gmail.com 
 
­­­­­­­ 
Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. All information recorded from the survey will be 
kept in confidence. Neither your name nor any information identifying you will be used in any written records or reports. 
Your participation in this project is completely voluntary. At any time during the survey you may refuse to provide 
information or discontinue your participation without giving a reason and with no negative consequences. If you have 
questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this 
study, you may contact my advisor, Dr. Marilyn Amey (amey@msu.edu or 517­432­1056) and or the Human Research 
Protection Program of Michigan State University (irb@msu.edu or 517­355­2180). 

1. Prior to your current appointment as department chair/head, have
you previously held the position of department chair/head at your
present institution?
j
k
l
m
n YES
j
k
l
m
n NO

 

 

2. Are you presently the department chair/head (Interim, Acting, or
Full)?
j
k
l
m
n YES
j
k
l
m
n NO

 

 

3. If "Yes" Select all that apply:
c
d
e
f
g Interim/Acting

 

c
d
e
f
g Associate/Co­chair

 

111

Role Perceptions of Department Chairs
4. How long have you served in your current position (please round
to the nearest year)?
j
k
l
m
n Less than 1 year
j
k
l
m
n 1 year

 

 

j
k
l
m
n 2 years
j
k
l
m
n 3 years

 
 

j
k
l
m
n 4 or more years

 

5. Please respond to the following questions and/or statements about
YOUR PERCEPTION OF YOUR ROLE.
Strongly 

Strongly 

Disagree

Agree

Compared to my predecessor I have made an attempt to redefine my role and 
change what I am required to do.
While I am satisfied with my overall job responsibilities, I have altered the 
procedures for doing by job as compared to my predecessor.
Compared to my predecessor I have changed the mission or purpose of my 
role.
The procedures for performing my job are generally appropriate in my view.

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

6. YOUR PERCEPTION OF YOUR ROLE continued...
Strongly 

Strongly 

Disagree

Agree

I feel certain about how much authority I have

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Clear, planned goals and objectives exist for my job

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

I know that I have divided my time properly

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

I know what my responsibilities are

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

I know exactly what is expected of me

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Explanation is clear of what has to be done

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

7. YOUR PERCEPTION OF YOUR ROLE continued...
Strongly 

Strongly 

Disagree

Agree

My new job is well within the scope of my abilities.

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

I do not anticipate any problems in adjusting to work in this department.

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

I feel I am overqualified for the job I will be doing.

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

I have all the technical knowledge I need to deal with my new job, all I need 
Other 
now is practical experience.

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

I feel confident that my skills and abilities equal or exceed those of my future 

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

colleagues.

112

Role Perceptions of Department Chairs
8. YOUR PERCEPTION OF YOUR ROLE
Strongly 
My past experiences and accomplishments increase my confidence that I will 

Strongly 

Disagree

Agree

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

I could have handled a more challenging job than the one I will be doing.

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Professionally speaking, my new job exactly satisfies my expectations of 

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

be able to perform successfully in this institution.

myself.

9. Which of the following best describes the nature of your
appointment as chair/head?
j
k
l
m
n I was appointed by the dean with the consultation and approval of the faculty

 

j
k
l
m
n I was appointed by the dean without meaningful faculty consultation/approval
j
k
l
m
n I was elected by the faculty to serve a definite term

 

j
k
l
m
n I was elected by the faculty to serve an indefinite term
j
k
l
m
n Other (please specify)

 

 

 
 

10. Please rate the following statements about your DEPARTMENT:
Strongly 
My department is an atmosphere in which there is cooperative effort among 

Strongly 

Disagree

Agree

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

The faculty who comprise my department take pride in the department.

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Within my department there is open communication and trust among faculty 

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

individuals to carry out difficult tasks.
My department is seen as able to produce work of higher quality and quantity 
than other groups in the institution.

and staff and the atmosphere is characterized by friendly relations.
Within my department individuals feel the atmosphere is conducive to the 
expression of individual opinions, ideas, and suggestions.

11. What is the name of your department?
 

12. In what college/school is your department housed?
 

13. What is the total number of regular (full­time & tenure track) faculty members your
department employs?
 

113

Role Perceptions of Department Chairs
14. Please rate how much each of the following responsibilities is a
part of your role as department chair/head:
Hardly 
Departmental representative ­ Promote a positive image and gain financial 
support for the department.
Communication and staff development ­ Provide feedback to the faculty from 
the dean and communicate needs of faculty to higher administration.
Organizer ­ Engage in planning, allocating faculty responsibilities, and 
delegating responsibilities equitably.
Leadership ­ Stimulate faculty research, teaching, and service, and guide 
curriculum development.

A Good 

Any

Amount

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

15. In what geographic region is your institution located?
j
k
l
m
n WEST REGION (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, 
Wyoming) 

j
k
l
m
n SOUTH REGION (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Texas, Virginia, West Virginia) 

j
k
l
m
n NORTHEAST REGION (Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont) 

j
k
l
m
n MIDWEST REGION (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South 
Dakota, Wisconsin) 

16. How much discretion does your present role offer you in each of
the following areas:
Hardly 

A Good 

Any

Amount

Freedom to act independently of my immediate supervisor

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Freedom to set my own work objectives/targets

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Freedom to prioritize when different parts of the role are done

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Freedom to choose whom I deal with in order to carry out departmental work

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

17. How would you rate the differences between your present and
previous jobs in relation to the following areas:
Completely 

The 

Different

Same

The tasks involved

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

The skills required for the job

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

The methods used to do the job

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

114

Role Perceptions of Department Chairs
18. How much control do you desire in the following work areas:
Very 

Very 

Little

Much

The variety of tasks performed

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Decisions as to when things will be done in the department

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

The quality of the faculty’s work

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Performance standards in the department

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

19. Please respond to the following questions and/or statements
about your OWN EFFECTIVENESS over the past year by selecting
which rating best represents your judgment.
Only 
Poor So­
So
Attending to essential administrative tasks (e.g., class scheduling, staffing, 
finances/budgeting, facilities)
Fostering good teaching in the department (e.g., encourages course 
updating, use of appropriate technology, attending to student feedback)
Assisting in securing funding from external sources (e.g., grants, contracts, 
gifts, partnerships)
Leading in establishing and monitoring progress on annual or biannual 
department goals
Guiding the development of sound procedures for assessing faculty 
performance

In 

Between

GoodOutstanding

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

20. OWN EFFECTIVENESS continued...
Only 
Poor So­
So

In 

Between

GoodOutstanding

Facilitating successful recruitment and selection of promising faculty

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Communicating the department’s needs (e.g., personnel, space, monetary, 

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Developing collegiality/cooperation among faculty members

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Stimulating research, scholarly activity, and/or creative endeavors in the 

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

technology) to the dean and other appropriate administrators

department
Guiding the development of a sound long­range plan to carry out 
departmental programs

21. OWN EFFECTIVENESS continued...(almost done)
Only 
Poor So­
So
Promoting a positive image of the department within the campus 

In 

Between

GoodOutstanding

j
k
l
m
n

Fostering the development of each faculty member’s special talents or 
interests
Ensuring that new faculty and staff are acquainted with departmental 
procedures, priorities, and expectations
Clearly communicating expectations of the campus administration to the 
faculty
Stimulating or rejuvenating faculty vitality/enthusiasm

115

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

community

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Role Perceptions of Department Chairs
22. OWN EFFECTIVENESS (end of section)
Only 
Poor So­
So

In 

Between

GoodOutstanding

Facilitating curriculum development

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Establishing trust between myself and members of the faculty

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Promoting a positive image of the department to off­campus constituencies

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Rewarding faculty in accordance with their contributions to the department

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Ensuring the assessment of student learning outcomes is meaningful and 

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

ongoing
Actively supporting student recruitment and retention efforts

23. How much opportunity exists to find out how well you are doing in
your job?
j
k
l
m
n A minimum amount
j
k
l
m
n None

 

 

j
k
l
m
n A maximum amount

 

24. Please rate the following statements:
Strongly 
In a decision­making situation in which there is not enough information to 

Strongly 

Disagree

Agree

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

If I am uncertain about the responsibility of my role, I get very anxious.

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

A problem has little attraction for me if I don't think it has a solution.

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

process the problem, I feel very uncomfortable.
I don't like to work on a problem unless there is a possibility of coming out 
with a clear­cut and unambiguous answer.
I function very poorly whenever there is a serious lack of communication in a 
job situation.
In a situation in which other people evaluate me, I feel a great need for clear 
and explicit evaluations.

25. To whom do you report at your current institution?
j
k
l
m
n Chief Executive Officer (e.g., president, chancellor, or equivalent)
j
k
l
m
n Chief Academic Officer

 

j
k
l
m
n Vice President/Vice Chancellor
j
k
l
m
n Vice Provost
j
k
l
m
n Dean

 

 

 

j
k
l
m
n Other (please specify)

 
 

116

 

Role Perceptions of Department Chairs
26. How long has the [Q25] served in the position (please round to the nearest year)?
j
k
l
m
n Less than 1 year
j
k
l
m
n 1 year

 

 

j
k
l
m
n 2 years
j
k
l
m
n 3 years
j
k
l
m
n 4 years
j
k
l
m
n 5 years
j
k
l
m
n 6 years

 
 
 
 
 

j
k
l
m
n 7+ years

 

27. How frequently do you use the following strategies of feedback
seeking:
Very 

Very 

Infrequently

Frequently

Ask the [Q25]

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Ask co­workers

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Compare yourself with others

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Observe the characteristics of those praised by the [Q25]

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Pay attention to how the [Q25] and fellow co­workers act toward you and 

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

use this as feedback information

28. To what extent do you find out from the [Q25] how you are doing
on the job as you are working?
j
k
l
m
n Very little, I often work for long stretches without finding out how I am doing
j
k
l
m
n Moderately, I sometimes know how I am doing and other times I do not

 

 

j
k
l
m
n Very much, I get almost constant "feedback" on my performance as I work

 

29. How would you rate the overall performance of the [Q25]?
j
k
l
m
n Poor

 

j
k
l
m
n Only So­So
j
k
l
m
n In Between
j
k
l
m
n Good

 

 

 

j
k
l
m
n Outstanding

 

117

Role Perceptions of Department Chairs
30. What are the three greatest challenges you have faced during your time as a
department chair/head?
a.
b.
c.

31. What are your career aspirations once your time is up as
department chair/head?
j
k
l
m
n Pursue another term as department chair.
j
k
l
m
n Return to full­time faculty work.
j
k
l
m
n Apply for a dean position.

 

 

 

j
k
l
m
n Apply for another administrative position.
j
k
l
m
n Leave higher education altogether.

 

 

32. What position/title did you hold prior to serving in your current position?
 

33. How long did you serve in your previous position (please round to the nearest
year)?
 

34. What is the highest degree you hold?
j
k
l
m
n Bachelor's (B.A., B.S., etc.)

 

j
k
l
m
n Master's (M.A., M.S., M.Ed., M.B.A., etc.)
j
k
l
m
n Doctorate (Ph.D., Ed.D., etc.)

 

j
k
l
m
n Professional (J.D., M.D., Psy.D., etc.)
j
k
l
m
n Both Doctorate and Professional
j
k
l
m
n Other (please specify)

 

 

 

 
 

35. What is your gender?
j
k
l
m
n Male

 

j
k
l
m
n Female

 

36. Please specify your ethnicity
j
k
l
m
n Hispanic or Latino

 

j
k
l
m
n Not Hispanic or Latino

 

118

Role Perceptions of Department Chairs
37. From the selections below, please mark one or more boxes indicating the race group
(s) with which you most closely identify:
c
d
e
f
g American Indian or Alaska Native
c
d
e
f
g Asian

 

 

c
d
e
f
g Black or African American

 

c
d
e
f
g Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
c
d
e
f
g White

 

 

119

APPENDIX B
EMAIL INVITATION TEXT

120

Initial Email Text
Dear	
  Department	
  Chair:	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  am	
  conducting	
  research	
  on	
  department	
  chairs/heads	
  about	
  their	
  perception	
  of	
  their	
  
role.	
  The	
  purpose	
  of	
  this	
  research	
  is	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  factors	
  that	
  most	
  influence	
  the	
  
perception	
  a	
  department	
  chair/head	
  has	
  of	
  their	
  job.	
  I	
  invite	
  you	
  to	
  share	
  your	
  experiences	
  by	
  
taking	
  this	
  online	
  survey.	
  The	
  survey	
  should	
  take	
  no	
  longer	
  than	
  20	
  minutes.	
  	
  
Your	
  help	
  with	
  this	
  study	
  will	
  be	
  immensely	
  important	
  to	
  my	
  research	
  and	
  I	
  value	
  your	
  	
  
contribution.	
  If	
  you	
  have	
  any	
  questions	
  about	
  the	
  study,	
  please	
  contact	
  me.	
  	
  
	
  
Survey:	
  Role	
  Perceptions	
  of	
  Department	
  Chairs	
  	
  
	
  
You	
  indicate	
  your	
  voluntary	
  agreement	
  to	
  participate	
  by	
  submitting	
  this	
  survey.	
  	
  
	
  
Timothy	
  G.	
  Campbell	
  	
  
Doctoral	
  Candidate	
  	
  
Michigan	
  State	
  University	
  	
  
(989)	
  XXX-­‐7457	
  XXXXXX@gmail.com	
  	
  
	
  
If	
  you'd	
  like	
  to	
  be	
  taken	
  off	
  this	
  list	
  please	
  hit	
  reply	
  or	
  email	
  XXXXXX@gmail.com	
  and	
  
include	
  "Remove"	
  in	
  the	
  subject	
  line.

Reminder Email Text
If	
  you've	
  already	
  received	
  this	
  request	
  and	
  have	
  answered	
  the	
  questionnaire,	
  or	
  do	
  not	
  
wish	
  to,	
  please	
  ignore	
  it.	
  Because	
  the	
  survey	
  is	
  completely	
  anonymous	
  I	
  am	
  unable	
  to	
  discover	
  
who	
  has	
  and	
  has	
  not	
  taken	
  the	
  survey.	
  I	
  apologize	
  for	
  any	
  inconvenience.	
  There	
  will	
  only	
  be	
  
two	
  more	
  reminders.	
  	
  
	
  
Dear	
  Department	
  Chair:	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  am	
  conducting	
  research	
  on	
  department	
  chairs/heads	
  about	
  their	
  perception	
  of	
  their	
  
role.	
  The	
  purpose	
  of	
  this	
  research	
  is	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  factors	
  that	
  most	
  influence	
  the	
  
perception	
  a	
  department	
  chair/head	
  has	
  of	
  their	
  job.	
  I	
  invite	
  you	
  to	
  share	
  your	
  experiences	
  by	
  
taking	
  this	
  online	
  survey.	
  The	
  survey	
  should	
  take	
  no	
  longer	
  than	
  20	
  minutes.	
  	
  
Your	
  help	
  with	
  this	
  study	
  will	
  be	
  immensely	
  important	
  to	
  my	
  research	
  and	
  I	
  value	
  your	
  
contribution.	
  	
  
	
  
Survey:	
  Role	
  Perceptions	
  of	
  Department	
  Chairs	
  	
  
	
  
If	
  you	
  have	
  questions	
  or	
  concerns	
  regarding	
  your	
  rights	
  as	
  a	
  study	
  participant,	
  or	
  are	
  
dissatisfied	
  at	
  any	
  time	
  with	
  any	
  aspect	
  of	
  this	
  study,	
  you	
  may	
  contact	
  my	
  advisor,	
  Dr.	
  Marilyn	
  
Amey	
  (XXXX@msu.edu	
  or	
  517-­‐432-­‐1056)	
  and	
  or	
  the	
  Human	
  Research	
  Protection	
  Program	
  of	
  
Michigan	
  State	
  University	
  (irb@msu.edu	
  or	
  517-­‐355-­‐2180).	
  This	
  study	
  has	
  IRB	
  approval	
  and	
  is	
  
project	
  number	
  X11-­‐250.	
  	
  

121

	
  
Timothy	
  G.	
  Campbell	
  	
  
Doctoral	
  Candidate	
  	
  
Higher,	
  Adult,	
  and	
  Lifelong	
  Education	
  	
  
Michigan	
  State	
  University	
  	
  
(989)	
  XXX-­‐7457	
  XXXXXX@gmail.com*,	
  campb603@msu.edu	
  	
  
	
  
Program	
  link:	
  http://www.educ.msu.edu/ead/HALE/phdhale/default.asp	
  	
  
	
  
If	
  you'd	
  like	
  to	
  be	
  taken	
  off	
  this	
  list	
  please	
  hit	
  reply	
  or	
  email	
  XXXXXX@gmail.com	
  and	
  
include	
  "Remove"	
  in	
  the	
  subject	
  line.	
  	
  
	
  
*The	
  reason	
  for	
  the	
  gmail	
  account	
  is	
  for	
  logistic	
  purposes.	
  	
  

	
  

122

REFERENCES

123

References
Adams III, O. L., Robichaux, R. R., & Guarino, A. J. (2010). More “private” than private
institutions: Public institutions of higher education and financial management. The Journal
of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 10(1), 1-16.
Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1),
1-18.
Altbach, P. G. (1999). Harsh realities: The professoriate faces a new century. American Higher
Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, 271297.
Amey, M. J. (1989). Academic vice presidents in action: An analysis of four areas of leadership
competency. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University.
Amey, M. J., Eddy, P. L., & Campbell, T. G. (2010). Crossing boundaries creating community
college partnerships to promote educational transitions. Community College Review, 37(4),
333.
Argyris, C. (1976). Single-Loop and double-loop models in research on decision making.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 363-375.
Ashford, S. J. & Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of
the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58(1), 67-79.
Ashford, S. J. & Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-Regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of
active feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 251-280.
Ashforth, B. E. & Saks, A. M. (1995). Work-Role transitions: A longitudinal examination of the
Nicholson model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68(2), 157-175.
Ashforth, B. E. & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer
adjustment. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 149-178.
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in organizational contexts.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1-70.
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Saks, A. M. (2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior,
and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
70(3), 447-462.
Bartram, D. (2005). The great eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation.
The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1185-1203.

124

Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer
adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents,
outcomes, and methods. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707-21.
Bennett, J. B. (1988). Department chairs: Leadership in the trenches. Leaders for a New Era:
Strategies for Higher Education.
Bennett, J. B. & Figuli, D. J. (1990). Enhancing departmental leadership: The roles of the
chairperson. Macmillan Publishing Co., 866 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022 (27.95).
Bensimon, E. M., Ward, K., & Sanders, K. (2000). The department chair's role in developing
new faculty into teachers and scholars. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishers.
Benton, Gross, Pallett, Song, & Webster (2010, December). IDEA technical report no. 14
[Technical Manual for the Revised IDEA Feedback for Department Chairs System].
Manhattan, Kansas: The IDEA Center.
Black, J. S. (1988). Work role transitions: A study of American expatriate managers in japan.
Journal of International Business Studies, 277-294.
Black, J. S. & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Fitting in or making jobs fit: Factors affecting mode of
adjustment for new hires. Human Relations, 48(4), 421.
Bone, A. & Bourner, T. (2002). Developing university managers. Higher Education Quarterly,
52(3), 283-299.
Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Payne, S. C., & Culbertson, S. S. (2009). Changes in newcomer job
satisfaction over time: Examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(4), 844.
Boyko, L. (2009). An examination of academic department chairs in Canadian universities.
Thesis, Toronto: Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education University of Toronto.
Brace, N., Kemp, R., & Snelgar, R. (2003). SPSS for psychologists: A guide to data analysis
using SPSS for windows, versions 9, 10, and 11 (2, illustrated, annotated ed.). Mahwah, N.J.:
Psychology Press.
Brett, J. M. (1982). Job transfer and well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(4), 450.
Brett, J. M. (1984). Job transitions and personal and role development. Research in Personnel
and Human Resources Management, 2, 155-185.
Brown, F. W. & Moshavi, D. (2002). Herding academic cats: Faculty reactions to
transformational and contingent reward leadership by department chairs. Journal of

125

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 8(3), 79.
Campbell, T. “What’s Love got to do with it? Building Trust Between CEOs and Newly
Appointed Board Chairs,” Executive Leadership Collection, Engstrom Institute On-Line
Journal, San Clemente, CA, 2009.
Carr, J. Z., Schmidt, A. M., Ford, J. K., & DeShon, R. P. (2003). Climate perceptions matter: A
meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and
individual level work outcomes. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 605-619.
Carroll, J. B. (1991). Career paths of department chairs: A national perspective. Research in
Higher Education, 32(6), 669-688.
Carroll, J. B. & Gmelch, W. H. (1992). The relationship of department chair roles to important
of chair duties. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of
Higher Education, Minneapolis, MN.
Carroll, J. B. & Wolverton, M. (2004). Who becomes a chair? New Directions for Higher
Education, 2004(126), 3-10.
Chao, G. T., O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994).
Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79(5), 730.
Chhokar, J. S. & Wallin, J. A. (1984). A field study of the effect of feedback frequency on
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 524-530.
Cicero, L., Pierro, A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2010). Leadership and uncertainty: How role
ambiguity affects the relationship between leader group prototypicality and leadership
effectiveness. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 411-421.
Clegg, S. & McAuley, J. (2005). Conceptualizing middle management in higher education: A
multifaceted discourse. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(1), 19-34.
Coats, L. T. (2000). Interpersonal behavior and the community college department chairperson.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24(10), 773-783.
Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statiscal power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cook, J. D. & Heptworth, S. J. (1981). The experience of work: A compendium and review of
249 measures and their use. Academic Press London.
Cooper-Thomas, H. D. & Anderson, N. (2005). Organizational socialization: A field study into
socialization success and rate. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(2),
116-128.

126

Couch, P. D. (1979). Learning to be a middle manager. Business Horizons, 22(1), 33 - 41.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435.
Creswell, J. W., Wheeler, D. W., Egly, N. J., & Beyer, K. (1990). The academic chairperson's
handbook. University of Nebraska Press.
Cullen, J., Joyce, Hassall, & Broadbent (2003). Quality in higher education: From monitoring to
management. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 5-14.
Davies, J. & Thomas, H. (2009). What do business school deans do? Insights from a UK study.
Management Decision, 47(9), 1396-1419.
Deci, E. L. (1972). The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls on intrinsic
motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8(2), 217-229.
DeVaus (2002). Surveys in social research (5 ed.). Australia: Routledge.
Dill, D. D. (1982). The management of academic culture: Notes on the management of meaning
and social integration. Higher Education, 11(3), 303-320.
Dill, D. D. (1984). The nature of administrative behavior in higher education. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 69.
Dopson, S., Risk, A., & Stewart, R. (1992). The changing role of the middle manager in the
United Kingdom. International Studies of Management & Organization, 22(1).
Downey, H. K., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (1975). Congruence between individual needs,
organizational climate, job satisfaction and performance. The Academy of Management
Journal, 18(1), 149-155.
Druskat, V. U. & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership
of self-managing work teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 435-457.
Duderstadt, J. (2000). A university for the 21st century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Duke, C. (2001). Networks and managerialism: Field-Testing competing paradigms. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 23(1), 103-118.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O'Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue
selling and organizational change. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 716-736.
Eckel, P. D. (2006). The shifting frontiers of academic decision making: Responding to new
priorities, following new pathways. Praeger Publishers.

127

Edwards, J. W. (2006). Department chair roles in the community college. Thesis, North Carolina
State University.
Fang, R., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2011). The organizational socialization process: Review
and development of a social capital model. Journal of Management, 37(1), 127.
Farh, C. I. C., Bartol, K. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Shin, J. (2010). Networking abroad: A process
model of how expatriates form support ties to facilitate adjustment. The Academy of
Management Review (AMR), 35(3), 434-454.
Farmer, S. M., Maslyn, J. M., Fedor, D. B., & Goodman, J. S. (1997). Putting upward influence
strategies in context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 17-42.
Fenner, C. R. & Selmer, J. (2008). Public sector expatriate managers: Psychological adjustment,
personal characteristics and job factors. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19(7), 1237-1252.
Fitzgerald, T. (2011). Tracing the fault lines. In International perspectives on higher education
research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Gabbidon, S. L. (2005). A study on the attitudes and experiences of chairpersons in American
criminology and criminal justice programs. J. Crim. Just. Educ., 16, 4.
Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Gayle, D. J., Tewarie, B., & White Jr, A. Q. (2003). Governance in the twenty-first-century
university: Approaches to effective leadership and strategic management. [ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report]. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series.
Ghoshal, S. & Bartlett, C. A. (1997). The individualized corporation: A fundamentally new
approach to management: Great companies are defined by purpose, process, and people.
HarperBusiness.
Gioia, D. A. & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking
during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370-403.
Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic
change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science,
5(3), 363-383.
Giuffre, S. M. (2007). Professional background & training of physical therapy department
chairpersons. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh.
Gmelch, W. H. (1991). Paying the price for academic leadership: Department chair tradeoffs.

128

Gmelch, W. H. (2004). The department chair's balancing acts. New Directions for Higher
Education, 2004(126), 69-84.
Gmelch, W. H. (2006). Stress management strategies for academic leaders. Effective Practices
for Academic Leaders, 1(1), 1-16.
Gmelch, W. H. & Burns, J. S. (1993). The cost of academic leadership: Department chair stress.
Innovative Higher Education, 17(4), 259-270.
Gmelch, W. H. & Miskin, V. D. (1995). Chairing an academic department. Sage Publications.
Gmelch, W. H. & Miskin, V. D. (2004). Chairing an academic department (2 ed.). Madison, WI:
Atwood Publishing.
Graen, G. (1976). Role-Making processes within complex organizations. Handbook of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1245.
Greenberger, D. B., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1981). Personal control at work: Its
conceptualization and measurement. University of Madison-Wisconsin Graduate School:
Defense Technical Information Center.
Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). The impact of
personal control on performance and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 43(1), 29 - 51.
Grigsby, R. K., Hefner, D. S., Souba, W. W., & Kirch, D. G. (2004). The future-oriented
department chair. Academic Medicine, 79(6), 571.
Hackman, J. R. & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 55(3), 259-286.
Hancock, N. & Hellawell, D. E. (2003). Academic middle management in higher education: A
game of hide and seek? Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 25(1), 5.
Handy, C. B. (1976). Understanding organizations. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Handy, C. B. (1977). The organizations of consent. In D. W. Piper & R. Glatter (Eds.), The
changing university (D. W. Piper & R. Glatter, Eds.). (pp. 249-56). Atlantic Highlands, N.J.:
Humanities Press, Inc.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1995). Self-Managing schools and development planning—chaos or control?
School Leadership & Management, 15(3), 215-227.
Harrison, D. A. & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Mapping the criterion space for expatriate success:
Task and relationship-based performance, effort and adaptation. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 16(8), 1454-1474.

129

Hart, Z. P. & Miller, V. D. (2005). Context and message content during organizational
socialization. Human Communication Research, 31(2), 295-309.
Harvey, M. (1982). The other side of the foreign assignment; dealing with the repatriation
problem. Columbia Journal of World Business, (17), 53-59.
Haueter, J. A., Macan, T. H., & Winter, J. (2003). Measurement of newcomer socialization:
Construct validation of a multidimensional scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(1), 2039.
Haynes, C. C., Wall, T. T., Bolden, R. R., Stride, S., & Rick, J. J. (1999). Measures of perceived
work characteristics for health services research: Test of a measurement model and
normative data. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 257-275.
Hecht, I. W. D. (2006). Becoming a department chair: To be or not to be. Effective Practices for
Academic Leaders, 1(3), 1-16.
Hecht, I. W. D., Kozlowski, Tucker, A., Higgerson, M. L., & Gmelch, W. H. (1999). The
department chair as academic leader. Arizona: Oryx Press Phoenix.
Hellawell, D. & Hancock, N. (2001). A case study of the changing role of the academic middle
manager in higher education: Between hierarchical control and collegiality? Research
Papers in Education, 16(2), 183-197.
Hellriegel, D. & Slocum Jr, J. W. (1974). Organizational climate: Measures, research and
contingencies. Academy of Management Journal, 255-280.
House, R. J. & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of
organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7(3), 467 - 505.
Hoyt, D. P. & Spangler, R. K. (1978). Administrative effectiveness of the academic department
head: Correlates of effectiveness (Research Report No. 47)). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State
University, Office of Educational Research.
Huy, Q. N. (2001). In praise of middle managers. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 72-79.
IDEA (2010). Feedback for department chairs. [internet]. IDEA. Retrieved June 12, 2010, from
http://www.theideacenter.org/node/8
Ilgen, D., Fisher, C., & Taylor, M. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in
organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349.
Jablin, F. M. & Putnam, L. (2001). The new handbook of organizational communication:
Advances in theory, research, and methods. Sage Publications, Inc.

130

Jablin, F. M., Cude, R. L., House, A., Lee, J., & Roth, N. L. (1994). Communication competence
in organizations: Conceptualization and comparison across multiple levels of analysis.
Organization-Communication: Emerging Perspectives, 4, 114-140.
Jablin, M. (1984). Assimilating new members into organizations. In R. Bostrom (Ed.),
Communication yearbook (R. Bostrom, Ed.). (pp. 594-626). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior--Subordinate communication: The state of the art. Psychological
Bulletin, 86(6), 1201.
Jaeger, D. & Pekruhl, U. (1998). Participative company management in Europe: The new role of
middle management. New Technology, Work and Employment, 13(2), 94-103.
Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role
identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity.
Research Policy, 38(6), 922-935.
James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C. H. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, M. A., et al.
(2008). Organizational and psychological climate: A review of theory and research.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 5-32.
Johnson, R. T. (2011). The internal conflict experienced by public community college academic
department chairs. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Jones, A. P. & James, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of
individual and aggregated work environment perceptions. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 23(2), 201 - 250.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to
organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 262-279.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-Factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 692-724.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Livingston, B. A., & Liao, H. (2010). Perceived similarity, proactive
adjustment, and organizational socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Kanter, R. M. (1986). The reshaping of middle management. Management Review, 75(1), 19.
Katz (1980). Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 2, 81-121.
Katz (1985). Organizational stress and early socialization experiences. In Beehr & Bhagat (Eds.),

131

Human stress and cognition in organizations: An integrative perspective (Beehr & Bhagat,
Eds.). (pp. 117-39). New York: Wiley.
Kelly, R. (2004, December). Dealing with ‘administrative mandates’. ACE Department Chair
Online Resource Center. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from
http://www.acenet.edu/resources/chairs/docs/Kelly_Mandates.pdf
Klein, H. J. & Weaver, N. A. (2000). The effectiveness of an organizational-level orientation
training program in the socialization of new hires. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 47-66.
Klein, H. J., Fan, J., & Preacher, K. J. (2006). The effects of early socialization experiences on
content mastery and outcomes: A mediational approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
68(1), 96-115.
Knight, W. H. & Holen, M. C. (1985). Leadership and the perceived effectiveness of department
chairpersons. The Journal of Higher Education, 56(6), 677-690.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of
Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 333-375.
Kramer, M. W. (2010). Organizational socialization: Joining and leaving organizations. Polity
Press.
Krasman, J. (2009). The feedback-seeking personality: Big five and feedback-seeking behavior.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 18-32.
Larson, J. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay between employees' feedback-seeking strategies and
supervisors' delivery of performance feedback. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3),
pp. 408-422.
Lees, D. N., Malik, D., & Vemuri, G. (2009, November 30). The essentials of chairing academic
departments. ACE Department Chair Online Resource Center. Retrieved September 18,
2010, from http://www.acenet.edu/resources/chairs/index.cfm?section=1&subsection=3
Louis (1990). Acculturation in the workplace: Newcomers as lay ethnographers. In Schneider
(Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (Schneider, Ed.). (pp. 85-129). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering
unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 226-251.
Lurie, N. H. & Swaminathan, J. M. (2009). Is timely information always better? The effect of
feedback frequency on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 108(2), 315 - 329.
Luthans, F. & Church, A. H. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing

132

psychological strengths [and executive commentary]. The Academy of Management
Executive (1993-2005), 16(1), pp. 57-75.
Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal
investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderating
effects of role development factors. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(3), 418-431.
Master's Colleges and Universities. (2011). Master's colleges and universities. (Classification
Description) [Web page]. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Retrieved November 10, 2010, from
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/basic.php
McArthur, R. C. (2002). Democratic leadership and faculty empowerment at the community
college: A theoretical model for the department chair. Community College Review, 30(3), 1.
McCall, G. J. & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and interactions: An examination of human
associations in everyday life. New York: Free Press.
McDaniel, E. A. (2002). Senior leadership in higher education: An outcomes approach. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 80.
McLaughlin, G. W., Montgomery, J. R., & Robert, W. (1977). Roles and characteristics of
department chairmen in state universities as related to level of decision-making. Research in
Higher Education, 6(4), 327-341.
Mercer, J. (2009). Junior academic-manager in higher education: An untold story? The
International Journal of Educational Management, 23(4), 348-359.
Middendorf, B. J. (2009). Evaluating department chairs' effectiveness using faculty ratings.
Thesis, Kansas State University.
Miller, V. D. & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry:
Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 92120.
Miller, V. D., Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., Myers, K. K., Hee Sun Park, Monge, P., et al. (2011).
Advancing research in organizational communication through quantitative methodology.
Management Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 4-58.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organizations.
New York: Free Press.
Misa, K. F. & Fabricatore, J. M. (1979). Return on investment of overseas personnel. Financial
Executive, 47(4), 42-46.
Mitchell, T. R. & James, L. R. (1989). Introduction and background. The Academy of

133

Management Review, 14(3), 331-332.
Moeller, M., Harvey, M., & Williams, W. (2010). Socialization of inpatriate managers to the
headquarters of global organizations: A social learning perspective. Human Resource
Development Review, 9(2), 169.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and
outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 6(3), 557-589.
Morrison, E. W. (1995). Information usefulness and acquisition during organizational encounter.
Management Communication Quarterly, 9(2), 131.
Munton, A. G. & West (1995). Innovations and personal change: Patterns of adjustment to
relocation; summary. Journal of Organizational Behavior (1986-1998), 16(4), 363-375.
Murray, D. (2003). Leading university-wide change: Defining new roles for the department
chair. ACE Department Chair Online Resource Center. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from
http://www.acenet.edu/resources/chairs/index.cfm?section=1&subsection=3
Mutis, M. C. (2009). An examination of the role dimensions of the community college
department chairperson. Thesis, Roosevelt University.
Myers, K. K. & Oetzel, J. G. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of organizational assimilation:
Creating and validating a measure. Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 438-457.
Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6,
illustrated ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(2),
172-191.
Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality Assessment,
39(6), 607.
Odden, C. M. & Sias, P. M. (1997). Peer communication relationships and psychological
climate. Communication Quarterly, 45(3), 153-166.
Ostroff, C. & Kozlowski, S. W. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The
role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45(4), 849-874.
Ott, R. L. & Longnecker, M. (2008). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis.
Duxbury Press.
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
windows version 15. Australia: Allen & Unwin.

134

Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A., et al.
(2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 389-416.
Paulus, P. B. & Nijstad, B. A. (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration
(illustrated ed.). New York: Oxford University Press US.
Pedhazur, E. J. & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated
approach. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Peters, G. F. (1994). Institutional responsibility and chair training: The Michigan state model.
ADFL Bulletin, 25(3), 99-103.
Pinder, C. C. & Das, H. (1979). Hidden costs and benefits of employee transfers. Human
Resource Planning, 2(3), 23-32.
Pinder, C. C. & Schroeder, K. G. (1987). Time to proficiency following job transfers. Academy
of Management Journal, 30(2), 336-353.
Rhoades, G. & Sporn, B. (2002). New models of management and shifting modes and costs of
production: Europe and the United States. Tertiary Education and Management, 8(1), 3-28.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150-63.
Roach, J. H. L. (1976). The academic department chairperson: Functions and responsibilities.
Educational Record, 57(1), 13-23.
Roach, K. D. (1991a). Graduate teaching assistants' use of behavior alteration techniques in the
university classroom. Communication Quarterly, 39(2), 178-188.
Roach, K. D. (1991b). University department chairs' use of compliance-gaining strategies.
Communication Quarterly, 39(1), 75-90.
Saks, A. M. & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense of the past and
present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(2), 234-279.
Saks, A. M. & Gruman, J. A. (2011). Organizational socialization and positive organizational
behaviour: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L'administration, 28(1), 4-16.
Santiago, R. & Carvalho, T. (2008). Academics in a new work environment: The impact of new
public management on work conditions. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3), 204-223.
Scarbrough, H. (1998). The unmaking of management? Change and continuity in British
management in the 1990s. Human Relations, 51(6), 691-716.

135

Schaffer, R. H. (1985). A study of role conflict in chairpersons of academic departments of
occupational therapy and physical therapy in Canadian universities. Thesis, University of
Toronto.
Schmitt, N., Coyle, B. W., White, J. K., & Rauschenberger, J. (1978). Background, needs, job
perceptions, and job satisfaction: A causal model. Personnel Psychology, 31(4), 889-901.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453.
Scott, C. & Myers, K. (2010). Toward an integrative theoretical perspective on organizational
membership negotiations: Socialization, assimilation, and the duality of structure.
Communication Theory, 20(1), 79-105.
Seagren, A. T. (1993). The department chair: New roles, responsibilities and challenges. ASHEERIC higher education report no. 1.
Seedorf, R. G. (1990). Transition to leadership: The university department chair. Thesis,
Washington State University.
Selmer, J. & Lauring, J. (2011). Expatriate academics: Job factors and work outcomes.
International Journal of Manpower, 32(2), 194-210.
Shattock, M. (2002). Rebalancing modern concepts of university governance. Higher Education
Quarterly, 56(3), 235-244.
Shulman, L. S. (2007). Counting and recounting: Assessment and the quest for accountability.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(1), 20-25.
Sieg, K. W. (1986). Chairing the academic occupational therapy department: A job analysis. The
American Journal of Occupational Therapy: Official Publication of the American
Occupational Therapy Association, 40(2), 89.
Smerek, R. E. (2010). Cultural perspectives of academia: Toward a model of cultural
complexity. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 25, 381-423.
Smith, A. B. & Stewart, G. (1998). The process of role transitioning of new community college
department chairs in Texas.
Smith, A. B. & Stewart, G. A. (1999). A statewide survey of new department chairs: Their
experiences and needs in learning their roles. New Directions for Community Colleges,
1999(105), 29-36.
Smith, Z. A. & Wolverton, M. (2010). Higher education leadership competencies: Quantitatively
refining a qualitative model. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 61.

136

Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Ohly, S. (2004). Learning at work: Training and development.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2004, 249-289.
Spendlove, M. (2007). Competencies for effective leadership in higher education. International
Journal of Educational Management, 21(5), 407-417.
Staton-Spicer, A. Q. & Spicer, C. H. (1987). Socialization of the academic chairperson: A
typology of communication dimensions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(1), 41.
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4 ed.). Mahwah, N.J.:
Psychology Press.
De Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Sully de Luque, M. F. (2010). Proactivity with image
in mind: How employee and manager characteristics affect evaluations of proactive
behaviors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 347-369.
Sutton, R. I. & Louis, M. R. (1987). How selecting and socializing newcomers influences
insiders. Human Resource Management, 26(3), 347-361.
Taormina, R. J. (1994). The organizational socialization inventory. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 2(3), 133-145.
Taormina, R. J. (1997). Organizational socialization: A multidomain, continuous process model.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5(1), 29-47.
Taormina, R. J. (2004). Convergent validation of two measures of organizational socialization.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 76-94.
Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in
organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 275-300.
Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The
Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21.
Tierney, W. G. (1990). Assessing academic climates and cultures. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tucker, A. (1984). Chairing the academic department: Leadership among peers. Washington,
D.C.: American Council on Education.
Tucker, A. (1992). Chairing the academic department: Leadership among peers (3 ed.). New
York: American Council on Education/Macmillan Publishing Company.
Unferth, V. L. (2001). A study of interactions among residential US and international
undergraduates at Michigan state university. Thesis, Michigan State University. Dept. of
Educational Administration.

137

Uyterhoeven, H. (2001). General managers in the middle. Harvard Business Review, 136-145.
Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. H. (1979). Towards a theory of organizational socialization. In B.
M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (B. M. Staw, Ed.). (pp. 209-64).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Waltzer, H. (2002). The job of academic department chairman: Experience and
recommendations from Miami university. ACE Department Chair Services Online Resource
Center. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from
http://www.acenet.edu/resources/chairs/index.cfm?section=1&subsection=3
Watson, R. E. L. (1979). The role of the department head or chairman: Discipline, sex and
nationality as factors influencing faculty opinion. Canadian Journal of Higher Education,
9(3), 19-28.
Watson, R. E. L. (1986). The role of the department chair: A replication and extension.
Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 16(1), 13-23.
Werkema, J. R. (2009). Making sense of roles and responsibilities: A socialization study of
college and university music department chairs. Thesis, Western Michigan University.
Wescott, J. W. & Leading, M. V. (2000). Perspectives from a new department chair.
Perspectives, 26(2).
West, M. & Rushton, R. (1989). Mismatches in the work-role transitions. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 62(4), 271-287.
West, M. A., Nicholson, N., & Rees, A. (1987). Transitions into newly created jobs. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 60(2), 97-113.
Wheeler, D. W. (2008). The academic chair's handbook (2 ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley and
Sons.
Where Public Colleges Face the Greatest Budget Stress. (2010). Where public colleges face the
greatest budget stress. [Web page]. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from
http://chronicle.com/article/Interactive-Map-Where-Public/64602/
Williams, J. R. (2007). The conceptualization of leadership and leadership development by
academic department heads in colleges of agriculture at land grant institutions: A
qualitative study. Thesis, Oklahoma State University.
Wisdom, V. (2007). Understanding the demands and constraints of department heads in higher
education based on the perceptions of deans, faculty, and department heads. Thesis,
University of Missouri.

138

Wolverton, M., Ackerman, R., & Holt, S. (2005). Preparing for leadership: What academic
department chairs need to know. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,
27(2), 227-238.
Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W. H., & Sorenson, D. (1998). The department as double agent: The
call for department change and renewal. Innovative Higher Education, 22(3), 203-215.
Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W. H., Wolverton, M. L., & Sarros, J. C. (1999). A comparison of
department chair tasks in Australia and the United States. Higher Education, 38(3), 333-350.
Wood, R. & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Young, K. M. (2008). Illinois public community college department chair roles and role conflict.
Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

139