3 1293 5 ~ ~ it
10593 0022 ; WW2? i3

. t a

p 5:35 Mali-”3’3 {graze z;

A, ~ ' 'o

E hmverazty g

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A Study of the Academic Department Chairperson
in the 1980's

presented by
Jose Kehrle

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph-D- degreein_H.igh.er_Edu.Cat'ion

.’
l _/

./ I I
.«4:"" -

7 ‘ .- . _
.-—’ I *‘V'. ’4'], l 9 :1/‘III14’
“‘ /’ . I 11““, J 9 fl/: / 6' [A // /z‘." I

Louis F. Hekhuis

Major professor

Date December 17, 1984

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

'- - woo-HF-.. ,,_.,v.'.'__ .-.
-.

 

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A STUDY OF THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT
CHAIRPERSON IN THE 1980's

BY

Jose Kehrle

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1984

DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to my wife Angela, and

my daughters Helga, Herta and Helen.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

With sincere appreciation to:

Dr. Louis Hekhuis, my advisor and committee chairman,
for his guidance and support during my graduate studies.

The members of my committee -- Dr. James Buschman, Dr.
Lawrence Lezotte, and Dr. Richard Houang -- for their
advice, criticism and friendship. They have greatly
improved the quality of this work.

Coordenacao de Aperficoamento de Pessoal de Nivel
Superior -- CAPES and Universidade Federal da Paraiba for
their financial support.

Drs. Louis Stamatakos and Frederick Ignatovich for
their time and intellectual support.

To my parents for instilling in me fundamental values

for living.

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT
CHAIRPERSON IN THE 1980's
BY

Jose Kehrle

The purpose of this study was to identify major changes in
the organization of academic departments and in their
chairperson's jobs that results from relevant changes in
the external environment.

To accomplish this purpose, the following steps were
defined:

(1) development of a conceptual scheme for viewing and
understanding the dynamic nature of the job of the academic
department chairperson.

(2) exploration and analysis of the literature on
organizational theory and higher education administration
within the boundaries of the conceptual scheme.

(3) synthesis of information, gathered from
Chairpersons, through questionnaires and short interviews,
for the purpose of enhancing the attractiveness of the

position of academic department chair.

Jose Kehrle

Twelve propositions regarding academic department
organization and administration guided the analysis of the
information gathered from 49 current chairpersons at a
large midwestern university. Based on an analysis of the
results, the following conclusions appear to be valid.

(1) The most influencial factors acting upon academic
departments were identified as financial limitations,
decrease in the rate of hiring new faculty members, and
technological innovations, more specifically, the
introduction of micro-computers.

(2) The job of the academic department chairperson has
experienced changes characterized by a tremendous increase
in duties and responsibilities, and a considerable increase
in matters of external communications, as well as in the
bureaucratization of the relationships within the
institution, and an appreciable centralization of the
decision-making process in the higher echelon of the
university administration.

(3) Backing and support from the dean's office,
matching of job responsibilities to the resources necessary
to carry them out and support from the departmental faculty
were the factors rated as being the most relevant to the

attractiveness of the chairperson's position.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES I O O O O I O O C O O O O O O O O O 0 Vi
LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Vii

CHAPTER I: RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY . . . . . . . .

l-‘

1. The Problem and Importance of the Study
2. Purpose of the Study . . . . . .
3. Delimitations and Limitations . .
4. Procedures and Organization . . .
5. Definition of Terms . . . . . . .

.0...
0....
IO...
\OQQQU

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENTAL LITERATURE ll
1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll
2. The Chairperson' 8 Job . . . . . . . . . . . . l5

3. Published Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4. Unpublished Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

CHAPTER III: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND CONCEPTUAL
SCHEME FOR THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4S

1. Essentials on Systems Theory . . . . . . . . . 45
2. The University as an Open System . . . . . . . 51
3. Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4. A Definition for Organization . . . . . . . . 56
5. The Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6. Conceptual Scheme and Assumptions . . . . . . 64
7. The Departmental Environment . . . . . . . . . 68
8. The Departmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . 76

CHAPTER IV: DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . 81

l. The Nature of Systematic Research . . . . . . 81
2. Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3. Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4. Data Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5. The Generalization of Findings . . . . . . . . 90

iv

CHAPTER V: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . .

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.
9.

Profile of the Academic Department
Chairperson . . . . . . .
The State of the Chairperson' 8 Position . . .
Power and Decision Making . . . . . . . . . .
Influences and Changes on the Chairperson's
Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Satisfaction and Rewards in the Chairperson's
Position . . . . . . . . . . . .
Problems and Dissatisfaction in the
Chairperson' 3 Position . . . . . . . . . . .
Enhancing the Attractiveness of the
Chairperson's Position . . . . . . . . . . .
Selected Cross-tabulations . . . . . . . . . .
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER VI: OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . .

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Purpose of the Dissertation

Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conceptual Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overall Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Considerations for Further Study . . . . . . .

APPENDIX .’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

93

93
98
103

107
117
121
129
134
137
140
140
141
141
143
145
148
150
153

165

Table

10

LIST OF TABLES

Percentage of Time Department
Chairperson Allots to Specific
Job Responsibilities . . . . .

Chairpersons' Perception of Their
Influence at College and
University Levels . . . . . . .

Power Positions Versus Areas of
DeCiSion I O O O O I O O O I O O

Influences Over Academic Departments . .

Perceived Changes in Selected Aspects of
the Chairperson's Job . . . . . . . .

Factors Contributing to Chairpersons' Job
Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . .

Factors Contributing to Chairpersons' Job
Dissatisfaction . . . . . . . . . . .

Possible Causes for Chairpersons' Refusing
Reappointment . . . . . . . . . . . .

Factors Which Would Lead to Chairpersons'
Resignation . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Factors Enhancing the Attractiveness of
the Chairperson's Position . . . . .

vi

Page

100

100

104

108

114

119

124

125

128

131

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

1 Departmental Administration
Dynamics . . 67

vii

CHAPTER I

RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY

In the 1960's the American university experienced a
tremendous physical expansion and an accompanying increase
in the complexity of its role and functions in society.
During that period enrollment more than doubled and
institutional expenditures tripled (Centre, 1980). At the
same time political and social concerns were added to the
more traditional academic and vocational functions,
contributing to a still more complex and unstable climate
in the university setting.

In the beginning of the 1970's higher education had
become a major enterprise, with a student enrollment
reaching 8.5 million, taught by a third of a million
faculty members at nearly 3,000 colleges and universities
(Palman, 1976). By the middle of the decade, however, many
U.S. universities found themselves involved in a large
variety of problems, including a period of decline. The
university community had to face an adverse situation with
severely limited available funds, a sharp increase in

costs, declining student enrollment, shrinking research

funds and public criticism of the mismatch of university
purposes, and society's needs (Ryan, 1980). As Clark Kerr
(1975) grimly observed, "Seldom has so great an American
institution passed so quickly from its Golden Age to its
Age of Survival" (p. 1).

Since then higher education has been struggling with
reform and reorganization as it tries to respond to the
pressures of the environment. The 1980's have not
witnessed many variations in the major issues and trends
that dominated the last years of the past decade.

The task of administering institutions of higher
education has grown increasingly complex in this time of
crisis. Inflation coupled with recurring economic ups and
downs, a widespread demand that discrimination against
minority groups be eliminated, the challenging of
traditional authority by faculties and students, and
simultaneously the increase in off-campus influences and
controls have ' reduced the options and autonomy of
administrators at all levels of the university structure
(Corson, 1975; Dressel, 1981). Academic administrators are
now facing a situation in which they are required to do
more with less resources, and yet exert a strong leadership
role. They need to be prepared to make the hard

educational decisions that are crucially needed in order to

survive this period of crisis that to some academic leaders
could be described as the new depression in

higher education (Cheit, 1973).

The Problem and Importance of the Study

Academic departments are the organizational units
within the university that have been most severely affected
by the impact of the crisis involving the American
institutions of higher education (Trucker, 1984). This is
not surprising, for it is the department that brings about
the translation of institutional goals and policies into
academic practice. The departmental setting is the place
where the university enterprise actually conducts the
majority of its teaching, service, and research activities,
and also where most of direct and personal interaction
occurs between the university administration, faculty
members, and students. In fact, it has been estimated that
80 percent of all administrative decisions take place at
the departmental level (Roach, 1976). Now more than ever,
increasing complexities of the operation of universities,
along with shrunken budgets, have led administrators in
higher levels to delegate more and more tasks to department
chairpersons (Dressel, 1981; Trucker, 1984). Those who
chair these departments are suffering tremendous pressures
in performing their role, and it has become obvious that
this position is becoming increasingly difficult and

stressful.

Besides their traditional tasks, current academic
department chairpersons are expected to deal with new
issues concerning inflation and insufficient resources,
federal regulations and guidelines for research,
affirmative action guidelines, formal student and faculty
grievance procedures, collective bargaining, and an
increasing number of forms and reports. Furthermore, they
are under continuing pressure for more accountability. In
past years it was usual to have chairpersons occupying
their positions for long periods, oftentimes until their
retirement. In many higher education institutions,
however, the status of chairperson has been altered by
collective bargaining or other forms of faculty pressure
that call for the election of chairperson and establish a
time limit in their mandates. Thus, former characteristics
of this position, such as familiarity with the job tasks
and stability, seem to be eroding, and it is not clear if
any compensations are being offered in their places
(Walotkiewcz, 1980).

In one study of academic department chairpersons at
Miami University, Waltzer (1975) observed signs of lack of
interest in continuing in the position of chairpersons.

It was noted in this study that:
...more than half of present chairmen state
unequivocally that they will not consider
another term in the job. Adding those who
respond, "Yes, I would consider another term

if..." but attach a host of qualifications,
and those who are seeking higher

administrative positions, fewer than
one-third of the chairmen remain open-minded
about considering another term in the job. (p. 7).

Results indicating similar attitudes were found by
Norton (1978) in his nationwide study of academic
department chairpersons in colleges of education.

Thus, it would be observed that, instead of wanting to
stay in the chair position, an unusual number of
chairpersons are leaving their posts and returning to the
classroom with its accompanying benefits of greater
flexibility and time for developing a full scholar's life.
The result is a substantial turnover of chairpersons and a
constant flow of inexperienced administrators as faculty
members move in and out of departmental leadership
(Wolotkiewicz, 1980).

Little is effectively known about the impact of current
issues and strains on the organization and administration
of academic departments. Some scholars, however, can
already identify the emergence of a new kind of chairperson
with a more complex role to fulfill (Bolton & Boyer, 1973:
Ryan, 1980; Trucker, 1984).

The purpose of this study is to investigate and gain
further insight into the job of academic department
chairperson at the present time. The problem addressed in
this dissertation can broadly be stated as follows:

What is the nature of the position and role of current

academic department chairpersons?

This general question may be broken down into the
following more purposive questions:

1. Can theory of organization help researchers to
devise means of viewing and understanding the
complex practice of administering academic
departments?

2. What is the nature -- quantitative, qualitative,
or both -- of the changes that have been occurring
in the job of the academic department

chairpersons?

3. What reasons do chairpersons give for resignations
or for not demonstrating interest in the position
of chair?

4. Can the attractiveness of the position of
academic department chairpersons be enhanced?

The recognition of the importance of chairpersons to
the mission of higher education, the need to keep the
Chairperson's position attractive for its occupants, and a
flagrant dearth of literature related to these topics
(Norton, 1978; Tucker, 1984) provide the stimulus to
undertake this study about changes that have been occurring
in the characteristics of the job of the academic
department chairperson.

This dissertation combines the author's interest and
intellectual curiosity in three areas: (1) theory of
organizations and its relevance to the study of college and
universities: (2) the importance of administration and
administrators for the success of organizations in a time
of changes and crisis; and finally (3) the relevance of the
role played by middle academic administrators, especially

academic department chairpersons, on the university scene.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to identify major changes

in the organization of academic departments and in the

chairperson's job as relevant changes are taking place in

the departments' external environment.

Specifically, the study was undertaken to:

1.

Develop a conceptual framework for viewing and
understanding the dynamic nature of the job of the
academic department chairperson.

Explore in detail each component of the conceptual
framework with support of the recent literature on
higher education administration.

Synthesize information concerning the changing
nature of the job of the academic department
chairperson from existing literature,
documentation and questionnaires administered to
chairpersons.

Discuss the implications of the foregoing items in
providing for a new descriptive profile of current
chairpersons.

Synthesize suggestions gathered from
questionnaires administered to chairpersons for
improving the attractiveness of the position of
academic department chairpersons.

s L s

The scope of the study is delimitated as follows:

1.

The investigation in this study was confined to 61
academic departments selected from total of 80 at
a large midwestern university.

The investigation is supported by a literature
review confined to the Michigan State University
library and its service of inter-library loan, the
office of Institutional Research Library at
Michigan State University, materials made
available by departments, ERIC and DISSERTATION
ABSTRACTS information searches, material used or
distributed in classes taken by the author during
his doctoral program.

The generalizability of the results in the study will
be limited as follows:
1. Only current chairpersons were surveyed.

2. Chairpersons of academic departments in the health
related area were excluded from the investigation.

3. The investigation was concerned only with selected
aspects of the Chairperson's job.

4. A questionnaire and short interviews were used for
collecting information. All the limitations
associated with the use of such data-gathering
techniques are present in this investigation.

5. The departments included in this study were not
randomly selected, neither from a United States
population of all such organizations or the entire
population of departments in the university
researched. They were chosen on the basis of the
author's interest and to the accessibility offered

to the researcher.

Procedures and Orgarization
The origin of this dissertation can be found in three

different sources: (1) the literature in higher education
especially related to the academic department and its
administration, ’which provided the clues to identify the
problem object of study and the research questions: (2) the
literature on organizational theory, which supplied the
conceptual framework to approach the problem: and (3)
information gathered, through a questionnaire and short
interviews, from a selected group of current chairpersons
in a large university of the midwest. They were asked
about their experiences as chairpersons and their

perception of certain aspects of the position.

The organization of the study has been made in six
chapters. Chapter I provides a rationale for the study:
chapter III presents a theoretical framework in which the
study was developed: Chapter II is the literature review
related to the changing nature of the Chairperson's job: in
chapter IV are the methodological procedures utilized in
the research: the analysis of data and presentation of
findings are in chapter V: and finally, chapter VI presents
the overview and conclusions of the study and suggestions

for further reasearch.

Definitign of Terms
Certain terms used throughout this report whose
meanings are not defined in the text, are clarified in this
section in order to prevent misunderstanding of context.
A definition is presented for the following terms: (1)
academic department, (2) administrator, (3) chairperson,
(4) context, (5) position, and (6) role.

1. Academig Deparrmenr: The basic administrative and
academic unit of the university which aggregates
faculties with similar professional interest
and/or academic background for the purpose of
organizing their activities -- teaching, research
and service -- and also managing their careers
in terms of salary, promotion, and tenure.

This definition excludes institutes, intercollege

programs, centers, clinics, bureaus, and other

organizational units usually found in the university

structure.

10

The importance of using the adjective "academic" with
department is emphasized by Dressel and others (1972) for
distinguishing this organizational unit from others
carrying out only administrative tasks, as are the
maintenance department or the custodial services
department. Despite Dressel's warning, the single term
"department" is sometimes used in this report to mean

academic department.

2. Administrator: This term is applied throughout
the text as a broad comprehensive concept meaning
that person who is in charge of any organizational
unit or activity and from whom is expected
provision of leadership, active involvement in
problem solving, decision making and change
implementation as well as concern with internal
efficiency of routine operations.

The title of manager as synonymous to administrator is

seldom used in the university setting. For this reason
this interchangeability of terms was avoided in this

report.

3. Chairpgrggn: One who is in charge of the academic
department. The title is an alternative to the
sex stereotyped title of chairman. It is also
synonymous to head or chair.

4. ggnrgrr: The set of factors that constitutes the
internal environment of the organizations. It
refers to the conditions and characteristics of
the organizations and individuals within them
which affect the behavior of these individuals.

5. Position: As used in this text, "a position is a
point on an organizational chart to indicate a set
of responsibilities and powers. Each position is
governed by rules, expectations, and demands
vis-a-vis other positions related to it."
(Griffith, 1979, p. 82).

6. 391g: This term is used to denote the part played
by a person occupying a position in an
organization. Then, the role is the dynamic
aspect of a position (Griffith, 1979).

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The amount and quality of knowledge produced in the
field of higher education is still short of the level it
should be if one considers the large number of programs
developed in this area in the last two decades. (Dressel &
Mayhew, 1974: Culberstone, 1980). Part of the explanation
for that could be found in the fact that the systematic
study of higher education in a more specialized sense only
had its beginning in the middle 1950's (Peterson, 1970).

It is widely recognized by scholars and administrators
that the literature on higher education administration is
very poor. Nevertheless, this poverty appears more visible
in the level of the university middle management.
(Griffiths & McCarty, 1980). Particularly in the domain of
the department chairperson, the literature is poor and
scarce, despite the fact that chairpersons constitute the
largest single group of administrators in institutions of
higher education (Norton, 1978: Trucker, 1984).

There is little theoretical, conceptual or research

based literature on the subject of academic departments,

11

12

especially if one excludes doctoral dissertations which are
not generally available in the literature. A great deal of
published work is anecdotal or advisory, filled with
personal opinions and testimonials, providing little chance
for generalization (Griffiths, 1980).

In support of this study, research and writings
relative to the academic department and the job of its
chairperson were reviewed. Also examined were studies
related to organizational theory, providing the basis for
the conceptual schema.

This chapter will be organized in three major topics.
The first section is centered on the background of the
academic department and its administration, using an
assorted type of literature. The second is a presentation
and discussion of the publicized literature having the
academic department as the central focus. The third
section is a summary of the select unpublished literature,

i.e., academic dissertations supporting the subject of this

research.
Packground
The roots of academic departmentalization go back to
the medieval age. The great universities in that period
were organized into four distinct faculties: Law,

Theology, Medicine, and Arts. This early organization of
subdivision based on the specialization of knowledge
constitutes the major precedent for the existence of

academic departments in the modern univeristy.

13

The historical development of departments in American
higher education is not completely clear. A trend to
specialization may be linked to the appearance of endowed
chairs and professors identified with subject material such
as Latin, Greek, Theology, Mathematics and a few
others:however, the emergence of a more formal academic
department pattern occurred only in the second quarter of
the nineteenth century at both Harvard and the University
of Virginia (Brubacher & Rudy, 1958).

A change from the organization of college faculties on
the basis of chairs of instruction, to one based instead on
subject matter occurred in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries with the establishment of the elective
system and alternative-degree programs (Dressel & Simon,
1976).

As the department developed in the nineteenth century,
it usually came to reflect a single academic discipline or
area of inquiry. During the past hundred years, both the
number and variety of academic departments greatly
increased as the university tried to respond to the demands
generated by changes in the intellectual, technological,
economic, social, and political contexts of the American
society (Faricy, 1972).

As a result of the Industrial Revolution new
practically oriented specializations developed into the
academic departments of agriculture, engineering, and

architecture. The so-called ”organizational revolution", on

14

the other hand, pressured the universities for the
establishment of departments to represent the field of
business, finance, and management (Faricy, 1972). The
development of new technologies and professions has
produced departments such as computer science, food
science, and social work. In the present Space Age, the
trend toward creating innovative interdisciplinary
departments (which combine several disciplines and
technologies) could be illustrated through the appearance
of departments of bio-physics, packaging, resource
development, racial and ethnic studies, urban studies and
so on.

By the first decade of the current century, the general
pattern of the academic department was firmly consolidated
(Dressel and others, 1969). This pattern has undergone
continual change and innovation, however. From a strictly
discipline-based pattern, the department has evolved into
patterns based' on single disciplines, combinations of
disciplines, technologies, combinations of technologies,
and areas of application for both technologies and
disciplines. Furthermore, besides these variations in
subject matter, departments have developed wide variations
in such essential aspects as management, membership,
operational functions, resources and organizational

objectives (Faricy, 1972).

15

The Chairperson's Job

The role of the academic department chairperson has
undergone considerable changes since early in this century,
when departmentalization appeared as a major form of
organization in the American colleges and universities. In
particular, if one examines the postwar period during which
the American university developed its modern pattern,
significant increases in the chairperson's tasks and
responsibilities may be identified.

From the pioneer research on the status and functions
of the department chairperson done by Doyle (1953) in
thirty-three colleges, the researcher summarizes the
general duties of the chairperson as follows:

. . .teaching functions, supervision of teaching in the

department, administrative duties embracing preparation

of the departmental budget, responsibility for the
statement of departmental aims and offerings, proper
maintenance of a department library, maintenance of
personnel records, both faculty and student, and
miscellaneous duties such as personal research and
representation of the institution and departmental
meetings of learned societies and educational groups

... student guidance either as major or general

advisers (p. 117).

Doyle's study also discloses that the major part of the
Chairperson's time is spent in teaching and scholarly
productivity.

Writing at the same time, Euwema (1953) enumerates the
functions of an academic department chairperson as: (1)
teaching and research: (2) scholarly activity: (3)
developing and promoting of the discipline which the

department represents: (4) attracting, developing, and

16

upgrading departmental personnel: (5) exercising academic
statesmanship: and (6) training young scholars to replace
the older ones. Euwema maintains that the major
responsibility of chairpersons in conducting the
departmental affairs should be concentrated in the
selection and evaluation of personnel, and in the
development of curriculum, since these two vital matters
demand the Chairperson's leadership. Chairpersons should
delegate all other departmental functions to others, in
order to arrange their own time as to permit the
continuance of this personal career as teacher and
scholar:.

Discussing departmental administration, Woodburne
(1958) presents the primary concerns of chairpersons in
their position of executive officer, as being the
appointment of faculty, the promotions, the budget, the
salaries, the tenure decisions, and the assignment of staff
to the teaching duties. The author emphasized the
importance of chairpersons maintaining their research
ability and their scholarly standing for departmental
growth and reputation.

In his inquiry on governance of colleges and
universities, Corson (1960) presents chairpersons as

part-time administrators, while describing their duties:

17

. . .they devote only a part of their time to
problems of budget and faculty compensation,
selection, and promotion: to student admissions: to
class scheduling, and to similar non-teaching or
research tasks. Nearly all chairpersons are teaching
for a major portion of their time and are expected to
maintain their scholarly productivity (p. 88).

The results of Doyle and Corson's studies are congruent
with the observations reported by Euwema and Woodburne and
altogether depict the role of the chairperson in the 1950's
as holding only a minor administrative component.

In the 1960's, the university experienced a phenomenal
growth as well as an accompanying increase in
administrative complexities that makes the burden of
running a department understandably more difficult. The
chairperson's tasks increased to such an extent and with
such variety, that when defined in writing they often
resembled a laundry list pulled from throughout the
institution (Brann, 1972).

According to Heimler (1967), the responsibilities of
the chairperson's position fall into three categories:
administration, faculty leadership, and student advising.
The Chairpersons are delegated the responsibility of
carrying out all the administrative tasks needed for the
operation of the department. They are expected to provide
leadership to the faculty in matters of program
development, teaching improvement, formulation of the
college and departmental policies, and stimulation of

faculty research and scholarships. The Chairpersons are

also expected to advise and assist students in their

l8

academic life. Despite their involvement in a large array
of duties, teaching, research and scholarship remain their
primary responsibilities. Furthermore, the chairpersons'
leadership--perhaps their crucial function--is directly
related to their own strength as a professor (Heimler,

1967).

Dressel and others (1970) in their extensive research
involving fifteen universities depicted the chairperson's
job as involving many functions:

. . .chairmen initiate action on budget
formulation: selection: promotion and retention of
academic staff: faculties salaries: sabbatical
leaves: interdepartmental relationships: research
grants: educational development and innovation:
university committee membership: discipline
representation: professional growth: advice to
Dean regarding departmental matters:
administration of faculty relationships: new
faculty orientation: departmental meetings:
adequate non-academic help: student
administration: student advising: class
scheduling: student personnel records: faculty
load: graduate student application approval:
grading standards and practices: and curriculum
changes. Also, they have knowledge of the
administrative routine of the college:
institutional legislative organization: government
grants procedures: policies relating to graduate
students: and scholarly productivity of
departmental faculty (p. 13).

The same authors observe that besides all these demands
placed upon chairpersons, tradition and faculty
expectations still require them to be scholars.

The scholarly career of chairpersons is partly
responsible for bringing them the assignment and keeping it

and their teaching skill active as a means of retaining the

19

respect of their departmental colleagues (Dressel & others,
1970: Fellman, 1967).

The complexity of the chairperson's job was also
documented by Peterson (1970) in his review of studies on
academic departments. This review displayed that there
were no less than ten and as many as forty-six areas in
which faculty and administrators expect the chairperson to
play some role besides that of being professors.

The decade of 70's brought new demands on the
department chairperson as higher education tried to respond
to the' many stresses from both internal and external
sources. The impact of rapid growth in the 1960's had been
felt by colleges and universities, caught between financial
difficulties, legislative and legal restraint, faculty,
students, and clerical pressures.

The collective bargaining movement spread to higher
education to such an extent that by 1977 it had reached 500
campuses throughout the nation and a quarter of the entire
profession (Ladd & Lipset, 1978). The issue over possible
inclusion of chairpersons in the group to be represented by
the union or organization forced the clarification of the
chairperson's role as either part of the administration or
part of the faculty (Boyer, 1974: Gabarino & Aussieker,
1975). This situation placed more stress on the
chairperson's position. As Skubal (1980) notices:

Even in those institutions where unionism for

faculty does not exist, the chairperson is expected
to deal with non-faculty unions, federal regulations

20

and guidelines for research, affirmative action

guidelines, formal student and faculty grievance

procedures, and the ever-present forms and reports

(P-B) -

Roach (1976) sees the chairperson as functioning as the
chief academic planner and resource allocator in his role
as administrator of all aspects of the department. Roach
also describes a profile of a successful chairperson as
possessing personal qualities, such as openness, integrity,
and objectivity: professionally maintaining high competence
in his disciplinary area: administratively cultivating job
and human skills.

In vast studies by Norton (1980) with the primary
purpose of validating the actual duties required by the
chairperson's position in colleges of education, the
researchers identified tasks/responsibilities distributed
in seven groups as follows: (1) internal administration of
the department: (2) budgetary planning, development and
control: (3) personnel administration: (4) communication:
internal, external, and community relations: (5) curriculum
and instruction: (6) student personnel affairs: and (7)
personal/professional development tasks. Even though
Norton's study, which included 245 chairpersons in 53
nationwide colleges, was restricted to the area of
education, it furnished an idea of the range of duties
generally performed by chairpersons in any area.

The increasing complexities of administering higher
education, combined with the rising influence of the

21

faculty in the formulation of institutional policy and the
shrinking budget, have led to arrangements in which
department chairpersons have more and more to do (Roach,
1976: Dressel, 1981: Trucker, 1984).

Claiming institutional assistance in the preparation of
current chairpersons, Trucker (1984) presents an
astonishing list of tasks and duties chairpersons should be
able to perform. For illustrating the scope of the
chairperson's job, here is the list by category, of duties
set up by Trucker (1984):

Department governance

Conduct department meetings

Establish department committees

Use committees effectively

Develop long-range department programs,
plans, and goals

Determine what services the department should
provide to the university, community, and
state

Implement long-range department programs,
plans, goals, and policies

Prepare the department for accreditation and
evaluation

Serve as an advocate for the department
Monitor library acquisitions

Delegate some department administrative
responsibilities to individuals and
committees

Encourage faculty members to communicate
ideas for improving the department

Instruction

Schedule classes

Supervise off-campus programs

Monitor dissertations, prospectuses, and
programs of study for graduate students
Supervise, schedule, monitor, and grade
department examinations

Update department curriculum, courses, and
programs

22

Faculty affairs

Recruit and select faculty members

Assign faculty responsibilities, such as
teaching, research, committee work, and so
forth

Monitor faculty service contributions

Evaluate faculty performance

Initiate promotion and tenure recommendations
Participate in grievance hearings

Make merit recommendations

Student affairs

Recruit and select students
Advise and counsel students
Work with student government

External Communication

Communicate department needs to the dean and
interact with upper-level administrators
Improve and maintain the department's image
and reputation

Coordinate activities with outside groups
Process department correspondence and
requests for information

Complete forms and surveys

Initiate and maintain liaison with external
agencies and institutions

Budget and resources

Encourage faculty members to submit proposals
for contracts and grants to government
agencies and private foundations

Prepare and propose department budgets

Seek outside funding

Administer the department budget

Set priorities for use of travel funds

Prepare annual reports

Office management

Manage department facilities and equipment,
including maintenance and control of
inventory

Monitor building security and maintenance
Supervise and evaluate the clerical and
technical staff in the department

Maintain essential department records,
including student records

23

Professional development

Foster the development of each faculty
member's special talents and interests

Foster good teaching in the department
Stimulate faculty research and publications
Promote affirmative action

Encourage faculty members to participate in
regional and national professional meetings
Represent the department at meetings of
learned and professional societies

Deal with unsatisfactory faculty and staff
performance

Initiate termination of a faculty member

Keep faculty members informed of department,
college, and institutional plans, activities,
and expectations

Maintain morale

Reduce, resolve, and prevent conflict among
faculty members

Encourage faculty participation (p. 2-3).

To carry out their responsibilities, chairpersons are
led to establish contacts with different kinds of persons
and groups from within and outside the institution. In
dealing with different people and situations, chairpersons
are required to assume different roles in performing their
job. Once again it is Trucker (1984) who lists the variety

of roles played by chairpersons at one time or another:

teacher representer decision maker
mentor communicator problem solver
researcher evaluator recommender
leader motivator implementor
planner supervisor facilitator
manager coordinator entrepreneur
advisor-counselor anticipator recruiter
mediator-negotiator innovator peer-colleague
advocator organizer (p. 4)

The role of chairperson has become enlarged in its
dimensions and complexities as the difficulties for running
higher education institutions have increased over the last

few decades. This can be seen in the chairperson's

24

recognition of need for administrative and leadership
training and the appearance of specific programs aimed at
preparing chairpersons for their job (Heimler, 1967: Brann,
1972, Trucker, 1984).

Until the late 1960's formal programs aimed at
improving the performance of academic administrators were
almost ignored except for presidents and others in top
positions. Some scholarly associations such as the
Association of Departments of English (ADE) sponsored a few
institutes for chairpersons during that period. Their
content centered mostly on educational and professional
matters related to their field (Brann, 1972). In 1967 the
Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE)
and the American Council on Education held the first
institute for new chairpersons, and the Danforth Foundation
sponsored a set of similar institutes at WICHE from 1968 to
1970 (Booth, 1982). At the same time, Higher Education
Executive Associates (HEEA), a consulting group, developed
some seminars dealing with the role of department
chairpersons.

Since then, programs for training chairpersons have
been developed at some institutions and at some state
systems of universities such as California, Florida, and
New York (Fisher, 1977). The focus of those programs has
been on management subjects such as budgeting, admission
statements, collective bargaining, and human resources in

addition to the more traditional functions of chairpersons

25

The pressing problems of higher education have demanded
a higher level of expertise in administering academic
departments, and it seems unreasonable to continue to
assume that persons who came to the chairperson's position
would be able to respond to the demands of the role without
the opportunity for job-specific training (Cyphert and
Zimpher, 1980). This rationale has promoted many training
programs for the improvement of departmental administra-
tion. When the Ohio Board of Regents adopted the Projects
for Educational Development, they justified the project by
recognizing the difficulties of chairperson's job as
follows:

. . .The chairperson's job becomes more complex
and difficult each year. Student populations decline
and change, enrollment-driven budgets dwindle,
accountability pressures mount, new curriculua demand
review, collective bargaining impinges and confuses,
personal roles as administrator and as faculty

colleague conflict more sharply, affirmative action
rules complicate, and time drowns under the deluge of

paper. . .(p. 2).

That description portraits the present profile of the
academic chairperson in the 1980's. It is quite different
from that depicted by Doyle in the 1950's and also from
that in the 1960's. Even the nomenclature of the position
has changed, first from head to chairman, and more recently
to chairperson or

simply chair.

W

Unfortunately, little research or discussion focused on

academic departments was published before the 1960's.

26

Even after this period this subject has received limited
study and analysis by researchers.

Only a few books can be found devoted specifically to
the academic department and its administration. The first
effort to search the status and duties of department
chairpersons was done by Doyle (1953) in his comprehensive
study of thirty-three church-related colleges. Doyle
identified three criteria used in selecting chairpersons:
previous teaching experience, teaching ability, and
administrative talent. These chairpersons, whose term of
office was unlimited, spent most of their time teaching,
counseling and sponsoring student activities. Administra—
tive duties and miscellaneous tasks such as meetings and
conferences occupied a minor portion of the chairperson's
list of activities.

In 1970, Dressel and others published "The Confidence
Crisis: An Analysis of University Departments" which
constitutes a 'mark in the literature or department.
Featherstone (1972) called this book a 'basic text in the
departmental subject, with an excellent review of
literature and also a broad report and discussion of
research findings. This book is a result of an extensive
research on sixty-nine departments at fifteen large
universities all over the country. The study was centered

on the role played by departments in the achievement of the

27

institutions's goals. Special attention was paid to
communication and decision-making patterns in departments.
In addition, information was also gathered on: (1) the
quality of the department: (2) the chairperson and his
style of operation: (3) the character of the relationships
between the department and the rest of the university. The
distinctive conclusion of this nationwide study is that
departments are moving beyond the university's control.
Reorganization of departments is needed to ensure that

resources are allocated and used in accordance with the
priorities set for the university by the university in
cooperation with those who support it. (Dressel and
others, 1970). Some of the study's findings show
departments with national reputation oriented toward
research in their field, and more informal in their
administrative organization than departments of less
stature. Also those departments with high national
standing de-emphasize undergraduate education except as a
means of employing graduate assistants. The faculty
members felt less obligation to a particular department
than to the discipline. Concerning the chairpersons, the
authors identified a need for a better preparation for the
position and stated that leadership is essential in
conducting departmental affairs. "Academic Department or

Division Chairmen: A Complex Role" edited by Brann

28

and Emmert (1972) provides a comprehensive collection of
readings, most of them prepared for presentation in
institutes and seminars for chairpersons in the end of the
1960's. When issued, this book constituted the most
complete collection of papers on the role and function of
the academic department chairperson. Some of these papers
became classics in the departmental literature as is the
case of Brann, McKeachie, Murray, Heimler, Ahmann to cite a
few. The book was organized around the importance and
complexity of the chairperson's job and the need for
providing chairperson training programs in administration
and leadership.

Another collection of articles on the subject was
edited by McHenry in 1977. This book discusses the
strengths and weaknesses of the departmental organization
and presents some departures from the conventional pattern.
More than discussing ideas, some of McHenry's associates
describe some alternatives to departmental structure
already in use in several colleges and universities. They
then present the models being utilized at the University of
Wisconsin-Green Bay, University of California-Santa Cruz,
Hampshire College, and Evergreen State. In the last
chapter McHenry summarizes the discussions of pros and cons
of the departmental organization of the university and

concludes that abolition of the current

29

department is impractical if not impossible at an already
department- alized institution. The alternative models
offer more directions in the creation of new institutions.
For the existing institutions, McHenry suggests that small
changes toward a matrix organization seem more realistic.

A book deserving special attention in the 1980's is
"Chairing the Academic Department: Leadership Among
Peers", by Allan Trucker (1984). This is a comprehensive
guide to essential management tasks and techniques for all
chairpersons (Booth, 1982). It is a result of an inquiry
made initially at Florida University and later extended to
several institutions of higher education outside Florida.
Materials were developed on the basis of that inquiry and
were presented and tested in a series of seminars and
workshops for chairpersons. The book deals with primary
issues confronting current chairpersons such as:
chairperson's roles, powers, and responsibilities: types of
departments and leadership styles: delegation and
committees: decision making and changes: faculty
performance, evaluation, and development: faculty
grievances and unions: and managing people and money.
Trucker emphasizes the administrative aspects of the
department and the need for chairpersons to act as

leaders. The author characterizes departments are

30

differing considerably in size, age, and level of maturity
as well as in leadership styles and modes of governance,
and therefore avoids taking a prescriptive approach in
dealing with departmental issues. Published by the
American Council on Education, Trucker's book has been used
by that organization as a training document for
chairpersons. "Managing the Academic Department" by
Bennett (1983) is another book sponsored by the American
Council on Education, it fundamentally consists of cases
discussed during workshops for chairpersons. The book
covers a large range of situations usually faced by
chairpersons in their day-to-day work. The first two
sections are centered on the nature of the chairperson's
role, and some of his typical responsibilities. Section
three deals with the subject of conflicts inherent to the
chairperson's position. The last section examines issues
of performance, use of graduate teaching assistants, and
management problems involved in departmental goals, changes
and decision making. In short, this book is an effort to
contribute to the professional growth and development of
the academic department, using the experience of former
chairpersons through the presentation of case studies.
Besides those six books considered above, five

monographs on academic departments deserve special

31

attention. They are reports on studies carried out by
their authors.

Several studies on departmental chairpersons were
completed by the Office of Institutional Research of The
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. They
were a result of the analysis of a survey of approximately
1,200 chairpersons in thirty-two public doctoral
degree-granting universities ranging in size from 9,000 to
21,000 students. The survey used a questionnaire
containing 74 items concerning the chairperson's
environment, time spent on duties, their goals, and their
thoughts related to role satisfaction. In one of the
studies derived from that survey, called "The Role of
Analysis of Departmental Chairmen at State Universities" by
Montgomery and others (1974), chairpersons stated that they
spent about half their time teaching, advising students,
and researching. The remainder of their time, was spent in
leadership activities (e.g., selecting and motivating
faculty and program development), and in administrative
tasks, such as maintaining records, budgeting and managing
the staff. Chairpersons expressed frustration at the lack
of time for research and requested administrative
assistance and opportunity for improving the technical

management knowledge regarding their role.

32

In 1975, a study by Waltzer on the chairperson's
position at Miami University in Ohio was published under
the title of "The Job of Academic Department Chairman". In
this work, the author analyzed the expectations and
realities of the chairperson's job as it was in that
university, providing an evaluation of its major facets and
problems. He also offered some recommendations to make the
job more manageable and satisfying. Two important findings
in the Waltzer study are the chairpersons' perception of
changes occuring in their job, and the lack of disposition
of most chairpersons for considering another term of
office.

In 1976, two important research reports on academic
departments were published in the series ”New Directions
for Institutional Research". "Examining Departmental
Management" is a collection of essays edited by Smart and
Montgomery. Contributors include various theorists and
practitioners in‘ the field of higher education, all with
previous publications on departmental matters. The issue
encompasses several aspects of departmental organization
and administrations, such as organizational diversity,
operations and decision making in departments: tests of the
validity of Biglan's model of academic departments:
institutional research and information needed by

chairpersons: job satisfaction in the chair

33

position: and the legal implications of affirmative action,
collective bargaining and due process. Also included a
section evaluating the literature on academic departments
from both a theoretical and research perspective. As the
editors state, this issue provides "essential knowledge of
the underlying basis of departmental diversity, and helps
to explain why they (departments) respond to contemporary
issues in the ways they do" (p. 1).

The second report is "Allocating Resources Among
Departments" by Dressel and Simon. The issue reflects an
attempt to come to some understanding of the budgetary
process and to incorporate parameters for improving that
process. The author states that in a time of shrinking
resources the allocation of money to departments is too
important to be done only on the basis of department
requests or demands. The author deals with several
distinct patterns of budgeting and then reviews efforts to
combine departments for the purpose of budgetary review and
modification.

Norton carried out two studies on chairpersons: "A
Study of the Department Chairperson in Colleges of
Education" (1978) and "Academic Department Chair: Tasks
and Responsibilities", (1980). In the first work Norton
extends to a national level the inquiry done by Waltzer

(1975) which had been at a single college of education.

34

This study reaffirmed the findings of Waltzer's research
regarding the chairpersons' perceptions of their position
as a key leader in institutions of higher education. It
too found no great interest in the position demonstrated by
chairpersons, and even uncovered evidences of shrinking of
prestige. Norton's second study is a follow-up to the
first, centered more specifically on the chairperson's
duties. This research displays a list of 207 activities
performed by chairpersons.

Booth (1982) published "The Department Chair: Personal
Development and Job Conflict": focusing on sources and
consequences of role conflict, overload, and ambiguity in
the chairperson's position. Major findings of Booth's
study were: (a) role conflict may be reduced substantially
by improving institutional management: (b) administrative
development is a central need of chairpersons: (c) making
the chairperson's role meaningful and manageable requires
taking into consideration career orientations and

disciplines as well as new resources.

Unpublished Studies

The literature search presented in this section was
carried out through an examination of Disserration
s cts te o a . It sought to uncover studies:
which (a) used chairpersons not only as the subject of
research, but also as sources of information, and (b) were

developed in academic departments of universities or

35

four-year colleges. The focal point of the search was the
job of the chairpersons in terms of duties, responsibil-
ities and tasks: it also considered aspects of departmental
structure and functions.

Following in chronological order, the first
dissertation found in the search (except for Doyle's study
presented in 1951 but published two years later) was an
investigation made by McKenna (1958) on some aspects of
power and leadership in the administrative role of
department chairpersons. He analyzed the effects of the
perception of power chairpersons held to perform
administrative tasks over the personal relationship
chairperson-professor in the departmental setting. The
author concluded that no Asignificant differences exist
between the chairpersons and professors perception of the
chairperson power. Therefore, the amounts of power that
were mutually sanctioned for the chairperson's job varied
as follows: high power for reporting and budgeting: medium
power for organizing, coordinating and directing: and low
power for planning. Other research findings were
reported. For example, when professors perceived that the
chairperson had much more power than was sanctioned for a
function, they preferred that the chairperson have less
power: when they perceived that the chairperson had much
less power than was sanctioned, they preferred that the

chairperson have more power. Also, it was found that

36

chairpersons who perceived that they had high power for
planning tended to be more impersonal in their leadership
style. than chairpersons who perceived themselves with low
power in planning activities.

Aldom (1959) in a study of three institutions using a
critical incident technique identified behavioral
requirements and task areas for department chairpersons.
He identified the following seven critical behaviors:
integrity and self control: consideration of others:
cooperative planning: scientific problem-solving:
adaptation to change: communication skills: and management
ability. Aldom found ten critical task areas in the
chairperson's job as follows: curriculum, instruction,
evaluation, institutional operations, public relations,
staff personnel, student personnel, physical facilities,
finance and business management, and department operation.

In 1963, Ramer examined the departmental procedures and
the perceptions of the faculty, the chairperson, and the
other administrative officers regarding the role of the
chairperson at Ohio State University. This extensive study
was designed to answer the question, "What should a
chairman do and what should he not do", and also to find
the attributes of an able chairperson. The profile of the
best qualified chairpersons showed that they should have,
among other factors, the elements of academic scholarship:
interest and talent for administration: commitment to

democratic procedures: leadership ability: sensitivity to

37

the needs of the faculty and the students: and desire to
rise above the parochial and provincial in their personal
and professional commitments.

Gunter (1964) surveyed the department chairpersons in
ten state universities during the 1963-64 academic year.
His study shows that the principal functions of the
department chairperson are independent of the size of the
parent institutions.

Conducting a survey of ten colleges in the State
University of New York, Davidson (1968) found that the role
of the department chairperson had increasingly become
administrative in those public colleges. The chairperson's
administrative role included manifold responsibilities such
as participation in institutional objectives and programs:
involvement in college-wide curricula considerations and in
departmental courses: student advisement, budget and
financial matters: and supervising and counseling with
faculty members. Chairpersons in this study believed that
besides the increase in importance, they cannot adequately
accomplish simultaneously teaching, administration, and
research. They accomplished some teaching and attempted
some research but in reality spent the majority of their
time in administrative work.

Peterson (1968) developed a conceptual schema to study

the organizational structure of academic departments. He

38

assumed that an academic department could be represented as
an open system in which variables that describe the nature
of the environment, size, organizational purpose, decen-
tralization, openess, and structure of the department are
in complete interaction with one another. Data were
collected from departmental records and from questionnaires
applied in prestigious departments of a highly regarded
university. The findings validated the conceptual scheme
and also offered practical information. Among the external
sources of influence over the department the most
significant was the federal government, followed closely by
a second level which included professional societies and
accrediting agencies, departments in other universities,
and foundations and donors. The third level of influence
consisted of the alumni and state governmental agencies,
and the lowest level included business and publishers. In
the area of governance, a collegiate rather than a
bureaucratic model seemed to dominate the departments.

In 1969, Schroder (1970)came to the same conclusion as
Davidson (1968). Deans and chairpersons agreed that the
chairperson's position was getting more administrative and
also more important. They also agreed that chairpersons
should receive administrative training.

Also in 1969, Bullen (1970) conducted an investigation
at the University of Alabama of how deans, chairpersons and
faculty perceived the chairperson's role. He concluded

that it was perceived as one of a staff recruiter:

39

personnel director, curriculum leader: coordinator and
chief liaison officer between faculty and administration.

In 1970, Novick (1971) surveyed faculty members,
chairpersons, and officers of the central administration at
two public and two private medwestern universities. In
this study, staffing, planning, and organizing were
considered the most important chairperson responsibilities
by all respondents. All three groups of respondents agreed
that in the chairperson selection process, administrative
ability and previous departmental administrative
experiences were highly important critera. Faculty also
considered ability for teaching and research important in
the selection whereas administrators and chairpersons rated
those attributes much lower. Still, Faculty agreed with
administrators that they preferred to see more of the
chairperson's time spent in administrative work, although
the majority of chairpersons would prefer to continue being
involved in teaching. Thus, from the faculty viewpoint,
teaching and research abilities seemed to be more important
attributes in the selection than in the job of the
chairperson.

Also in 1970, Darkenwal surveyed 284 chairpersons at
fifty-four colleges and universities in twenty-six states
with the purpose of investigating the effects of the social
organization of higher educational institutions on the
chairperson's role. He used size, quality and research

orientation as the main factors of differentiation between

40

academic institutions. The following five variables were
found to be related to the level of institutional
differentiation: perception of departmental autonomy:
allegiance to the department: rotation of the chairperson:
kind of chairperson selection: and conflict with the higher
administration in decision-making. The chairperson
allegiance to the department, sense of autonomy, and
rotation in the chair position were greatest at large, high
quality, research oriented institutions. The chairperson
was more often selected unilaterally by the dean or
president at low differentiated institutions. Darkenwald
also found that most chairpersons viewed themselves as
leaders.

In 1972, Wyrick conducted a survey in forty-four
graduate departments of the University of Illinois, using a
contingency model of leadership. Although the model shows
consistency in that situation, the author made some useful
findings not directly related to the nature of the model.
He found professors more satisfied with strong rather than
weak departmental leadership. He also reported that
formalization and position power in themselves did not
appear to be significant factors in departmental
effectiveness.

Zuker (1974) developed a model for analyzing the role
perceptions of academic department chairperson at a large
university. The chairperson's role was divided into three

components (administrative, departmental associate, and

41

student) and the characteristic and amount influence of
each component over the chairperson's role was analyzed.
This model was applied at the University of Florida, and
the findings showed the chairpersons perceived their main
tasks were those of recruiting faculty, developing
programs, improving instruction, evaluating faculty and
staff, and preparing the departmental budget. The
chairpersons at the University of Florida saw themselves as
powerful administrators. The study also showed
chairpersons in that institution actively involved in the
recruitment of students, satisfied with the personal
rewards of the position but dreaming of returning to full
professor activities of teaching and research.

Davis (1976) studied selected perceptions of
chairpersons in highly innovative and low innovative
departments, issuing information gathered from forty
chairpersons at a state university and a land grant
college. Davis compared these two classes of chairpersons
and found that chairpersons in high innovative departments
had higher regard for their performance of administrative
duties and activities associated with the chairperson's
job, and also had an awareness of the effect of political
activity within the department. Other findings in this
study show that most of the chairpersons surveyed did not
consider the attribute of being a scholar as necessarily

important in chairing an academic department.

42

The role of deans and chairpersons in graduate
education was investigated by Aatish (1977), using Michigan
State University as a case study. She found chairpersons
playing a multifaceted role. Besides their administrative
responsibilities, chairpersons had personal involvement in
teaching and research, although not at the level they
desired. Chairpersons indicated that they had faculty
committee coordinators and assistants who shared
administrative duties with them and assisted in graduate
programs. They reported that their relations with the
faculty were primarily facilitory, descending to
participatory, advisory, supervisory, and controlling.
They considered financial resources as the major limitation
of their roles, and observed that their authority was not
commensurate with their responsibilities.

Mangelson (1978) identified formal abilities of
chairpersons, surveyed 353 professors, 32 chairpersons, and
three deans, in three arts and sciences colleges from
doctoral granting universities located in a midwestern
state. Based on the faculty ratings of the importance of
38 abilities listed in the questionnaires, a factor
analysis produced five factors or functions of 24
abilities. The ability factors or indices were labeled:
sensitivity to faculty: finance: academic: curriculum
management: and student. Several important results from
the analysis included the following: (1) overall,

chairpersons and faculty agreed on the importance of

43

various abilities for chairpersons, however, when
stratified by certain characteristics, significant
differences were found: (2) abilities relating to money and
the development of faculty were generally considered of
greatest importance for chairpersons: (3) ex-chairpersons
agreed with current chairpersons on the importance of the
same abilities, whereas faculty without experience in
chairing departments disagreed significantly from current
incumbents with the same abilities: (4) teaching was
considered important for chairpersons by all respondents,
but there was strong disagreement between faculty and
chairpersons over the research ability, which had some
importance for chairpersons but was least valued by
Faculty.

A study on the role of the art departments of the Big
Ten Affiliated Universities was done by Clark in 1978. A
direct mail questionnaire and a personal interview were
employed to collect information from ten chairpersons.
Clark found that art department chairpersons viewed their
role as being substantially different from chairpersons of
other departments. He also found that most of the
chairpersons perceived themselves as teachers.

Skubal (1980) analyzed the administrative support needs
of department chairpersons in a large midwestern
university, using the concept of role theory as a framework
for the study. She interviewed chairpersons and members of

the central administration. Along with other findings, she

44

found that having a clear definition of the chairperson
would help to strengthen the position and provide a basis
for performance evaluation. Administrators saw a need for
orientation and in-service education for chairpersons, but

chairpersons did not completely agree with them.

CHAPTER III

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND
CONCEPTUAL SCHEME FOR THE STUDY

Conceptual schemes are simply mental frames of reference
set up for selecting and arranging essential ideas around
the understanding of phenomena. They are not necessarily
explanatory models, but they help the researcher in the
delimination of the study's scope and in the selection of
variables, hypotheses and assumptions, and also make the
results more understandable (Peterson, 1968).

Conceptual schemes are theoretically derived. Thus,
before going deeply into the presentation of the conceptual
scheme for this study, one must first discuss the
theoretical aspects which provide the basis for building
it. This discussion will be essentially centered on

systems theory and complex organizations.

Ess s o S stems eo
The open system approach arose from the research of
physical and biological scientists and also from certain

aspects of Gestalt psychology in the late 19th and early

45

46

20th century. Only after World War II, however, did it
emerge as a powerful intellectual movement creating new
areas of study, such as cybernetics and information theory,
influencing existing disciplines, including the study of
organizations. It also stimulated closer linkages among
scientific disciplines (Scott, 1981).

As a conceptual framework, systems theory analyzes
phenomena from an integrative and globalistic perspective,
emphasizing the relationship among the parts of the systems
and the interchange of influences with the surrounding
environment. The main idea of Gestalt psychology -- that
the whole is greater than the sum of its parts -- became an
assumption essential to the systemic approach. To
understand a system one should know the purpose it serves,
the order and interrelationship of its parts, and its
relationship with the environment. Thus, a system consists
of parts, interactions, and goals.

Indeed, systems theory appeared as a reaction to
mechanistic approaches, for it overlooked both the pattern
of relations among these parts and the influence of the
external environment. The prime objective of systems
theory is to facilitate better comprehension of complex
situations by relating elements into a comprehensible
pattern, structure, or framework.

A system is a delimited set of interconnected and
interrelated objects acting as a unit to produce a total

effect, or simply, as Griffiths (1964) states: ”A system

47

is a complex of elements in mutual interaction (p. 428)."
System implies a patterned relationship in which all
componentsare related to one another and are interdependent
for the accomplishment of system processes, actions, or

functions.

Despite the fact that all systems exhibit similarities
in features and properties, it does not mean that
differences do not exist among them. Systems have many
ways of differentiating themselves. They vary according to
the characteristics of the parts comprising them, to the
nature of the relationship among the parts, and also to the
type of the flows (inputs and outputs) interchanged among
the system elements and between the system and the
environment. In this connection, Scott (1981) notes:

...The "parts" of which all systems are
comprised vary from being quite simple in their
own structures to being very complex, from being
highly stable in their state to highly variable,
and from being relatively impervious to system
forces to being highly reactive to the workings of
the system to which they belong. As we move from
through mechanical organic to social systems, the
parts of which systems are comprised become more
complex and variable. Similarly, the nature of
the "relations" among the parts varies from one
sytem to another...In mechanistic systems, the
interdependence among the parts is such that their
behavior is highly constrained and limited. The
structure is relatively rigid and the system of
relations determinant. In organic systems, the
connections among the interdependent parts are
somewhat less constrained, allowing more
flexibility of response. In social systems, such
as groups and organizations the connections among
the interacting parts become relatively loose:
less constraint is placed on the behavior of one
element by the condition of the others(p. 103).

48

Complementing the ideas of system differentiation
presented in the above quotation, it is the same Scott that
states that as one progresses from simple to complex
systems, the nature and relative importance of "flows"
permeating the system structures change. Whereas flows of
material and energy are major vehicles of relationship
among components of lower level systems, the interrelations
characterizing social systems come to depend heavily on the
transmission of information.

Systems may be broadly classified as closed and open.
A closed system is one which is isolated from its
surroundings and, therefore, does not influence and is not
influenced by the external environment. Such a type of
system is usually designed for the purpose of study and is
nonexistent in reality. A closed system would not receive
continuous supplies or raw energy and thus either would be
short-lived or would reach disorganization quickly.

An open system, on the other hand, is related to and
exchanges energy and information with its environment. It
has an input-output relationship with the environment
across its boundaries. In addition to this, open systems
have other distinguishing characteristics, some of which
have been described by Griffith (1964) as follows:

1. Open systems tend to maintain themselves in steady

states. A steady state is characterized by a
constant ratio being maintained among the
components of the system. A burning candle is

often used as an example of steady state. Upon
being lighted the flame is small, but it rapidly
grows to its normal size and maintains the size as
long as the candle and its environment exist.

49

2. Open systems are self-regulating. In the
illustration above, a sudden draft will cause the
flame to flicker, but with the cessation of the
draft the flame regains its normal
characteristics.

3. Open systems display equifinality: that is,
identical results can be obtained from different
initial conditions. Hearn points out that
equifinality in human beings (they are open
systems) is illustrated by the case of two babies,
one born prematurely, the other full-term. While
at birth they may look very different and may be
in different stages of development, within a few
months the differences will have disappeared...

4. Open systems maintain their steady states, in
part, through the dynamic interplay of subsytems
operating as functional processes. This means

that the various parts of the system function
without persistent conflicts that can be neither
resolved nor regulated.

5. Open systems maintain their steady states, in
part, through feedback processes. In general,
feedback refers to that portion of the output
which is fed back to the input and affects
succeeding outputs...(p. 428).

In short, open systems present a dynamic interplay
among their parts and processes, which permits their
maintaining the ’functioning and continuing. Assuming a
sufficient input of supplies from the environment, the
organismic system processes them and gives them back to the
environment as a finished product. Comparison of output
products with environmental standards results in new data
entering the system as feedback directing changes or
maintenance of activities. Complex systems maintain

feedback loops between their components as will

environmental feedback loops. A biological cell would

50

serve nicely as an illustration of an open system with both
internal and external environmental feedback loops.

Systems theory deals only with open systems: because of
this, the emphasis of systems analysis is directed toward
problems of relationships of structure and of interdep-
endence rather than the constant attributes of the elements
of the system (Katz & Kahn, 1978). This view is essential
to an understanding of the essence of system theory and
indeed is the key factor underlying the system's viability
(Buckley, 1967).

Also central to systems approach are the concepts of
suprasystem and subsystem. A system simultaneously
contains and is contained by other systems. Except at some
abstract level at which a system may be conceived as
totally inclusive and comprehensive, all systems are viewed
as being part of some broader system. This idea is very
well illustrated by Havelock (1971) in his discussion of
social systems:

Briefly, the theory of social systems
maintains that society is a large social system
which is composed of many subsystems. Some of
these subsystems are called organizations.
Organizatins are also composed of many social
subsystems called departments, divisions, or
branches, which are themselves composed of social
subsystems. The ultimate social subsystem is
the individual (p. 2).

In the present study, attention will be focused on the

academic department as being the system. The college and

university settings as well as the society will be

51

considered suprasystems which constitute the surrounding

environment for the department.

The Upiversity as an Open System

Despite some allusions to faculty autonomy and to
campuses as untouchable ivory towers, the university really
is an assemblage of interrelated human and physical
elements engaged in transactions with the society. In
other words, the university is a social system functionally
differentiated from the broader collectivity in which it is
embedded, though the particular functions that it is
expected to perform contribute to the functioning of the
broader system. To perform its functions, and thus
maintain a steady state with its environment, the
university (1) receives from the environment inputs in the
form of human and material resources and information, and
(2) utilizes those inputs as sources of energy to (3)
produce for its environment an output in the form of
scientific knowledge to be used for practical or
theoretical purposes. Thus the university may be
characterized as an open system with specific tasks to
perform (commonly stated as teaching, research and
services), with an import-conversion-export process, i.e.,
a process by which the tasks are performed, and also with
boundaries separating it from the environment.

The idea of the university as an open system has been

implicitly or explicitly accepted since the 1950's. In his

52

works on sociology of organizations, Parsons (1956) views
the university in this way. Griffiths (1964), in
presenting the systems theory, suggests that the concept of
open system is a useful one for better understanding
educational institutions. Corson (1975), in his first
edition of his 'Governance of Colleges and Universities,‘
included a chapter on ecology of governance, and strongly
emphasized the systemic view in the new version of that
book. In the 'Emerqing Patterns in American Higher
Education' edited by Logan (1965), the idea of the
importance of the environment in the functioning of
American universities is the major feature. Following
these and other unmentioned pioneers, an enumerable amount
of works on higher education may be found using system as
methodological guidelines. Indeed, systems is the dominant
approach supporting the current literature in higher
education.

In addition, important leaders in the field of higher
education share the vision of the university as an open
system. Former president of the University of California
Clark Kerr's (1983) concept of "multiversity" is one of
this kind. He characterizes the contemporary American
university as a "multiversity" due to its dimensions, its
great variety, and its capacity of adapting, growing and
responding to society's demands.

James Perkins, president of Cornell University, in one

of his lectures, stressed the importance of a systemic

53

perspective in dealing with university administration
instead of a partial view of internal aspects. Here is the
essence of his views:

The internal problem, however, is only one
aspect of the university in transition. There is
also a very substantial and complicated
superstructure of educational interests and
educational institutions that are being
established outside of and over the university:
and if any extended comment on the university is
to be adequate, it must cover this emerging system
of which the university is simply a part. The
fact is that the university, which was conceived
and has long been thought of as a self sufficient
community of scholars, now finds self-sufficiency
a nostalgic dream. Where the university has
thought of itself as an institution which could
explore independently the unity of knowledge, it
now finds that it must concentrate on specialized
segments of knowledge if it is to maintain
excellence. Where the university has admitted
only reluctantly in the past that other
universities also exist -- and then, let us face
it, mainly for the purpose of arranging football
schedules -- universities now find that close
collaboration is a stark necessity. And finally,
the university has only recently begun to realize
that important functions bearing on university
life -- such as testing, innovation, and planning
-- are increasingly organized and managed from
outside the university (p. 63-64).

Derek Bok (1982), president of Harvard University,
rediscussing the values of academic freedom, institutional
autonomy, and political neutrality toward the obligations
universities have to fulfill in the context a complex and
demanding society, presents his view of the university in

different periods of its existence:

54

Before 1900, American universities were small
institutions just beginning to assume the modern
form. Their principal was to provide a college
education that emphasized mental discipline,
religious piety, and strict rules governing
student behavior. Thus conceived, they remained
quiet enclaves, having little direct impact on the
outside world and little traffic with
corporations, the banks, and the legislative
bodies that were busy transforming America into a
modern industrial state........There were no large
endowments, no foundations grants, no federal
funding for research (p. 2-3).

In the very first decades, according to Bok, the
American university had already evolved from a
church-oriented college into a larger and more diverse
institution running strong graduate and professional
programs able to serve the needs of a developing economy
Further on, Bok refers to the evolution of the university
in direction of the society's needs:

After World War II, therefore, the image of

the ivory tower grew obsolete. Instead, a vast

and intricate network of relationships arose

linking universities to other major institutions

in the society (p. 7).

r iz o s

The current state of affairs in developed countries is
one of a complex and highly organized society within which
one finds equally complex and organized institutions at all
levels.

Organizations are not a modern invention. Indeed, they

were present in ancient civilizations. Modern

industrialized societies, however, have a much greater

55

number of organizations engaged in performing a greater
diversity of tasks, fulfilling a greater variety of
societal and personal needs, involving a greater portion of
the population, and affecting many more aspects of the
people's lives.

Modern civilization depends largely on organizations,
and as Parsons (1960) states, "the development of
organizations is the principal mechanism by which, in a
highly differentiated society, it is posible to get things
done, to achieve goals beyond the reach of the
individual”. Etzioni (1964) begins his famous work 'Modern
Organizations' by stating:

Our society is an organizational sociey. We

are born in organizations, educated by

organizations, and most of us spend much of our

lives working for organizations. We spend much of

our leisure time paying, playing, and praying in

organizations. Most of us will die in an

organization, and when the time comes for burial,

the largest organization of all--the state--must

grant official permission (p. l).

The above text elucidates the fact that organizations
are all around us. They are ubiquitous entities in the
modern world which play important roles virtually in every
sector of the contemporary social life. It is not
surprising that organizations constitute a prominent, if
not the dominant characteristic of the modern time.
Also, it is not surprising to Scott that Peter Tucker

referring to the need to study organizations maintains,

56

"Young people today will have to learn organizations the

way their forefathers learned farming" (Scott, 1981, p.1)

A Definition fpr Organization
Many organizational analysts have attempted to
formulate definitions for organizations. Nevertheless,
their views appear not to be as much diversified as shown

in the following illustrations:

According to Barnard (1938), "formal organizations
is that kind of cooperation among men that is
conscious, deliberate, purposeful.

Etzioni (1964) presents a definition as follows:
"Organizations are social units~ (or human groupings)
deliberately constructed and reconstructed to seek
specific goals" (p. 2).

Peterson (1968) states his definition of
organization as "a contrived group of people which can
be described by a formal or characteristic structure
and which strives to achieve certain goals or
objectives (p. 28).

Argyris (1959) has one more inclusive definition.
In his views, an organization is:

1. a plurality of parts
2. each achieving specific objectives, and

3. maintaining themselves through their
interrelatedness, and

4. simultaneously adapting to the external
environment, thereby,

5. maintaining the interrelated state of the
parts (p. 125).

All of these definitions emphasize two features that
distinguish organizations from other types of social forms
or collectivities: (1) an orientation toward the pursuit

of goals, and (2) the existence of a relatively high degree

57

of formalization. Such definitions encompass
collectivities like corporations, schools, churches, and
prisons but exclude others such as tribes, classes,
friendship groups and families. In other words the
definitions put aside what sociologists call social groups,
i.e., those collectivities of people who share common
interests, interact with one another, possess a sense of
identity with one another, and have the same degree of
structure. The idea of organization goes beyond that of
simply groupness. It stresses regularization,
routinization, and systematization within the groupness.
In fact, the use of the term 'formal organization' is
common to refer to an explicitly structured social unit
having formal rules, roles, and objectives. Also, the term
'complex organization' is often used interchangeably with
that of formal organization, though it usually carries an
additional connotation of size and intricacy (Babbie,
1975).

Organization is here treated as a special case of the
more general concept that is system, or more particularly
open system. Argyris' definition of organization is one
which better reflects the idea of open system, and
therefore it may be chosen as the most representative for

this study.

58

The anirpnmept

Early analysts of organizations tended to overlook or
underestimate the impact of external influences on the
structure and functioning of organizations. On the
contrary, modern organizational theorists have given this
point increasing attention.

Many demands are created through organizations'
interactions with their surroundings. The dynamics of the
environmental context force organizations to be continously
redefining their relationship with the environment, in
order to continue their existence.

The idea that the continuity of the organization life
depends to a great extent on the their ability to interact
with the environment is present even in the early writings
on organizations under a systemic perspective.

The following text by Katz & Kahn (l966)is an example:
The basic hypothesis is that organizations
and other social structures are open

systems.....which are changed primarily from
without by means of significant change in the

input. Some organizations, less open than most,
may resist new inputs indefinitely and may perish
rather than change. We would predict, however,

that in the absence of external changes,
organizations are likely to be reformed from
within in limited ways. More drastic or
revolutionary changes are initiated by external
forces (p. 448-449).

Emphasis on environmental influences upon organizations
has been championed by Emery and Trist (1963). They see

the environment as a quasi-independent domain, and are

59

concerned with what they called the environmental 'causal
texture', i.e., the degree of interdependence existing
among the elements compounding the environment. Four ideal
types of environments are identified according to their
causal texture: placid and randomized: placid and
clustered: disturbed-reactive: and turbulent. It is the
last type which catches their attention the most because it
maximizes variability and uncertainty. Also, it is the
turbulent which better characterizes the environment of
modern organizations.

Lawrence & Lorsh (1967) conducted important research on
the organization-environment relations. They based their
work on two variables: differentiation and integration.
The first refers to the division of parts performing
different functions in the organization, whereas the second
one is related to the ability to collaborate which exists
among the organizational parts that are required to achieve
units of effort in order to satisfy the environmental
demands. These two major concepts, according to the
authors, are basically antagonistic to each other: the
more differentiated the organization, the more difficult it
is to achieve integration.

The results of Lawrence & Lorsh's research show that
effective organizations that function in dynamic and
diverse environments are highly differentiated
structurally. In contrast, an equally effective

organization in a more stable environment is less

60

differentiated. They generalize that variation in
environment requires variation in organizational structure,
and also additional effort to integrate the segments of the
organization. As integration demands cooperation and this
is not something spontaneous, but is instead a function of
an active leadership, it seems to be obvious that the more
turbulent the environment, the more complex the
organizational structure becomes, and also the more complex
is the integrative role of the administrator.

Terreberry (1968), building on the work of Emery and
Trist, concludes that the survival of organizations depends
on their capacity for adapting to the environmental
conditions, and this, in turn, depends on the ability
organizations have to learn and to perform according to
changing environmental contingencies. Thus organizations
should be adaptive organisms for guaranteeing their
survival.

Adaptation may take one of two forms: first, it may
happen through attempts to control the environment: second,
it may occur through internal changes within the
organization.

Using the university as an illustration, one may easily
verify that numerous attempts have been made by these
institutions to achieve control over the environment.
Special legislation has been enacted to assure the
provision of funds necessary to continued operation.

Public relations activities have been carried out to

61

convince the public that the universities are performing
well. In addition, certain autonomous groups inside and
outside the university setting have developed efforts to
isolate the academic world from the interference of
political agencies or any other form of influential action
considered inadequate.

Although the strategy of attempting to achieve
environmental control may be useful and necessary on some
occasions, it does not seem to be efficient as a permanent
strategy. On this matter Abbot (1975) notes:

Regardless of an organization's success in
attempting to control its environment, however,
those attempts are insufficient to ensure
organizational viability. New social movements,
shifting economic conditions, altered political
arrangements, and technological inventions and
applications all have social implications: either

singly or in combination they create social forces
that are only partly amendable to manipulation and

control. These forces impact upon the subsystems
of any social order in such a way as to produce
demands for internal adjustments. Thus,

innovation and change represent another major

mechanisms employed by the school organization to

adapt to its environment (p. 177).

Going further in his comments, Abbot (1975) observes
that internal adjustments may happen either by purposive
response to external demands or by haphazard reaction to
environmental pressures. Although the second form of
adjustment may be found in the most deliberately
self-conscious organizations, it usually does take a

predominant character. Only rarely do manager and worker

respond to environmental pressures with total indifference

62

allowing the organization's fate to take whatever direction
the environment determines.

Within the perspective of open system, some approaches
give primary attention to the environment as a set of
influences shaping the structure, functioning, and fate of
the organization. Aldrich & Pfeffer (1976) synthesize
those approachs in two rather distinct types: the
natural-selection model, and the resource-dependence model.

In the natural-selection model, as in its biological
counterpart, the environment is seen as selecting the
fittest or optimal organization for the environment.
According to this model, it is the environment that
differentially selects certain types of organizations for
survival. Organizations do not have the chance to affect
the selection process.

The resource-dependence model stresses adaptation
process. Underlying this model there is the assumption
that complex organizations cannot generate from within
themselves the resources and functions if they are to
continue as viable entities. Thus "subunits of the
organization, 'usually managers or dominant coalitions, scan
the relevant environment for opportunities and threats,
formulate strategic responses, and adjust organizational
structure accordingly." (Hamman & Freeman, 1977, p. 930).

This conception portrays organizations as capable of
changing, able to respond to the environment in a

purposeful way, and therefore, as active in determining

63

their own fate. It calls attention not only to the
importance of environmental contingencies and constraints,
but also to the possibility of strategic choices available

to the organizational members. As Scott (1981)
observes:

Organizational participants, particularly
managers, wrestle with the environment, attempting
to strike favorable bargains and to avoid costly
entanglements. As an open system, the
organization is dependent on suppliers of inputs
and consumers of outputs: but which specific
suppliers and consumers are selected as exchange
partners is partly determined-~at least under many
conditions--by the organization itself. Astute
managers are those who not only acquire the
necessary customers and resources but do so in a
way that does not make them overly dependent on
these external parties. Dependence is the obverse
of power in an exchange relation: managers seek to
increase their power over critical aspects of the
environment or, at least, to reduce their
dependence on these units (p. 116).

The resource-dependence model is the one most used in
examining the organization-environment connections,
according to Scott (1982). It is also the one adopted in
this research which has as its purpose to identify changes
in the job of academic department chairpersons in relation
to changes that have occurred in the environment.

In achieving and maintaining a steady state with its
environment, while preserving its own corporate and
functional identity, 'academic departments face the central
problem of accurately assessing changing economical and
social forces, of reacting minimally to those that are
periphial and transitory, and of adjusting intelligently to

those that are basic and enduring.

64

e ual che e d Assum t ons
As Scott (1981) noted, an organization can be studied
at three distinctive levels of analysis: (1) the
ecological level, in which the organization is viewed as a
unit in the larger institution or societal context: (2) the
organizational level, in which the features of the
organization and its subunits are the primary focus: and
(3) the individual level, in which the behavior of
individual members within the organizational setting is the
focal point. This study was focused on the job of the
academic department chairperson as a response to the
combined action of both the demands from the external
environment of department and the forces from its internal
context. Despite having its central focus on the
chairperson, this research is in reality a cross-sectional
study of academic departments, for it takes into
consideration all three levels of organizational analysis.
Placing special emphasis on the last one, this study
encompasses the following aspects of the departmental
organization:
1. e xt v , characterized by a set
of variables pressuring the departments and
forcing these organizational units to have an

adaptive attitude in order to survive the demands
made upon them.

2. The prgahizatiphai sehrihg, characterized by a set

of contextual factors and/or conditions internal
to the departments which modify the impact of the
external pressures. These contextual factors are
institutional hallmarks constituting the core of
the department's structure and internal

65

environment. Through them the departmental
organization attempts to maintain its basic
character and stability (Clark & Guba, 1979).:

3. The jeb of the chairperson, viewed as a responsive

element to the changing demands from the
environment

In this study the academic department is treated as an
organizational unit interacting with the larger
organization of which it is a part, and also with the
external environment. Furthermore, the academic department
is considered to be an organizational unit deliberately
structured to accomplish a set of goals. The
diversification of goals, the different levels of
difficulty in accomplishing them, as well as the number of
positions and committees usually found in its structure
make the academic department an organizational unit of a
complex nature.

In short, a conceptual framework is utilized in this
study to understand the academic department as an open
system and also as a complex organization. This conceptual
scheme leans heavily on the body of knowledge derived from
systems theory and theory of organizations.

From the above discussion, the following assumptions
are made:

1. Departments can be conceived of as a system within
the university suprasystem.

2. Departments have the capacity for adapting to a
changing environment.

3. Departments, due to their diversity of goals and
their differentiated structure, can be conceived
of as a complex organization.

66

In Figure l the conceptual scheme is summarized. It
displays how the job of the chairperson is related to the
forces of the departmental context and external
environment. The variables selected in this scheme were
suggested from the literature in higher education, systems
theory, and theory of organizations.

In this diagram, an organizational unit -- the academic
department -- is viewed as an open system with its internal
dynamic structure interacting with the external
environment. The department receives the demands from the
environment, processes these demands in accordance with the
characteristics of its internal context, and then gives a
response to these demands through its administrative
function.

It is this conceptual view of an academic department
which the researcher has devised and which allows for
studying the department, a complex organization interacting
with the external environment and taking into consideration
its internal context.

The following is a deeper view into the conceptual
scheme. It displays in detail the meaning and the
composition of the external environment and of the
organizational context, where the job of the academic

department chairperson takes place.

67

 

_

mowsmcxo co_umtomwcwsu< qucmsocmamo

\L

mmzoammm L

 

.fi mgamwm

 

 

m>HH<mhmHszo<_

 

 

 

 

_

 

onHozzu m>Hh<mhmHszo<

'

 

- a .

 

 

mcompmpomaxm
mpog new mace: .emumxm mapm>

Aocacmu use .cowuoeogav
mamwcmcomz ucmzwm

taxes can mcapozcum auwcoga=<

 

mm0pu<m wzHNHmHm<hm

 

 

 

 

 

 

.\
‘/

v

mcwcwmmcmm m>_oumppou
new Emwcowcz Sppzumm .o

 

acmEmocm>u< Fmowmopocsumh .e

mpcwmcpmmm puma; use assumpmmmmm .m

 

 

mpmpcas_u bcmuzbm masseuse .N

 

 

 

wzahhmm Hzmthm<amo

 

mmlssautttmo _mlucw=_u .H

 

hzmzzomH>zm m<zmmhxm
mzp 20mm mmmammmma

 

68

The Deparrmentai Environment

Since the environment of an organization is conceivably
composed of an infinite set of elements, one needs to focus
attention on that portion of the environment of the total
setting which is relevant for the organization. What the
environment really consists of is a crucial issue in the
study of organizations.

In discussing that portion of the external world which
has a considerable influence upon a certain organization,
Mohr and others (1975) argue that the relevant environment
may be separated from the irrelevant in terms of a
threshold of (l) dependence of the organization upon
something outside itself or (2) impact of outside forces
upon the structure and activities of the organization.

In this study, where the focal point is the academic
department, the delimitation of the environment is made
fundamentally through the second orientation. Six factors
taken from the current literature in higher education set
up the environment for the departments. They have
constituted the major external forces influencing the
departmental setting. They are: (1) financial
difficulties, (2) changing student clientele, (3)
legislature and legal restraints, (4) technological
advancement, (5) disciplinary orientation, and (6) faculty
unionism and collective bargaining.

l-EinariciaLDiLstultise
Most of the financial difficulties facing higher

69

education can be related to inflation. Departments have to
strive in the battle of balancing the budget in a situation
where the inflation of cost is not being compensated by the
increase in the input from tuitions, endowments and
governmental appropriations. (Bolton & Boyer, 1973:
Wolotkiewez, 1980).

The availability of money from the federal and state
governments as well as from private sources is severely
limited, forcing departments to compete more and more among
themselves and with other institutions and agencies for
their share of the funds.

The financial crisis has had a severe impact on the
academic community, and its consequences are reflected
inside the departmental setting through cutbacks in areas
such as personnel (faculty and clerical), salary, research
funding, academic programs and day to day activities.

2. Chahging Studenr Ciiepreie

Quantitative and qualitative changes have been
occurring in the student body. The decline in the birth
rate after 1957 has been felt in the university enrollment,
and a shrinking in the student clientele is a national
phenomenon in the 80's. This trend seems to continue until
the end of this century unless something unexpected
happens. Besides this, other factors have contributed to
the decline in university enrollment. The increasing cost
of a college education associated with an uncertainty of

getting a place in the job market after finishing it has

70

encouraged many young people to attend two-year
institutions instead of four-year because of the former's
advantages of offering shorter, cheaper and more
career-oriented courses and programs. Furthermore, an
academic full degree no longer guarantees higher earnings.

In addition to shrinkage, a change in the pattern of
the student’ clientele is also occurring. Several sources
of data reveal that the number of minority group students
(Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and American Indians) attending
post secondary education has had considerable growth.
Census Bureau figures show that blacks represented nine
percent of the total college enrollment in 1974, compared
to five percent in 1964. The Federal Office for Civil
Rights has published data revealing that in 1972 minority
students made up 11.9 percent of the country's full-time
enrollment in post secondary education. In 1974 that
proportion was 13.1 percent. Information on enrollment of
minority students reported by the Digest of Educational
Statistics (1980) displays that ethnic groups represented
more than fifteen percent of the two and four-year
institutions of higher education, in Fall, 1978.

Other changes in the pattern of the student clientele
may be added. More women are taking part in the university
enrollments, and also a wider range in age within the
student body is verified, while an increasing number of
students are shifting their enrollment from full to

part-time status. Furthermore, an increasing number of

71

employed people have returned to the university to update
their knowledge. (Centre 1980).

These quantitative and qualitative changes in the
enrollment have led to enormous changes in student
personnel and counseling services as well as in curriculum
and programs in order to attend to the demands of
non-traditional clientele.

3. slat vs a d est 3

Both state legislature and federal government agencies
are examining higher education institutions operations in
detail. Increased requirements for a justification of
requests for resources have been imposed, accompanying
demands for increased accountability in the use of those
resources. Legislators are becoming increasingly concerned
about public money spent on higher education. They have
been more and more pressured by public criticism of the
privileges acquired by higher education and its mismatch
with society's needs.

An important developing trend is the establishment of
state coordinating boards to develop and control state
plans for higher education. Such boards can already be
found in several states (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976).

As Dressel & Faracy (1972) observed, the autonomy
gained by academic institutions through easy gathering of
public funds and grants contributed to the existence of
loose administration without necessary accountability. But

the economic crisis led public and government to a more

72

demanding position in relation to the university's purposes
and its way of fulfilling them.

Federal agencies are imposing more and more
restrictions on regulations for using public money.
Affirmative Action requirements constitute just one
example. Faculty, staff, and student personnel policies
are subject to scrutiny before institutions are approved
for receipt of federal resources. Any existing
discriminatory practice for hiring, promotion and salary
rewards which work against women and minority groups must
be corrected if the institution is to use public funds.

The government is limiting university freedom by the
patterns through which it makes money available. Questions
raised, data requested and recommendations made all have an
influence on the decisions taken by academic
administrators. Also, the large number of laws and
regulations have led to a suffocating proliferation of
paperwork never seen before. (Wolotkiewicz, 1980)

The question of institutional autonomy versus state
authority has been part of judgement in some state courts.
Decisions have been taken against practices and policies
adopted by some universities in issues regarding admission
of minority groups, non-reappointment of faculty members
and functioning of unqualified programs among other matters
traditionally viewed as the concern only of the university

setting.

73

Government intrusion into academic and other related
matters has limited and diluted the professional autonomy
and authority of academic administrators. (Fincher, 1975).
4. Iechnologicai Adyancemeht

An improving technology both in the form of new devices
as well as new knowledge has invaded all kinds of
organizations. Some of those technological innovations
have had a tremendous impact on higher education, as it is
the case of the computer, means of communications, and new
managerial techniques.

The use of television and accessories, teaching
machines and micro-computers associated with the
development of learning psychology constitutes a powerful
resource for improving the areas of instruction and
curriculum. The potential offered by these technological
advancements is still far from being fully explored.

In contrast, technology, particularly computerization,
has had an enormous influence on the field of research and
institutional administration. Computers are bringing about
substantial changes in administrative structures and in
day-to-day operations.

The wide use of computers has led to the development of
new management techniques mainly in business and industry.
The routinization of the collection and use of information,
the control and monitoring of activities, and the

establishment of new budget systems all constitute

74

important tools for the sophistication of the
administrative process.

Universities are being pressured to adopt operational
procedures of other organizations considered more
efficient. The result is the increasing introduction of
technology in the university administration through new
managerial techniques and tools, such as management
information systems, program budgeting, modeling,
management by objectives, and organizational development.
(Pelman, 1974).

5. D s 1 na 0 ntat 0

Universities and the academic departments within them
have experienced a change from a locally oriented vision to
a national scene where the competition for prestige and
resources has become a top priority. Departmental goals
and internal organization are heavily affected by that
orientation.

In order to gain a national reputation, departments
turn their focus of attention to research production,
publication, and graduate studies. In other words,
departments become discipline-oriented. Concerns for
undergraduate studies and public service appear to have low
priority, and generally the former activity is transferred
to graduate teaching assistants and assistant professors.

The disciplinary orientation of departments results in
a lack of concern for university affairs and local

priorities. The department's reputation and funds appear

75

to depend upon the professional reputation of the scholars
associated with it. Thus, as Dressel and others (1970)
observed, "It is an altogether reasonable conclusion on the
part of the scholar that the university exists for the sake
of the faculty because it is the faculty that makes the
university reputation" (p. 326).

This trend toward a disciplinary orientation has
changed the way departments set up their missions, reward
their members, and manage their resources.

6. Facult n onism and C lect ve a n

Traditionally the problems regarding the conditions and
procedures of faculty members'employment within
institutions of higher education were resolved in a way
substantially different from that found in industry.
Still, the changing circumstances in higher education have
led to changing employer/employee relationships.
Diminishing resources, shrinking availability of faculty
positions, and legislative actions affecting public
employees, among other factors, are responsible for the
emergence of the unionism movement, and with its
accompanying collective bargaining, within the university
setting (Wolotkiewicz, 1980).

Issues of tenure, promotion, assignment, and nonrenewal
of contracts, among many others, are now mandatory subjects
for collective bargaining in many universities.

Conflicting opinions about collective bargaining and

faculty unionism have been constantly heard since those

76

activities first appeared in the mid-1960's. Although
disagreement on those matters may continue, it seems not to
be sufficiently strong to stop the tidal wave of this
movement.

Unionism and its accompanying collective bargaining
provide a power base for faculty involvement in the
university decision-making process. This change in
faculty role is accompanied by a change in the role of the
academic administrators and by an overall change in
academic governance patterns. More specifically, the role
of the department chairperson seems to be the most affected
in that circumstance Chairpersons always have both
academic and administrative responsibilities, and they are
simultaneously part of the college administration and
the faculty (Tucker, 1980).

he artment et

Academic departments are impacted upon by a variety of
external influences, which affect the behavior of
individuals within these units and modify the organized
response of the units to demands for change or services.
(Clark & Cuba, 1979).

At the same time that external demands pressure
departmental units for changes, however, there are internal
factors which modify the impact of the external forces, and
act to give them some stability. These factors,
individually labeled as contextual factors or conditions

77

and collectively known as the department's organizational
context, are more than simple characteristics or features
of the departments. They are elements which are
incorporated into departmental routines and sometimes into
the college or university culture. They have a history
within the organization and therefore they tend to have a
lasting nature rather than a transitory one. They resist
easy or casual manipulations (Clark & Guba, 1977).

It is through these contextual factors and conditions
that organizations maintain or at least attempt to maintain
their basic character. They are intimately associated with
those resources that, according to Katz & Kahn (1978), give
organizations the power to attain stability: their
authority structure, reward mechanisms, and value systems.
These three organizational components will constitute the
scope of this research in the particular subject directly
related to the department setting. They will set the
boundaries for the researcher's interest at this level.

A more detailed comment on each of those components is
necessary for better clarification of the research's
purposes and also for furnishing ways of operationalizing
these purposes.

t 0 ct

The notion of power precedes the notion of authority.

Power may be considered of as the potential for influencing

or controlling people. Thus the power one individual holds

78

is directly related to the control he/she has over factors
which satisfy the needs of others.

Another way of discussing the idea of power is to
conceptualize it as essentially the ability to have people
do what one individual wants them to do, even if they do
not want to (Babbie, 1980).

No organization limits itself to appealing to its
members' material or affectual motives in order to
guarantee its continuance. This means that no organization
establishes only a power structure: in addition, every
organization attempts to create an, authority structure.
Authority is legitimate power, and legitimacy must be
understood as a condition of agreement dictated by a set of
social norms that defines situations or behaviors as
correct or appropriate (Scott, 1981). As Weber (1947)
points out, power is the ability to impose one's will upon
others, while authority, on the other hand, is the exercise
of power that is accepted by those over whom it is exerted.
W

As Etzioni (1964) emphasizes, most organizations
utilize rewards and penalties to control their members'
performance in carrying out assignments. Thus
organizations usually have structured mechanisms of
distributing these rewards and penalties to support
compliance with their norms, regulations, and orders.

As organizational units, academic departments have

mechanisms that allow them capacity to sanction their

79

members, that is, to provide or withhold rewards and
penalities.
Velue System

Over time, all organizations develop their own system
of values which influence the behavior of their members.
One can even speak of an organization as embodying certain
values into an institutional identity.

Values are the generally accepted standards of
desirability considered important for the members of one
social grouping. They are the guidelines one uses to judge
virtually everything one comes into contact with as
appropriate or not. Values are the criteria that orient
people to make decisions on the goals of behavior.

The concept of values generally accompanies the
concepts of norms and role expectations. In reality, they
are concepts which are interrelated and complimentary in
such a way as to make their combined use more meaningful.

While values are the general criteria for evaluating
behavior in a social grouping, norms are generally accepted
rules governing what should and should not be done in a
particular situation. Role is the behavior that is
generally expected of one occupying a specific position or
status into a social grouping. Role expectation
constitutes evaluative standards for assessing the behavior

of occupants of a given position within an organization.

80

As Scott (1981) observes, "In any social grouping,

values, norms and roles are not randomly arranged, but are
organized so as to constitute a relatively coherent and

consistent set of beliefs and prescriptions governing the

behavior of participants" (p. 282).

CHAPTER IV

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The research design constitutes the step that links the
abstract field of idealization and conceptualization of a
study to the concrete field of its feasibility. It is the
route through which the researcher drives his ideas to the
reality of the research setting.

‘This chapter deals with those aspects of the design for
this research. It comprises a discussion on the nature of

systemic research, data collection, and data analysis.

The Natu f S stem es ar

The systemic nature of this research deserves some
discussion. The starting point should be the fundamental
question: does general system theory provide a useful
conceptual framework for research on academic departments
and the job of their chairpersons?

General system theory is a descriptive and explanatory
framework for analyzing the functioning of existing social

systems, taking into consideration the parts in question,

81

82

the relationship among them, and the influence of the

external environment.

Besides being more extensive in its scope than many
other research forms, systemic research also differs in
relation to the nature of the causal relationships implied.
Underlying the causal language are "certain types of
metaphysical assumptions to the effect that forces exist in
some real sense and that such forces are to be taken as
causes or producing agents" in relation to the event being
examined (Blalock, 1964, p.28). The issue of causality in
social sciences cannot be limited to that extent, however.
Indeed, as Buckley (1967) observes, the idea of
causation may be classified into four categories:

d t a s l t o : Under this
consideration, a given phenomenon x is related to
a prior phenomenon or causes, in a one-way causal
linkage. "If the prior events are proximal to the
event being explained, we speak of 'efficient
causes': if more distant, we speak of historical
causes (p. 68).

Ieieoipgy pr- fihel ceuse: Here, an event X is
analyzed in terms of its relations to future
events or consequences.

Reeipreeal causerion gr mutpel inherecrioh:
Unlike the simpler one-way causal linkage it takes

into consideration the reciprocal process of
influence between events, variables, or elements.

8 : The understanding here is
that the concept of mutual relations is much more
complex than in the preceding case. The effect of
an event or variable returns indirectly to
influence the original event itself by way of one
or more intermediate events or variables carring
out a series of circular adjustments in all
variables until new equilibrium is reached. One
should distinguish between a simple circular
causal chain -- a blind and non-purposeful process
-- and a self-regulating circular causal chain
which presents a purposeful behavior. The last

83

goes beyond the kinds of relationships pertinent

to mere aggregates of elements and involves some

degree of adaptation, goal-seeking, elaboration of

organization or evolution in general.

The causal languages of systemic research are in terms
of the model of causality, represented by the
self-regulating circular causal chain or self-regulating
feedback loops.

In this research the primary focus is on the department
as a system. The variables are descriptive of the
departmental organization and administration. The
relationships among them and between them and the
environment are expected to provide insights into
department functioning and the job of its chairperson.
Even though system theory deals with how systems pp
function rather than with how they ehouid function, the
theory offers a great support for evaluation and analysis
of organization. The study of the actual outputs of a

system in relation to planned goals may provide a means of

improving or even redesigning the system.

si 3
Like most studies of departments, this one does not
present hypotheses to be tested. The kind of investigation
proposed in this study, and the nature of the setting
researched, did not provide opportunity for a
hypothesis-testing type of research. The variables under
consideration are many and they are not linked together in

a way that induces formulation of well-specified

84

hypotheses. Nevertheless, a set of propositions was
defined to guide the investigation and the analysis of the
data, as it has done in the previous departmental studies
carried out by Dressel and others (1970), Waltzer (1975),
and Skubal (1980). These propositions are statements not
so appropriate to be subjected to explicit statistical
test.

The propositions listed below were drawn from the
literature review, the conceptual framework, and also from
the researcher's own perceptions of academic

administration.

1. There will be a great disparity between the actual
time allocation and the ideal time allocation
given by chairpersons for the selected job
responsibilities.

2. Chairpersons spend more than 60% of their time in
administrative activities.

3. There has been a change in the chairperson's job
which is mostly characterized by adding more tasks
and responsibilities to the existing ones.

4. The decision-making process has been centralized
in the higher levels of the university
administration.

5. Chairpersons identify themselves more with faculty
than with administrators.

6. There is a generalized interest in using
microcomputers on the part of students, clerical
staff and department and college administration.

7. Chairpersons receive a great deal of job
satisfaction from their role as an academic
leader.

8. The main source of job dissatisfaction for
departmental chairpersons is the lack of time for
developing a scholarly life.

9. There exists a high turnover in the chairperson
position.

85

10. Financial limitations will be reported by more
than 80% of academic department chairpersons as
being the most impacting factor over the
administration of departments.

11. At least 50% of the chairpersons will identify
factors related to upgrading salary and prestige,
and long term of office, as being factors of high
significance in enhancing the attractiveness of
the chair position.

12. The only determinant for chairpersons resignation

in the middle of a term will be negative
relationships with faculty.

Data Cpiiection

Par ci a ts

The information relative to the propositions above were
collected from forty-nine current academic department
chairpersons at a large midwestern university in 1984.
These chairpersons are representative of all areas of
knowledge served by that university except those of the
professional area of health which includes physicians and
nurses. This area presents distinctive structural
features, prestige, and ethical issues that make it unique
in the university community. Furthermore, the supposed
lack of openess to individuals of other professions
contributed to the researcher's decision to leave
departments in the health area out of the present study.

The academic departments whose chairpersons were the
informants in the study were the following, listed
according to the areas of knowlege to which they belong:

86

I. Arts ehe prenities
All departments of the:

College of Arts and Letters
College of Communication Arts and Sciences

II. Physicai ang Naturai Seienees
All departments of the:
College of Engineering
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

College of Human Ecology
College of Natural Science

III. Sociel Sciences
All departments of the:
College of Business

College of Education
College of Social Sciences

Qpestionneire

A questionnaire including a cover letter and a return
envelope, was hand-delivered by the researcher to most
chairpersons. In a few cases where a personal contact with
the chairperson was not possible, the questionnaire was
delivered to the assistant chairperson or to the
departmental secretary.

The questionnaire was organized on the basis of other
questionnaires used in previous researches such as those
carried out by Clark and Cuba (1979), Dressel and others
(1970), Gross and Grambsch (1974), and Norton (1978). It
attempted to capture a sense of the chairpersons'
experience in departmental direction, their perception of

current issues and changes in the position, and their

87

suggestions for making the chairperson's job more
attractive. Specifically, it was organized in four
sections as follows:
Section I: Departmental organization and decision
making process.
Section II: Changes in the position and related
external influences.

Section III: Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and
reasons for leaving the position.

Section IV: Improvement of the attractiveness of the
position.

Of the sixty-one questionnaires delivered, a total of
forty-nine were returned, resulting in a return rate over
eighty percent. This high return rate may have occurred
because of the personal contact with the chairpersons, and
also the time period during which the questionnaire was
given (the first week after the end of the spring term).
Chairpersons usually are not under the pressures of time
constraints during this period between the spring and
summer terms. A few phone calls were made to follow up the
return of the questionnaires, expecially when they were
delivered to secretaries. Practically all those
chairpersons who were directly contacted answered and
returned the questionnaire.

0 e w

In hand delivering the questionnaire, the researcher
initiated a conversation describing its purpose and content
with each chairperson. This conversation usually took from

fifteen to twenty minutes. In five cases it took less than

ten minutes and in twelve cases it lasted more than half an
hour. The researcher took advantage of the personal
contact with the chairperson to make informal interviews on
all occasions where the chairperson had time and was
willing to go into a deeper discussion. The structure of
the conversation induced the chairperson to state his views
on the following aspects of his/her position: leadership,
management, scholarship, prestige, and pitfalls.
Questipnneire Pre-tes;

Before being administered, the questionnaires had been
submitted for a pre-test. Six ex-chairpersons of
departments in the areas of agriculture, business,
education, and foreign languages, filled out the
questionnaire on a trial basis. All of those
ex-chairpersons are researchers, and one is also a
specialist in the field of questionnaire construction.

A shorter and more concise version of the questionnaire
was adopted based upon the critiques received in the
pre-test. Duplicate questions were eliminated, dubious
items were replaced, and the division of the sections of
the questionnaire was rearranged. The focus of some
questions, mainly those related to chairpersons'
resignation, was fine-tuned to adjust specifically to
conditions of current chairpersons. In this case questions
were rephrased in the conditional tense (e.g., what reasons

wouig lead you to resign ...?), for it supposed that

89

current chairpersons did not have the experience of
resignation.

In short, each question was reanalyzed in light of
three points, according to the suggestion made by a
respondent:

1. What will it tell to the researcher?

2. Is it important for the objectives of the
research?

3. Is it a repetition of another question?

t s s d

The analysis of the information given by the
chairpersons was made using descriptive statistics. The
chairpersons were taken collectively or in groups organized
on the basis of two variables, the chairperson's time in
the present position and the type of discipline to which
the department is related. The variable of time in the
position divided the respondents in two groups, those
chairpersons serving for a period of five years or less,
and those serving for a period of more than five years.
Grouped in this manner, the first group was still
experiencing a first term as chairperson, whereas the
second had already accepted reassignment, which indicated
more experience in the position and might be taken as a
possible indicator of a long-range commitment to the job.

The second variable, the type of discipline
characteristic of the department, has two dimensions, hard

and soft. These dimensions are found in Biglan's

90

model of classifying departments according to the subject
matter characteristics. Some studies have found that
departmental affiliation influences chairpersons'
perceptions and attitudes in relation to certain
departmental aspects (Dressel and others, 1970: Smart and
Elton, 1975: Mangelson, 1978: Skubal, 1980).

Examples of departments affiliated with hard
disciplines in Biglan's classification are Astronomy,
Biology, Botony, Chemistry, Entomology, Geology,
Mathematics, Physics, Physiology, and Zoology: as an
extension Biglan includes in this category some departments
related to professional and applied fields such as
Engineering and Computer Science. Departments affiliated
with soft disciplines are Anthropology, Communication,
Education, English, History, Philosophy, Political
Sciences, Psychology, Sociology, and some departments in
the professional fields of Business and Criminal Justice.
The two dimensions in Biglan's model represent what are

usually called the hard sciences and the soft sciences.

W
The results of this study strictly apply only to the
departments surveyed. Caution should be exercised in
generalizing the findings beyond the setting studied. The
departments included in the investigation were not randomly
selected and departments are characterized by their

diversity. They are found in all types of institutions of

91

higher education and in every discipline. Within a given
institution or discipline, departments vary in terms of
goals, decision-making procedures, formal and informal
organizational patterns, and effectiveness (Peterson,
1970).
Another barrier to the generalization of the results of
this study is the uniqueness of each American university.
As Faricy (1974) states:
...each university -- at the present state of
theory -- must be treated as an entity separate in
itself, with a unique combination of traditions,
structures, legal frameworks, community pressures,
and clientele, in a specific physical setting (p. 98).
The author believes, however, that there are some

practical applications of the findings to other

universities and their academic department chairpersons.

1. Universities with characteristics and conditions
similar to those of the institution researched may
use the results of this study as a basis for
examining changes occurring in the job of
chairpersons. The institution under consideration
is a large -- student population approximately
40,000 -- and prestigious land-grant university
located in the Midwest. A wide variety of
undergraduate and graduate programs are taught by

approximately 3,000 faculty and staff. This

92

institution is now coming out of a period of
severe financial crisis during which the decision

making process was highly centralized.

Where more confidence is desired, for example in
the development of programs to assist chairpersons
in their work, small pilot surveys could be made
on the basis of this study. The survey results
could be compared to this study's results to test
similarities and differences. Where the findings
of this study correspond to those of the pilot
surveys, decisions may be made based on the

results of this investigation.

The conceptual framework used in this study may be
considered a universal tool for researching the
job .of the academic department chairperson, taking
into consideration the external and internal

influences over the departments.

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This chapter presents the analyses of the data gathered
from the questionnaires administered to academic department
chairpersons at the university chosen as the research
setting. Each question in the questionnaire had its data
analyzed in relation to the propositions presented in the
preceding chapter which were identified as a result of the
literature review or derived from the author's views and

observations.

of e f the ca e c n e so

The data were analyzed to determine the most common
characteristics of participating chairpersons and to sketch
an outline of the basic factors related to the
chairperson's position at the institution studied. While
the organization of the questions related to this section
does not lend itself to much quantification, frequency
distribution and mode appear to be appropriate statistical
tools for the analysis. The mode, at least, will serve to

reveal the most common characteristics of the population.

93

94

Thus, an overall description of the general profile of the
chairperson at that institution was provided as follows:

(1) Most of the chairpersons are in their first term
of office. Of the 49 reporting chairpersons, 29 (59%) are
serving in the position for the first time. Eight
chairpersons are still in the initial year. Chairpersons
in the second term of office represent 26% of the total
respondents. Only eight chairpersons have served for more
than ten years, that is, they have served beyond a second
term.

This information provides further insight if compared
to the high turnover in the position seen in the last ten
years. During this period, only 16 academic departments
(33% of the total) did not change their chair. Forty-two
percent of the departments were served by two chairpersons,
15% by three, and finally, 10% by more than three
chairpersons. This shows that in 67% of the departments,
the chairperson 'did not stay in the position for more than
one term. This fact helps to understand the high
percentage of novice chairpersons in their first term of
office.

(2) Seventy-six percent of the respondents held the
rank of full professor prior to their appointments as
chairperson. Eighteen percent were associate professors at
the time they were appointed to the chairperson's post. No

one came to the chair position holding an assistant

95

professorship. Only a very few chairpersons were appointed
from outside the department.

(3) When appointed to the present position, the great
majority of chairpersons (71%) were in the middle of their
career as faculty. Only 20% came to the position as senior
faculty and still fewer (9%) as young faculty. The
departmental faculty workforce is also primarily a
mid-career one (70%) with the young and senior professors
splitting in two approximately equal (15%) groups.

(4) The chairperson's position affords its occupants
enjoyment and satisfaction. Asked about the level of
enjoyment and satisfaction they have experienced as
chairperson, 50% of the participants answered a high level:
46% answered a considerable level: and 4% answered a low
level. None stated the job is an unsatisfying one.

(5) Chairpersons considered themselves to be a faculty
member as well as an administrator. Seventy six percent of
the respondents perceived themselves in that dual role.
Fourteen percent felt themselves to be part of the
administration, and 10% saw themselves as faculty members
as opposed to university administrators.

(6) Chairpersons in the institution studied saw their
positions as serving a key leadership role vital to the
success of the university. Ninety six percent of the
respondents expressed this opinion. More than half of them
strongly emphasized this point. Only two participants held

a contrary opinion in this regard.

96

(7) Chairpersons found they have considerable
authority, which was equal to the position's
responsibilities. When asked to assess the
responsibilities of the position in relation to carrying
them out 62% of the respondents found a high correlation
between responsibility and authority while 28% found some
degree of correlation. Ten percent of the respondents,
however, found considerable disparity between
responsibility and authority in the chairperson's position.

(8) When asked what was the main reason for accepting
the job of chairperson, 63% of the respondents answered
that they took the job because of the opportunity it
afforded for providing leadership to the academic program.
The second leading reason was the opportunity to try
academic administration: this was indicated by 19% of the
respondents. Other reasons presented for accepting the
position included such responses as "personal improvement
in salary and/or prestige", 8%: "the job had to be done --
it was about my turn", 6%: "stepping stone to a position of
higher responsibility". "Particular reasons” (reasons
presented by only one individual) received only 2% of the
responses.

(9) Thirty-six percent of the participants stated that
they will accept another term in the job if nominated. Two
chairpersons reported that they will reach retirement age
before the end of the current term. Thirty percent of the
respondents stated that they will not accept nomination.

97

Those who agreed to continue in the position, if certain
conditions would be considered, also represented 30% of the
respondents. Adding the last two categories of responses,
one would conclude that only a few more than one-third of
the respondents remained open-minded about considering
another term in the position: thus one would anticipate a
substantial turnover in the next few years. If one,
however, goes further in the examination of the conditions
attached by the chairpersons, one would find that most of
them are speculative or weak in substance. Approximately
half of those in this situation, admitted that they were
undecided, giving responses such as "too early to know": "I
will assess the condition at the appropriate time": "I'm
uncertain at this time", and other similar ones. Many
responded in a conditional form, such as "I will accept if
support from the dean and faculty continues", or ”I will if
conditions do not worsen”, or "If my leadership appears to
be needed", or "If I feel the rewards are more nearly equal
to the demands". The most specified conditions were
related to improvement in departmental budget, much support

from the faculty and dean, and establishment of promotional

criteria for chairpersons, taking into account
administrative factors and not merely scholary
productivity.

Thus, the ”typical" chairperson in the institution
under consideration, is a male mid-career faculty member,

holding the rank of full professor, appointed to the chair

98

position from inside the department. He accepted the job
of chairperson because of the opportunity it offered for
providing leadership to the academic program, but he
considers himself equally as a faculty member and an
academic administrator. He is satisfied with the post
which he sees as serving a key leadership role, vital to
the success of the institution, and if nominated he will

accept another term in the office.

The State of the ha e so 's as tion

In the attempt to examine how chairpersons spend their
time on the job, they were requested to provide the best
estimate of their time allocations in specific job
responsibilities. Respondents were also asked to provide
judgements as to the allocation of time they would consider
"ideal" for these same responsibilities.

Time allocations varied widely for each specific job
responsibility in both real and ideal situations. For
instance, in relation to administrative activities -- a
category encompassing such matters as policy making,
planning, budgeting, communications, meetings, and office
management -- the percent of respondents' time actually
spent in this area ranged from 15 to 80%. The perceived
ideal allocations of time for the same item ranged from 5
to 50%.

Table 1 shows time allocations for the various job

responsibilities from both the actual and ideal

99

perspectives. As the data indicate, a considerable
difference between current time allocations and ideal
allocations suggested by the respondents exists only in the
areas of administrative activities and
personal-professional performance. In the former, the mean
percent of time in the actual allocation exceeds the ideal
allocation by thirteen units: whereas, in the latter, the
mean percent of the present allocation is approximately 7
units below the suggested allocation. In the remaining
areas of assistance to faculty, assistance to students and
others, present time allocations differed only slightly
from the ideal time allocations.

An analysis of the data leads to the conclusion that
the chairpersons in this study spend about half of their
time in administrative tasks but they would like to reduce
this fraction to about one third, and use the remaining
time mainly in personal and professional activities.

The influence of the chairperson was examined at
different levels of university hierarchy. Chairpersons
were asked to assess how influential they perceived their
position in regard to matters of policy development and
decision making at the college and university levels. The
majority (59%) thought they had some influence at the
college level: little or no influence at higher levels was
reported by almost 90% of the respondents as shown in Table
2. No respondents thought chairpersons have significant

influence at the university level: however, 13% of them

100

Table 1. Percentage of Time Department Chairperson
Allots to Specific Job Responsibilities

 

TIME ALLOTMENT (PERCENT
JOB RESPONSIBILITY CURRENT IDEAL

MEAN MEAN

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES
(policies, communications,
planning, budgeting,
meetings, and office

management) 49.2 36.1
ASSISTANCE TO FACULTY 15.8 17.5
ASSISTANCE TO STUDENTS 9.7 12.8
PERSONAL-PROFESSIONAL

PERFORMANCE 16.7 23.6

OTHERS 4.7 4.5

 

Table 2. Chairpersons' Perception of Their Influence
in the College and University Levels

DEGREE OF INFLUENCE (Percent of Responses)‘

 

LEVEL SIGNIFICANT SOME LITTLE OR NO

 

COLLEGE 31 59 10 100%

UNIVERSITY 0 13 87 100%

ll

101

reported some influence. Nearly 31% thought that their
influence at the college level was significant, in contrast
to the approximately 10% that thought chairpersons have
little or no influence at that level. It is interesting to
note that of those chairpersons (13%) who thought they had
some influence at the university level, all but one thought
they had significant influence' at- the college level.
Although these chairpersons' responses are neither
correlated to chairpersons' time in the position nor to
departmental discipline (hard, soft), they may, however,
lead to some inferences. For example, those chairpersons
could be influential individuals who fail to separate their
personal influence from that emanating from the chair
position. Or perhaps they are simply overestimating the
influence the position carries.

According to the participants, the hierarchical level
in which chairpersons really have a great amount of
influence is the departmental one. There, the chairperson
is the most influential figure. In answer to the
question: "In general, how much say or influence does each
of the following have over what goes on in your
department?": respondents ranked seven different positions,
resulting in the following rank order of influence over

departmental affairs:

102

1. department chairperson,

2. department faculty, as a whole,

3. tenured faculty,

4. department committees,

5. college administration,

6. students,

7. central administration.

Rated in this way, the influence of the chairperson is
followed by the influence of the departmental faculty
members, which is manifested in decreasing order by the
faculty as a whole, the group of tenured faculty, and the
faculty committees. College administration, students, and
finally the central administration, at the bottom, complete
the ranking list.

Comparing this question to the preceding, one can find
some reciprocity between the influence of and over the
chairperson's position in relation to external factors in
the department. Thus, if chairpersons have insignificant
influence over the central administration, central
administration also has low influence over chairpersons.
(chairpersons placed them at the bottom of the rank list).
Therefore, a balance of influence appears to exist in this
case. It is unlikely that such reciprocity or balance
would be found in periods of crisis, during which the

central administration usually tends to centralize power.

103

P we and ec sion n

The issue of power and decision making within the
departmental setting was examined in a more detailed way in
a specific question. A matrix of power positions in the
department versus areas of decisions was constructed and
the chairpersons were asked to fill out that matrix
according to the way decisions were reached in their
department in relation to each one of the areas to be
examined. Table 3 displays the result of the chairpersons'
reactions to that matrix.

The positions of power in relation to each decision
area examined were: the chairperson himself: the
chairperson acting with an advisory group: the group of
tenured faculty: and all departmental faculty members.
Power of making decisions in each area was assessed
according to the percentage of responses marked in each of
the positions. Thus chairpersons, along with an advisory
committee, hold the greater amount of decision-making power
in matters of recruitment and selection of new faculty,
according to 67% of the respondents. The faculty as a
whole, getting 29% of the responses, appears to be the
second most powerful group in matters of decision-making in
that area. In addition, chairpersons alone have no
decision making authority and tenured faculty have only an
insignificant amount in this same area.

Other areas where chairpersons acting with an advisory

committee have the greatest control over decisions were

104

Table 3. Power Positions Versus Areas Of Decision
(Percent of decisions in each area per position power)

M

POWER POSITION
AREA OF DECISION CHAIRPERSON W/ TENURED THE WHOLE
CHAIRPERSON ADVISORY GROUP FACULTY FACULTY

 

RECRUITMENT AND
SELECTION OF NEW

FACULTY 0 67 4 29
PROMOTIONS AND

TENURE 7 68 21 4
SALARY INCREASES 52 44 2 2
LEAVES OF ABSENCE 81 19 0 0
TRAVEL

AUTHORIZATION 92 8 O 0

BUDGET ITEMS FOR
SUPPLIES AND
EQUIPMENT 88 12 0 0

TEACHING
ASSIGNMENTS 63 35 0 2

OFFICE AND
RESEARCH SPACE 78 22 O 0

AWARD OF

ASSISTANTSHIPS,

FELLOWSHIPS, AND

SCHOLARSHIPS 18 80 0 2

REQUIREMENTS FOR
MAJORS AND
GRADUATE STUDENTS 0 21 15 64

105

found to be the awarding Of assistantships, fellowships,
and scholarships, where the group got 80% Of responses, and
in promotions and tenure, with 68% response. In both these
areas the decision-making power Of that group is followed,
respectively, by that Of the chairpersons themselves,
with18% of the responses, and by that Of tenured faculty,
with 21% Of the responses.

Chairpersons alone have an overwhelming power in
decisions within the areas Of leaves of absence, travel
authorization, budget items for supplies and equipment, and
Office and research spaces. In these areas chairpersons
received a percentage Of responses ranging from 78 to 92%.
Two other areas of great influence for chairpersons are
teaching assignments, in which they received 63% Of the
responses, and salary increases, where they got 52% Of the
responses. In both Of these areas, chairpersons shared
decision-making power with the group represented by
chairpersons acting with an advisory committee.

The faculty as a whole was found to have a very low
level of influence in decisions within the department. In
four Of the ten areas under consideration, this group held
no power over decision—making, and only in relation to the
area Of requirements for majors and graduate students, did
the group have a decisive influence as shown by 64% of the
responses marked in that position.

The tenured faculty was identified as the weakest group

in terms Of decision making power in departmental affairs.

106

According to the respondents, this group has no
decision-making power at all in six Of the ten areas Of
departmental activities. It presented a reasonable level
Of power in decisions to be made only in the matters of
promotions and tenure, with 21% Of the responses.

The analysis of the results Of this question leads to
certain comments on academic governance. The academic
departments did not present either bureaucratic or
collegiate patterns Of governance. There is no sign of
rigid hierarchical echelons Of authority. Assistant
professors do not simply carry out the decisions made by
the tenured faculty or even by the chairperson, which would
characterize the academic departments as a bureaucracy. On
the other hand, decisions are not made on the basis Of the
vote of all department faculty, as happens in a collegiate
model. Indeed departmental governance exhibits elements of
both models. A heavy reliance on committees and on their
own chairperson rather than on levels Of supervision or on
the faculty group as a whole, is the main characteristic Of
the kind Of governance taking place at the departmental
setting. These conclusions are in accordance with the
findings presented by Baldridge (1971) and Gross & Grambsch

(1974) in their nationwide studies on academic governance.

107

ue es d C n es n th i e O 's s n

An attempt was made to assess the influence that has
been impacting upon academic departments. In fact, this
matter is closely related to the hypothesized changes
occurring in the position of chairperson and is also an
essential part Of the conceptual framework for the study.
The examination Of the influences external to the
departmental setting is indeed synonymous with an
examination Of the departmental environment.

The study was centered on fourteen specific external
factors but left room for the inclusion Of other factors
which chairpersons think are important to be assessed.

From the list presented to the participants, financial
limitation constituted by far the most significant external
factor pressuring departmental administration, as is shown
in Table 4. All Of the 48 chairpersons who assessed this
item reported financial limitations in their department on
a level ranging from medium to high. Seventy-one Of them
reported high financial constraints. On a scale from 1
(low) to 5 (high) this factor had a mean value Of 4.6 which
shows how intensely financial problems have affected the
administration Of academic departments.

The second external factor which most affected
departments and which is also closely related to the first
one, is a decrease in the rate Of hiring of new faculty
members. It is common knowledge, as chairpersons confirmed

in the short interviews, that the institution in this study

108

Table 4. Influences Over Academic Departments

 

 

DEGREE OF IMPACT

(Percent Of’ResponseST

 

 

 

LOW HIGH MEAN

INFLUENCE 1 2 3 4 5 RATING
FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS 0 0 10 19 71 4.6
DECLINE IN STUDENTS
ENROLLMENT 30 14 26 23 7 2.6
INCREASE IN THE ENROLLMENT
OF MINORITY GROUPS (BLACK,
ASIAN, SPANISH, AND INDIANS) 46 22 24 4 4 2.0
INCREASE IN THE
ENROLLMENT OF WOMEN 36 24 19 19 2 2.3
INCREASE IN THE ENROLLMENT
OF OLDER STUDENTS 60 22 11 7 0 1.6
INCREASE OF LEGISLATURE
AND LEGAL RESTRAINTS 39 36 16 4 5 2.0
INCREASE IN COMPETITION
AMONG DEPARTMENTS AND BETWEEN
DEPARTMENTS AND NON-ACADEMIC
UNITS 28 18 28 22 4 2.6
INCREASE OF AN AGING
FACULTY WORKFORCE 17 23 33 25 2 2.7
DECREASE IN THE RATE OF
HIRING OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS 9 16 19 26 30 3.5
USE OF MICRO-COMPUTER
AND/OR OTHER TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCEMENT 9 15 15 38 23 3.4
FACULTY TENDENCY FOR COLLECTIVE
SOLUTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
PROBLEMS 43 32 17 4 4 2.0
FACULTY GRIEVANCES 66 15 8 11 0 1.6
INCREASE IN THE FACULTY
DISCIPLINARY ORIENTATION 45 34 13 8 0 1.8
SHIFT OF THE FACULTY ATTITUDE
FROM A LOCAL TO A
COSMOPOLITAN VISION 45 18 30 5 2 2.0

 

 

109

has adopted very restrictive policies for hiring personnel,
and has even set up incentive plans to encourage early
retirements. Also, a large number Of professors have left
this university. In view Of these conditions, it is
understandable that chairpersons selected a decreasing rate
of hiring new professors as the second most significant
factor over the departmental setting. (The fact that this
factor has constituted a problem for chairpersons was
reported in the section about job dissatisfaction). Thirty
percent of the respondents reported this factor as highly
influential into the departmental activities: 26% reported
it as being influential. Thus, 56% Of the reporting
chairpersons reported it as having an above the average
influence over departments. The mean Of the chairpersons's
responses is also above the central point Of the scale
(mean - 3.5).

The third most influential factor was the use of
micro-computers .and/or other technological advancement,
with 23% Of the participants rating it as highly
influential and 61% rating it as Of an above average
influence. The mean value for this item was also above the
average, i.e., 3.4.

All the other factors were considered to be Of below
average influence. Neither the number of the respondents
marking the points 4 and 5 in the scale were above 50% Of

them nor was the mean value for the responses above 3.

110

The least influential factors were reported to be
faculty grievances and increase in the enrollment Of Older
students. Both had a mean Of 1.6: the first carried 66 of
the chairpersons' responses to point one Of the scale (low
influence), and the second did 60%. NO chairperson rated
these two factors as being highly influential.

Other factors with a mean not greater than 2 units
were: increase in the faculty disciplinary orientation
(1.8): faculty tendency for collective solutions to
professional problems (2.0): a shift Of the faculty
attitude from a local to a cosmopolitan vision (2.0):
increase in the enrollment Of minority groups (2.0): and
increase of legislature and legal restraints (2.0). In all
these cases, the total Of the responses marked in points 4
and 5 Of the scale was less than 10%. However, the
percentage Of the responses marked above point 3 for some
factors exceeded 30%, which gives these factors some
significance, as was the case Of the factors related to
faculty's shifting attitude from a local to a cosmopolitan
vision, and increase in the enrollment Of minority groups.

Factors with a mean between 2 and 3 points should be
viewed as Of considerable importance in terms of impact
upon the department. Included in this condition are
several factors: an increase in an aging faculty workforce
(2.7): an increase in competition among departments and
between departments and non-academic units (2.6): a decline

in student enrollment (2.6): and an increase in the

111

enrollment Of women (2.3). For all Of these factors except
the last, the sum of the frequency of responses above the
point 2 is greater than 50%. This shows that more than
half Of the respondents considered such factors to be Of
middle to high significance in exerting influence over
thedepartment administration.

Even though it happened in only a few cases, it is
interesting to note that some respondents reported factors
acting in the Opposite direction to that presented in the
question which constructed the basis of the literature
review. The most illustrative example of this situation is
the increasing rather than decreasing student enrollments
reported by 12% Of the chairpersons.

The additional factors included in the list by the
participants are of importance only to particular
departments, except for "Influence Of central
administration" which was cited by four chairpersons as
being high.

One factor deserves special consideration: the use Of
new technology, mainly micro-computers. Chairpersons
placed it among those three factors that have been
impacting upon the departmental administration in highest
degree. The issue Of micro-computers' influence over
academic departments was examined in a more detailed
manner. For instance, chairpersons were given a scale Of 1
(low) to 3 (high) to assess the level of interest Of some

groups related to their department in using a

112

micro-computer in their work. All the groups assessed, or
determined by the chairpersons' views, presented a mean
equal or over 2.5, except the students, whose mean was
2.4. These results lead to the idea that micro-computers
are gaining high level Of interest from faculty, students,
clericals, chairpersons and the college administration.
But are micro-computers available to meet the interest and
needs Of those groups Of faculty, students, clerical staff,
and academic administrators? A similar question was
raised, and chairpersons gave it their assessment. The
general feeling was that all groups are poorly served by
mircro-computers. The mean of the responses for all groups
were below 3 in a scale Of five points: where 1 means that
the group needs are poorly met, and 5 well met. Faculty
research needs and clerical staff needs presented the
lowest mean values, both 2.7, indicating that despite the
reported lack Of computer availability they are better
served by computer resources. If one Observes departmental
activity as the researcher did, one can see many
micro-computers being used as word processors by
departmental secretaries and auxiliary staff and also by
professors as a tool for research.

If the present high level Of interest in computers is
here tO stay as is anticipated, the demand for
micro-computers is soon going tO be high.

A fundamental area Of inquiry in this study is the

changes that may be occurring in the chairperson's

113

position. Indeed changes in various dimensions Of the
chairperson's job were taken as the basic hypothesis which
generated and gave guidance to the study.

From the literature in higher education administration,
twelve facets Of the chairperson's job were selected on the
basis Of reports that they have been experiencing
considerable changes over these last few decades.

The selected job factors, as shown in Table 5, comprise
aspects Of duties and responsibilities, communication and
formalization, and decision-making and power.

The aspects Of duties and responsibilities were
reported as being those where the greatest degree of
changes have been occurring. Thirty-nine percent Of the

participating chairpersons stated that they have perceived

a great increase in the amount and range of
responsibilities. Some increase was reported by 35% Of
them. The mean for this item was 1.93 on a scale Of 1

(much increase) to 5 (much decrease) with the mid point 3
indicating little or nO increase, which is the same as
saying no perception Of variation in the factor under
consideration. The matter Of paperwork such as memos,
reports, requests, directives and forms Of the same kind,
was reported to be experiencing a large increase by 24% Of
the respondents and some increase by 50%. The mean value
for this factor was 2.04.

An increase was perceived by chairpersons in matters of

communication, relationships with external organization,

 

 

114

Table 5. Perceived Changes is Selected Aspects
Of the Chairperson's Job

 

 

DEGREE OF CHANGES (PERCENT OF RESPONSES)

INCREASE J DECREASE

 

LITTLE MEAN
FACTOR MUCH SOME OR NO SOME MUCH RATING

 

AMOUNT AND RANGE OF
RESPONSIBILITIES 24 50 24 2 0 2.04

MEMOS, REPORTS,
DIRECTIVES , AND
RELATED PAPERWORK 39 35 20 6 o 1 . 93

BUREAUCRATIZATION OF

THE DEPARTMENT

RELATIONSHIP WITH

THE INSTITUTION 28 35 33 4 0 2.13

BUREAUCRATIZATION OF

THE DEPARTMENT

RELATIONSHIP WITH

EXTERNAL AGENCIES 16 18 62 4 0 2.55

CENTRALIZATION OF THE

DECISION MAKING

PROCESS BY THE HIGHER

ECHELONS 15 44 33 6 2 2.37
CHAIRPERSON'S PRESTIGE 0 24 52 22 2 3.02
CHAIRPERSON'S POWER 0 24 48 24 4 3.08

DEPARTMENT FACULTY
DECISION POWER 3 19 72 6 0 2.83

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION

WITH OTHER

ASSOCIATIONS, AGENCIES,

AND ORGANIZATIONS 7 48 41 4 0 2.40

INTERNAL
COMMUNICATIONS 0 45 49 4 2 2.64

DEPARTMENTAL AUTONOMY 2 4 61 29 4 3.28
CHAIRPERSON'S AUTHORITY 0 20 52 24 4 3.13

 

 

 

115

agencies and associations. Some increase in external
communications was reported by 48% Of the respondents,
whereas great increases was reported by 7%. The mean value
was 2.40. Internal communications, however, are perceived
by the participants as being a facet Of the job affected by
little or no changes. Forty-nine percent Of the
respondents indicated little or no increase even though 45%
indicated some increase in this subject. The mean was
2.64, a value closer to 2 (some increase) than to 3 (little
or no increase).

Formalization Of the department's relationships with
external agencies and with the institution was examined.
Formalization Of external relationships were perceived to
be a stable facet Of the chairperson's job, with 62 Of the
respondents indicating little or no variation. The mean
value was 2.55. It is interesting to note that only 4% Of
the respondents indicated decrease in this factor, whereas
33% indicated an increase.

Formalization Of internal relationships was perceived
as a changing factor. The mean for it was 2.13.
Twenty-eight percent Of the respondents perceived large
increase in this job facet, while 35% perceived some
increase. Thus, 63% percent Of the participants indicated
an increasing change in the area.

In the examination Of the aspects Of decision-making
power and related matters, one will not find considerable

change. Only "centralization Of the decision-making

116

process by the higher echelons" was clearly perceived by
chairpersons as a focus of change in the direction Of more
centralization. Fifteen percent of the respondents
reported greater increase in centralization Of decisions
with 44% reporting some increase. The mean value for this
factor was 2.37.

Chairperson's prestige, chairperson's power, and
chairperson's authority were perceived to be stable
facets. All but the last one concentrated the majority Of
the participant's responses at the middle range Of the
scale which indicates little or no variation. The
remaining responses split equally on both sides Of the
scale and concentrated nearer to the mean point.

Departmental faculty decision-making power and
departmental autonomy were reported as stable facets also.
The first gained 72% Of the responses in the central point
of the scale, while the second got 61%. A slight imbalance
in the distribution of response frequencies may, however,
be noticed in examining both factors. For the first
factor (departmental decision-making power) the imbalance
was in the direction Of an increase, and for the second,
the imbalance was in the Opposite direction. Both trends
are in agreement with the reported studies in the
literature review. When asked to compare the number Of
standing committees in your department now with that of
about ten years ago, 51% of the participating chairpersons

stated that the number Of committees remained the same.

117

Twenty-one percent reported the number of committees as
having increased and 29% reported a decrease.

In complement tO that matter a similar kind of question
was formulated comparing the number Of support staff
backing the chairperson now and with those about 10 years
ago. Sixty-two percent Of the chairpersons' responses were
concentrated in the alternative indicating no variation in
that number. Twenty-five percent Of the responses went to
the alternative indicating that there exists more support
staff now, and 13% to the alternative showing this number
to be diminished.

The examination Of these two questions leads to the
conclusion that the organizational structure Of academic
departments in the institution Of focus incurred no
appreciable quantitative change. Any change that may have
taken place should have been in terms Of re-orientation or

rearrangement Of the existing structure.

t sf an ew s e a s ' O

The chairpersons were surveyed as to their degrees Of
satisfaction in the job. A list Of fourteen job facets was
presented to the respondents who were asked tO select five
of those facets which contribute most significantly to
their satisfaction and reward in their role as
chairpersons. The list was an Open one giving the
respondents an Opportunity to add other job facets they

would consider important to include in their selection.

118

From that list, shown in Table 6, the following job facets
were selected as being the five ones most satisfying. They

appear ranked according to their frequency in being

selected:

Table 6. Factors Contributing to Chairperson's

Job Satisfaction

 

FACTOR

L
—

PERCENTAGE OF
CHAIRPERSONS RATING
THE FACTOR (t)

 

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE

REALIZATION OF GENERAL
GOAL ACHIEVEMENT

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

RECOGNITION DEPARTMENT AS A WHOLE
RECEIVES FOR ITS WORK

REWARDS AND SATISFACTIONS OF
"JOB WELL DONE"

OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE ONE'S MARK ON
THE DEPARTMENT

STATUS AND PRESTIGE
EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE
PUBLIC RELATIONS

TRAVEL OPPORTUNITIES

OPPORTUNITY TO ADVANCE IN
ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS

POWER AND INFLUENCE
ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP
OTHER

92

73

44

67

71

25

40

25

44

 

 

120

a. Faculty development and achievement,

b. Student development and performance,

c. Recognition department as a whole receives for its

work,

d. Program development,

e. Realization Of general goal achievement: and also

Academic leadership.

In fact, the five most rewarding facets become six for
the fifth position was equally occupied by the two factors
academic leadership and realization Of general goals
achievement: both were selected by 44% of the respondents.

Faculty development and achievement constituted the
leading factor, being the choice made by more than 90% of
the respondents. Student development and performance
occupied the second order Of importance practically equal
to the factor "recognition the department as a whole
receives for its work". These two factors were selected
for approximately 71% Of the respondent chairpersons.

Job facets such as status and prestige, travel
Opportunities, Opportunity to advance in administrative
positions and power and influence appears to constitute
insignificant sources Of rewards for the chairpersons
researched.

Only one chairperson used the blank spaces to add a
favorable job facet, income. NO chairperson chose public

relations as a rewarding factor.

121

One important conclusion drawn from the above
discussion is that almost no one took the chair post for
reasons Of salary, prestige, power or influence. Also,
almost no one views the position to be a step for one
administration career in the university setting.

What motivates the chairperson is the Opportunity for
developing the aspects Of the academic work, and these
factors Of achievement and self-development referred by
Herzberg (1966) as the higher order determiners Of job
satisfactions. These factors are related to the
satisfaction Of human's needs to grow psychologically.

The findings here, are in agreement with previews
studied in academic departments carryied out by McLaughlin
and others (1976), Norton (1978), and Ansoh (1980).

Prebiems and hisserisraehipns in She Qheirperepn'e Pesitipn

This study was also concerned with those factors or
conditions within the chairperson's role which could lead
to stress and dissatisfaction. Thus, participants were
asked to draw from an Open-ended list Of job facets, five
Of those they consider to be the most frustrating and
dissatisfying.

Ranked according to the frequency chairpersons selected
them, the following is the set of the five most
dissatisfying facets in the departmental chair position:

1. Inadequate departmental resources

2. Paperwork overload.

122

3. The toll the job exacts on one's scholarship and

teaching

4. Relationships with higher levels Of administration

5. Requirements Of justification Of requests,

decisions and programs.

The first factor in the group was selected by
thirty-eight Of the forty-nine participating chairpersons,
and it encompassed the inadequacies of human and financial
resources required for the administration Of the
department. The following factor, selected by thirty-five
respondents, is related tO the explosion Of paperwork which
has contributed excessively to overburdening the
departmental chair, with tOO many deadlines, requirements
to justify requests, and the toll taken on the chairpersons
professional and personal life. The third factor,
indicated by 26 respondents, is the tolls imposed by the
job on one's scholarship and teaching due to the time and
attention required in running the department.

The relationships with higher levels Of administration
was the fourth factor Of dissatisfaction for 22 of those
reporting. The last Of the five facets creating the most
dissatisfaction to the chairpersons job is closely related
to excessive paperwork burdening the chair position, which
is represented by the requirements tO justify and rejustify
requests, decisions and programs.

TO the twelve 'factors comprising the list,

participants added some others such as: slow bureaucratic

123

system Of the central administration, difficulty in hiring
personnel, lack Of accountability through the university
system, responsibility for external research funding, and
not surprising certain factors involving relationships
within the department which could be illustrated by one
chairperson's statement: "coping with faculty who march to
a different drummer"

The other job facets to which chairpersons gave their
assessments appear in Table 7.

All these job facets, presented above, provide
difficulties and frustrations for the chairpersons in the
day-to-day Operation Of the departments, and should likely
account for some chairperson's decisions not to continue in
the position.

The issue of being unwilling to continue in the
position deserved special attention in the study. A
question was raised in which chairpersons were asked to
identify the reasons that would most likely cause them to
refuse reappointment for another term in Office.
Forty-four out Of forty-nine chairpersons responded to that
question (Table 8), ranking negative relationships with the
dean's Office as the leading factor causing chairpersons to
refuse another term in the departmental administration.
Non-support combined with no confidence from the dean's
Office was what the question characterized as negative
relationships. This factor was indicated by 70% of the

respondents. The second position in the rank.

124

Table 7. Factors Contributing tO Chairperson's
Job Dissatisfaction

-‘F =

 

PERCENTAGE OF
CHAIRPERSONS RATING

 

FACTOR THE FACTOR (a)
PAPERWORK OVERLOAD 73
REQUIREMENTS OF JUSTIFICATION OF

REQUIREMENTS, DECISIONS, AND PROGRAMS 4o
LACK OF PLANNING IN RELATION TO DEMANDS

ON THE CHAIRPERSON 31
RELATIONSHIP WITH HIGHER LEVELS OF

ADMINISTRATION 46
RELATIONSHIP INTERNAL TO THE DEPARTMENT 6

THE TOLL THE JOB EXACTS ON ONE'S
SCHOLARSHIP AND TEACHING 54

THE TOLL THE JOB EXACTS ON ONE'S
PERSONAL LIFE 27

THE LONG HOURS THE JOB DEMANDS
(EVENINGS, WEEKENDS, ETC.) 23

INADEQUACIES OF DEPARTMENT RESOURCES
(BUDGET AND PERSONNEL) 79

GENERAL FRUSTRATIONS RELATED TO THE
CHAIRPERSON'S POSITION 31

THE ROLE CONFLICT STEMMING FROM BEING
SIMULTANEOUSLY PART OF THE FACULTY

AND OF THE ADMINISTRATION 17
THE LACK OF MANAGEABILITY OF THE POSITION 19

OTHER 8

M
M

Table 8. Possible Causes for Chairperson's
Refusing Reappointment

 

 

PERCENTAGE OF
CHAIRPERSONS RATING
CAUSE THE FACTOR (t)

 

NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE DEAN'S

OFFICE: NON-SUPPORT AND/OR NON-

CONFIDENCE FROM THAT OFFICE BECOMES

PROMINENT 70

NEGATIVE WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE
DEPARTMENT FACULTY: LOSS OF THE
CONFIDENCE OF THE FACULTY AND/OR
FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT WITH THE
FACULTY IN POLICY AND PROGRAM p 61

GENERAL FRUSTRATIONS RELATED TO THE

POSITION: WORK LOAD TOO HIGH,

ASSOCIATED WITH LACK OF APPROPRIATE

SUPPORT AND FEELINGS OF

NON-ACCOMPLISHMENT 61

PROFESSIONAL TOLL: YOU FEEL LOSING

PROFESSIONAL TOUCH AND THINK IT IS

TIME TO GO BACK TO TEACHING AND

RESEARCH 57

PERSONAL TOLL: YOU FEEL SACRIFICING

YOURSELF, GETTING TIRED OF WORKING

HARD WHILE OTHERS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT

DON'T 20

NON COMPENSATORY FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR
ASSUMING THE CHAIRPERSON 25

DISLIKE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS AND
CLERICAL TASKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
POSITION 16

EXCESSIVE CONTROL OF DECISIONS BY FACULTY
IN MATTERS OF PROMOTION, TENURE, SALARY,
AND SABBATICAL LEAVES 14

 

 

 

 

126

was filled by two factors which were equally pointed by
61.% Of the participants. One refers to negative working
relations with the departmental faculty, translated through
loss Of the peer's confidence or fundamental disagreement
in matters Of departmental policies or programs. The other
is related to general frustratins which could fall over
chairpersons and it was illustrated by excessive workload
without appropriate support associated with feelings Of
non-accomplishment. In the third position in the rank is
the professional toll imposed by the chairperson's position
on the scholarly life Of its occupants. Fifty-seven Of the
respondents reported the sensation Of losing professional
touch would lead them tO go back to teaching and research
instead Of continuing in the direction Of the department.

Non-compensatory financial incentive ranked in the
fourth position, indicated by 25% Of the participants as
possible cause to refuse reappointment. The fifth cause,
indicated by 20% Of the respondents, was the tolls the
chairperson's position exacts on its encumbents personal
life. The two remaining factors are (1) dislike Of
administrative details and clerical tasks associated with
the position, and (2) excessive control Of decisions by
faculty in matters Of promotion, tenure, salary and
sabbatical leaves. These twO factors were reported by less
than fifteen chairpersons.

As an addendum to that question on reappointment,

chairpersons were asked to indicate which Of the factors

127

comprising it would lead them to resign the position before
the end Of the term. Here the leading reason -- given by
65% Of the respondents -- was also negative relationships
with the dean's Office, followed closely by negative
relatinships with the department faculty, chosen by 63% Of
the reporting chairpersons. All other factors were
reported by less than 20% Of the chairpersons who answered
the question (Table 9).

Three chairpersons stated that none Of the reasons
presented in this question would lead them to resign the
position, even though the alternatives were not listed. If
such alternatives existed they would probably be chosen by
those who responded to the preceding question on
reappointment and failed tO respond to this question on
reassignment for lack Of an appropriate alternative. In
other words, the close-end nature Of the question perhaps
should have limited the gathering Of information.

Within the spirit Of these twO last questions, another
one was raised as tO the conditions that characterized the
departure Of the chairperson's predecessor in the
departmental administration. Forty-six chairpersons
answered that question. Resignation was the dominant
condition with 32% of the respondents pointing to it. This
condition was followed by no reappointment (13% of the
cases) which in turn was followed by retirement (10% Of the
cases). All the other specified conditions did not reach

9% Of the cases.

Table 9. Factors Which Would Lead to
Chairperson's Resignation

“

PERCENTAGE OF
CHAIRPERSONS RATING
FACTOR THE FACTOR (8)

 

NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE DEAN'S
OFFICE: NON-SUPPORT AND/OR NON-
CONFIDENCE FROM THAT OFFICE BECOMES
PROMINENT 65

NEGATIVE WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE
DEPARTMENT FACULTY: LOSS OF THE
CONFIDENCE OF THE FACULTY AND/OR
FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT WITH THE
FACULTY IN POLICY AND PROGRAM 62

GENERAL FRUSTRATIONS RELATED TO THE

POSITION: WORK LOAD TOO HIGH, ASSOCIATED

WITH LACK OF APPROPRIATE SUPPORT AND

FEELINGS OF NON-ACCOMPLISHMENT 18

PROFESSIONAL TOLL: YOU FEEL LOSING

PROFESSIONAL TOUCH AND THINK IT IS

TIME TO GO BACK TO TEACHING AND

RESEARCH 18

PERSONAL TOLL: YOU FEEL SACRIFICING
YOURSELF, GETTING TIRED OF WORKING HARD
WHILE OTHERS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT DON'T 5

NON COMPENSATORY FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR
ASSUMING THE CHAIRPERSON 8

DISLIKE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS AND
CLERICAL TASKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
POSITION 5

EXCESSIVE CONTROL OF DECISIONS BY FACULTY
IN MATTERS OF PROMOTION, TENURE, SALARY,
AND SABBATICAL LEAVES 8

 

 

129

The item "others" in this questions, which represented
26% of the total cases, comprised a variety Of conditions
which should be specified. Moving to another institution
represented 8.7% Of total responses: loss Of faculty
support, and lack Of scholarly and research leadership
perhaps may fall under the same condition represented by no
reappointment. Thus, this condition would represent not
only 13% Of the cases but 17%: return to teaching probably
means the same as no interest in re-election and in this
way constitutes 11% Of the cases: chronic disability may be
added to the condition Of death representing 4% Of the
cases.

The high percentage Of resignations combined with no
reappointments and retirements which characterized the
leaving Of the predecessors Of the current chairperson
suggest a high level Of turnover in the position Of
chairperson in the institution under study. Actually,
during the last ten years, only 33% Of the departments have
had chairpersons reappointed in the position. In 42% Of
the departments, chairpersons have held the position for
only one term, and finally in 25% Of the departments, at
least one chairperson did not even finish a regular term Of

Office.

nha n e ractiveness O e C a e son's PO tion
One major concern Of the study was to identify elements

which could contribute for the improvement Of the

130

conditions surrounding the position Of the academic
department chairperson and in this way enchance the
attractiveness Of the chairpersons' job. Included in this
consideration was an effort to gain the assessment Of the
participants as to the significance Of certain elements to
the attractiveness Of the chairpersons position.
Participants were asked to indicate their overall View of
the significance Of selected factors or conditions tO the
attractiveness Of the chairpersonship, whether or not they
existed in their own situation. Responses to this matter
were given in a three level scale, indicating high, some,
and little or no significance (Table 10).

The significance Of backing and support from the dean's
Office was viewed as the top consideration by
participants. Eighty-three percent of the reporting
chairpersons placed this factor as highly significant to
the attractiveness Of the chairmanship. The second most
highly significant factor was found tO be the matching of
the job responsibilities to the resources to carry them
out, cited by 72% Of the participants. Following closely
behind this factor was support from the departmental
peers. All these factors had a mean below 1.5 when the
scale Of significance was expressed in numerical terms,
that is, the position high, some, and little or nO
significance were made to correspond respectively tO one,

two and three.

131

Table 10. Factors Enhancing the Attractiveness Of
the Chairperson's Position

 

 

 

 

 

DEGREE OF SIGNIFICANCE

(percent Of response)

LITTLE MEAN

 

FACTOR HIGH SOME OR NO RATING
SUBSTANTIAL SALARY DIFFERENTIAL 21 65 14 1.93
SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF PAPERWORK 30 44 26 1.96
REDUCTION OF WORK LOAD 13 42 45 2.53

BACKING AND SUPPORT FROM DEAN'S
OFFICE AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICES 83 15 2 1.19

UPGRADING SIGNIFICANCE AND
PRESTIGE OF THE POSITION 26 37 37 2.11

MATCHING THE JOB RESPONSIBILITIES
WITH RESOURCES TO CARRY THEM OUT 72 21 7 1.34

AVAILABILITY OF MICROCOMPUTER
FACILITIES 26 54 20 1.93

SUPPORT FROM DEPARTMENT FACULTY
TO MAKE DECISIONS AND

IMPLEMENT POLICIES 72 22 6 1.35
APPROPRIATE JOB DEFINITION 22 41 37 2.15
ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING

FOR THE POSITION 4 48 48 2.43
ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL ASSISTANCE

(E.G. ASSISTANT CHAIRPERSON) 47 28 25 1.79
CHANGE THE POSITION TO FULLTIME

ADMINISTRATIVE JOB 2 23 75 2.73
IMPROVED SABBATICAL ARRANGEMENT

FOR THE CHAIRPERSON 15 33 52 2.37
PROVISION FOR TRAVEL FUNDS 11 56 33 2.22

ASSURE CHAIRPERSON'S INPUT IN
DECISION INVOLVING DEPARTMENT
INTERESTS 54 31 15 1.61

LONGER TERM OF OFFICE 2 13 85

r
r

5"
W

132

These results are coherent with the findings Of the twO
preceding questions involving the reasons chairpersons
presented as being a justification for not accepting
another term in the Office, and the potential causes Of
resignation. In both questions chairpersons presented
negative relationship with the departmental faculty as the
leading reason for leaving the department chair position.

Assuring chairperson's input in decisions involving
departmental interest may also be considered as a highly
significant factor if one takes into consideration that it
received more than 50% Of the chairpersons' responses in
the highest category Of significance. However, if one
considers the value mean Of that factor (mean a 1.61), it
will be more close to the category Of the same significance
than to the high significance.

The factors "longer term Of Office" and "change in the
position toward full-time administrative job" were
considered respectively the lowest significant factors tO
the attractiveness Of chairperson's position, using both
criterias Of assessment Of the factors, that is, the
percentage Of chairpersons' responses, and the mean value
Of the factor. The first received 85% Of the responses in
the little or no significance category and had a mean value
Of 2.82. The second factor received 75% Of responses and

had a mean Of 2.73.

133

Improved sabbattical arrangements for the chairpersons
drove 52% of the responses into the little significance
category: even though its mean value equal to 2.37 is more
close tO the same significance category, it may be
considered a factor Of little or no significance if one
focuses the evaluation in the first criteria.
Other job factors which received under 50% Of the
responses in the high significant category but the mean
value was below 2 units can be classified as some to high
influence factors. They are as follows:
1. Additional personnel assistance. 47% of responses
in the high significance category, and mean value
equal to 1.79.

2. Availability Of micro-computer facilities. 26% Of
responses in high significance category and mean
value equal to 1.93.

3. Substantial reduction Of paperwork. 30% Of
responses in the high significance category and
mean value equal to 1.96.

4. Substantial salary differential. 21% Of responses
in the high significance category and mean value
equal to 1.93.

Some other factors could be considered Of little to
some significance to the attractiveness Of the chair
position if they received under a 50% response in the
little or no significance category and had a mean value

over 2 units. They are:

134

1. Reduction Of work load: 45% Of the responses in
the little or no significance category and mean
value equal to 2.32.

2. Administrative training for the position: 48% Of
the responses in the little or no significance
category and mean value equal tO 2.43.

3. Provisions for travel funds: 33% Of responses in
the little or no significance category and mean
value equal tO 2.22.

4. Appropriate job definition: 37% Of responses in
the little or nO significance category and mean
value equal to 2.15.

5. Upgrading significance and prestige Of the
position: 37% Of responses in the little or no
significance category and mean value equal to

2.11.

S ecte oss- O 8

Several cross-tabulations were completed in order tO
examine the influence Of two variables: (1) ”time serving
in the present chair position" and (2) "type Of discipline
characteristic Of the department", in the departmental
setting and its chairperson's job.

"Time in the chairpersonship" was crossed with the
following variables: age at the time one assumed the
present chair position: age Of department faculty:

self-perception Of one's condition in the university

135

setting: scholarship production: disposition toward
accepting another term: and level Of satisfaction. NO
significant relationship was found: for example, being in
the position for the first time, or for a longer period,
does not seem tO influence chairpersons in the aspects
translated by the set Of variables cited above.

"Type Of discipline" was crossed with "perception of
leadership in the position" and "turnover in the position",
in addition to those factors listed above. Once again no
significant realtionships were found, with the exception Of
the "level Of satisfaction" factor. In that instance,
chairpersons in hard-science departments seemed to
experience a higher level Of satisfaction in the position
than did their soft-science peers. This finding concurs
with other studies on chairperson's job satisfaction
(Booth, 1982).

NO relationship was shown between the two variables
taken as referential for analysis, that is, ”time in the
chairpersonship," and "type Of discipline characterizing
the department."

In relation to financial constraints in departmental
affairs, hard-science departments showed a level Of
difficulty similar to that Of the soft-sciences. In this
case the comparison element was the mean values Of each
groups' participant response. On a scale Of 1 to 5, with 5

representing a high level Of financial difficulty,

136

hard-science departments presented a mean Of 4.7, whereas
the soft-science departments' mean was 4.5.
The rank order Of influences on departmental affairs

was as follows:

HARD-SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS SOFT- C ENC EPAR NTS

1. department chairperson 1. department chairperson
2. department faculty, as 2. department faculty, as

a whole a whole
3. tenured faculty 3. tenured faculty
4. department committees 4. college administration
5. college administration 5. department committees
6. students 6. central administration

7. central administration 7. students

Agreement was found on the first three positions.
However, the positions 4 and 5, as well as 6 and 7, were
inverted in position from one group tO the other.

Cross-tabulations were also computed for level Of
satisfaction in relation to both "scholarly production" and
"department size." NO significant relationships were
found. However, the situation changed when level Of
satisfaction was. crossed with the variables "age of the
departmental faculty" and "perception Of leadership in the
position." Chairpersons who see their position as one Of a
strong leadership seem to carry a higher level Of
satisfaction. SO do chairpersons in the departments
comprised Of a primarily mid-career faculty. In addition,
a high level Of satisfaction was found in chairpersons who
see strong a correlation between responsibilities and

authority to carry them out. Chairpersons who see

137

themselves equally as a faculty member and as an
administrator seemed to be highly satisfied in the chair
position.

A chi-square statistic was computed for the
relationship between "level Of job satisfaction" and
"significance Of substantial salary increase to the
attractiveness Of the chair position." The hypothesis that
there was no significant realtionship between job
satisfaction and importance Of a substantial salary

increase was accepted at the .05 level.

Summary Of the Conclpsiohs

This chapter has presented the analysis Of data,
results, and specific discussion Of some implications for
this study. Data have been examined under the focus Of the
preposition presented in Chapter IV, and analyzed as a
whole or, when appropriate, on the basis Of the time the
chairperson has served in the position and the discipline
to which the chairperson is affiliated. The analysis Of
the data has led to the following conclusions about the
validity Of each proposition.

1. There will be a great disparity between the actual
time and the ideal time allocation given by
chairpersons for the selected job
responsibilities.

Conclusion: Unsupported

2. Chairpersons spend more than 60% Of their time in
administrative activities.

Conclusion: Unsupported

10.

11.

138

There has been a change in the chairperson's job
which is mostly characterized by adding more tasks
and responsibilities to the existing ones.

Conclusion: Supported

The decision-making process has been centralized
in the higher levels Of the university
administration.

Conclusion: Supported

Chairpersons identify themselves rather with
faculty than with administrators.

Conclusion: Unsupported

There is a generalized interest in using
microcomputers on the part Of students, clerical
staff and department and college administration.

Conclusion: Supported

Chairpersons receive a great deal Of job
satisfaction from their role as an academic
leader.

Conclusion: Supported

The main source of job dissatisfaction for
departmental chairpersons is the lack Of time for
developing a scholarly life.

Conclusion: Unsupported

There exists a high turnover in the chairperson
position.

Conclusion: Supported

Financial limitations will be reported by more
than 80% Of academic department chairpersons as
being the most impacting factor over the
administration Of departments.

Conclusion: Supported

At least 50% of the chairpersons will identify
factors related tO upgrading salary and prestige,
and long term Of Office as being factors Of high
significance in enhancing the attractiveness Of
the chair position.

Conclusion: Unsupported

12.

139

The only determinant for chairpersons resignation
in the middle of a term would be negative
relationships with faculty.

Conclusion: Unsupported

CHAPTER VI

OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS

e se 0

The purpose of this study is to identify major changes

in the organization Of academic departments and in the

chairperson's job as relevant changes are taking place in

the departments' external environment.

Specifically, the study was undertaken to:

1.

Develop a conceptual framework for viewing and
understanding the dynamic nature of the job of the
academic department chairperson.

Explore in detail each component Of the conceptual
framework with support Of the recent literature on
higher education administration.

Synthesize information concerning the changing
nature Of the job Of the academic department
chairperson from existing literature,
documentation and questionnaires administered tO

chairpersons.

140

141

4. Discuss the implications of the foregoing items in
providing for a new descriptive profile Of current
chairpersons.

5. Synthesize suggestions gathered from
questionnaires administered to chairpersons for
improving the attractiveness Of the position of

academic department chairpersons.

Design Of the Study

Three sources Of information were used in analyzing the
findings Of this study: (1) the literature in higher
education, especially that which related to the academic
department and its administration: (2) a conceptual scheme
Obtained from systems theory and theory Of organizations:
and (3) questionnaires and short interviews taken from a
selected group Of current chairpersons in a large
university in the midwest. The questionnaire as well as
the interviews intended tO gather information on the
present conditions Of the chairperson's job to be analyzed
in conjunction with the literature on academic
departments. The purpose was tO arrive at some conclusions
about changes in the departmental chair position, and tO
Offer some suggestions tO enhance the attractiveness Of

this position.

Meatless

Based on the examination Of the literature within the

conceptual scheme, twelve propositions were formulated tO

guide

142

the analysis of the data. These propositions

reflected the researcher's expectations about the results

Of the
1.

10.

11.

12.

questionnaires.

There will be a great disparity between the actual
time allocation and the ideal time allocation
given by chairpersons for the selected job
responsibilities.

Chairpersons spend more than 60% Of their time in
administrative activities.

There has been a change in the chairperson's job
which is mostly characterized by adding more tasks
and responsibilities to the existing ones.

The decision-making process has been centralized
in the higher levels Of the university
administration.

Chairpersons identify themselves rather with
faculty than with administrators.

There is a generalized interest in using
microcomputers on the part Of students, clerical
staff and department and college administration.

Chairpersons receive a great deal of job
satisfaction from their role as an academic
leader.

The main source Of job dissatisfaction for
departmental chairpersons are the lack Of time for
developing a scholarly life.

There exists a high turnover in the chairperson
position.

Financial limitations will be reported by more
than 80% Of academic department chairpersons as
being the most impacting factor over the
administration of departments.

At least 50% Of the chairpersons will identify
factors related to upgrading salary and prestige,
and long term Of Office as being factors Of high
significance in enhancing the attractiveness Of
the chair position.

The only determinant for chairpersons resignation
in the middle Of a term will be negative
relationships with faculty.

143

gohceptpai Scheme

In this study academic departments are treated as
complex organizations Open to external influences. This
led to the conceptual scheme within which the chairperson's
job was examined. In this scheme, the chairperson's job
was conceptualized as a response to the following factors:
(1) external influences, and (2) contextual factors, i.e.,
those elements which characterize the departmental
setting. The former acts in an impacting manner, bringing
changes into the department: the latter is a "shock
absorber," moderating the impact of those changes and
providing some departmental stability. The interaction
between these factors modulates the nature Of the
chairperson's job. Figure 1 synthesizes this conceptual
scheme. The following discussion illustrates how it works.

Consider the variable "changing student clientele." A
non-traditional student population has entered the
university. It is characterized by Older, part-time
students and underpriveleged members of minority groups.
Such a population has unique needs which cannot be met
throuh traditional course and program Offerings. These
students also require special assistance for their
assimilation into the university setting.

This situation brings about alterations in departmental
activities, such as, creation of new courses and programs,

organization Of flexible schedules and improvement in

144

counseling services. In order to promote these changes,
chairpersons have to consider the degree Of authority they
have in running the department, consider the rewards they
can provide to stimulate faculty members, and should abide
by the academic values instilled in the departmental
organization. If for example, Off campus or night courses
are required, these consideratins are needed in order to
keep negative reactions by some faculty members to a
minimum level. Thus the administrative response to
external demands will depend on the number and importance
Of contextual department factors.

The same rationale applies to all external influences.
Widespread use Of micro-computers, for instance, may
instill either fear, enthusiasm, or indifference in the
faculty. These possible reactions must be taken into
account in chairperson's decisions when introducing
micro-computers into the departmental setting. Faculty in
a hard-science department will probably stimulate the
intensive utilization Of micro-computers, while
soft-science faculty may be more hesitant.

In short, the contextual factors in a specific
department will delineate the action Of its chairperson in
responding to external demands. All conclusions Of this
study must be seen within the dynamic Of this conceptual

scheme.

145

W

This study investigated the adaptive nature Of the
academic department chairperson's job at a time Of much
variation and uncertainty in the external environment.

A conceptual framework based on system theory and
organizational theory guided the gathering Of information
provided by twO sources: the literature in academic
administration and a group Of selected department
chairpersons.

Although it is virtually impossible to generalize
research findings from a limited number of chairpersons in
one university, the results do seem to Offer certain
insights into the nature Of the job Of the current
department chairperson and Of the academic department
itself. The concepts examined in the study may also have
some relevance to other university settings, and therefore 4
should not be overlooked.

Based on the analysis just presented, the following
conclusions appear to be consistent:

(1) The conceptual scheme underlying the research
constituted a relevant tOOl in analyzing the job Of
academic department chairperson as being highly influenced
by external factors.

(2) The literature on higher education displayed a
number Of influences having an impact upon academic
administration. This study revealed the most influential

factors over academic departments tO be financial

146

constraints, decrease in the rate of hiring new faculty
members, and technological innovations, most specifically
the introduction Of micro-computers.

(3) The job Of academic department chairperson is
experiencing many changes. Duties and responsibilities,
and related paperwork and deadlines, have expanded
tremendously. Communications with external organizations,
agencies and associations have enlarged considerably, as
well as have the bureaucratization of the relationships
within the institution. Also, the central administration
has pushed the decision-making process toward higher
echelons.

(4) The facets Of the job which contribute most
significantly to the chairpersons' satisfaction are those
related to the opportunity for developing the aspects Of
the academic work -- faculty and student achievement, and
program development -- and those factors Of achievement and
self-development -- recognition by the job done, and
realization Of general goal achievement. These facets are
referred to by Herzberg (1966) as the higher order
determiners Of job satisfaction, that is, they enable
fulfillment Of human needs for psychological growth.

(5) The job facets which chairpersons consider most
stressful and dissatisfying are those related to inadequate
department resources: paperwork overload: the toll the job
exacts on one's scholarship and teaching: and excessive

requirements to justify and rejustify requests, decisions,

147

and programs. Perhaps the negative effect Of all these
factors on the chairpersons' job has led them to also
include "relationships with higher levels Of
administration" in the list Of dissatisfying aspects Of the
chairperson's job.

(6) Chairpersons would refuse another term in Office
if they felt lack Of support or lack Of confidence from the
dean, as well as if they perceived that the faculty no
longer trusted them, or if there was a fundamental
disagreement with departmental members in matters Of policy
or program. In addition these conditions involving
negative relationships with both the dean and the faculty,
chairpersons would not accept re-appointment if they felt
they were getting nowhere in what they wanted to do, and
were frustrated by excessive workload without appropriate
support. However, chairpersons would resign their
positions before the end Of the term only if lack Of
support and lack Of confidence became critical in
relationships with the either dean's Office and or with the
faculty.

(7) If a program for enhancing the attractiveness of
the chairperson's position is tO be organized, it has tO
take into consideration factors such as: backing and
support from the dean's office and other administrative
Offices: matching Of the job responsibilities to the

resources necessary tO carry them out: support from the

148

departmental faculty: and assuring chairperson's input into

decisions concerning department interest.

Overali Coneipsiohs
The profile Of contemporary chairpersons is quite

different both quantitatively and qualitatively from that
depicted by Doyle (1953), in the 1950's, when the depart-
mental chairpersons appeared to be dedicating the major
portion Of their time to student instruction and
counseling, and the remainder to scholarship activities and
a few administrative duties. In the 1960's a phenomenal
growth made the American university more complex and more
difficult to administer. Despite the chairpersons'
involvement in a larger array Of administrative tasks,
teaching, research, and scholarship remained their primary
responsibilities. It was the decade Of 70's that brought
most Of the new demands upon academic departments, and
broadened the chairperson's profile as administrator. The
advance Of collective bargaining on the campus has called
for election of chairpersons and limitation Of their terms
Of Office as well as delineating the legal boundaries in
faculty affairs. This has forced the clarification Of the
chairperson's role as either part Of the administration or
part Of the faculty. Even in those campuses without
faculty unions, chairpersons are expected to deal with
non-faculty unions, formal students and faculty grievance

procedures, affirmative action guidelines, federal

149

regulations, guidelines for research, and the accompanying
proliferation Of paperwork.

Departmental external communications have been
increasing considerably as well as bureaucratization Of the
relationship between departments and their parent
institutions. Competition for funds among departments was
also intensified while the scarcity of resources pushed
universities toward centralized decision making. All these
factors and a generalized demand for accountability have
claimed managerial skills on the part of incumbents of
departmental chairs.

The description above gives the reader a clear idea Of
the amount Of changes taking place in the job of academic
department chairpersons, and how complex the position has
become. It is important, however, to consider that despite
the difficulties and limitations, current chairpersons have
available to them a reasonable Offering Of programs for
improving their 'administrative skills. In addition they
can explore the potential for micro-computers to improve
the effectiveness Of departmental administration. Also the
changing pattern Of a new student clientele in terms Of
age, sex, race, and economic and social status has given
academic departments Opportunity for developing a large
array Of new courses and programs. In this matter,
chairpersons have an enormous amount Of influence and thus
they can find a field for stimulating creativity, academic
leadership and job satisfaction.

150

Consigeretions {or Pprther Shudy
In this study the investigator sought to examine the

job of the current academic chairpersons as related to
environmental influences. The nature Of such a study is
intrinsically comprehensive, allowing a panoramic vision Of
the issue, but oftentimes lacking in details. This fact by
itself suggests further study in particular aspects of the
chairperson's job and the conditions under which it
develops. The following suggestions for further research
are a direct outgrowth Of the author's concerns and
insights in this study:

(1) The use Of the conceptual framework developed for
this study in further research encompassing
academic departments from diverse universities
would substantially increase the validity Of the
results.

(2) With very few exceptions, perhaps only for Bragg's
(1980) and Dressel and others' (1970), there are
nO longitudinal studies which give the reader a
view Of how organization and administration Of
academic departments change. A study Of changes
in -the chairperson's job during a certain period
Of time would be very interesting. Cross-
sectional studies are limited to showing the
situation of the chairperson's job only at a
particular time. An ethnographic study seems tO

be very appropriate in this specific case.

(3)

(4)

(5)

151

The issue Of turnovers in the chairperson's
position deserves more attention. A specific
study seeking determinants for the problem and its
effects on the departmental setting needs to be
undertaken.

The introduction Of micro-computers in the depart-
ment is another issue tO be researched. DO chair-
persons perceive micro-computers as a tool to
increase the efficiency Of departmental adminis-
tration, in terms Of savings in money, time, and
efforts or do they perceive micro-computers as
instruments able to store and retrieve information
for the purpose Of making decisions? These twO
ways Of seeing micro-computers make a big
difference, in terms Of exploring the power Of
these devices in administering departments.

An aspect Of the department which needs urgent
research is the issue Of the faculty workforce's
age. In the institution examined, the faculty
were primarily in the middle Of their academic
career. Nationally, estimates show 21% Of the
current professors tO be over 55 years Of age.
This percentage will be 35% and 52% for the
beginning and end Of the next decade (Keller,
1983). Also a new federal law has mandated that
as Of 1982 professors be allowed to work tO age 70

instead of the traditional retirement age Of 65.

152

At the same time only a few new professors have
been hired as a consequence Of shrinking budgets
and declining student enrollment. If renewal in
the faculty workforce continues to be held back,
the present mid-career professors will be the
Older professors in about one decade, and the
currently Older professors will be emeritus
professors. What will be the implication Of this
situation on costs (more Older professors mean a
more highly-paid teaching staff), on bringing
about changes in the department, on the
development Of new areas Of knowledge, and on many

other areas Of the academic life?

APPENDIX

153
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN 0 488244054
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND CURRICULUM

ERICKSON HAM.

June 12, 1984

Dear Chairperson,

Jose Kehrle, as one Of my doctoral students,
is examining the role of the departmental chair
within the university setting. It is important
for Jose to have your cooperation in completing
the enclosed questionnaire as it is part of his
doctoral thesis. Jose has made every effort to
develop a valid instrument that can be completed
in a reasonably short time. Any help you can
give Jose will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

0’ - ./; .
47.2% W””

Louis F. Hekhuis
Major Adviser

LFH:1f
Enclosure

MSU it an Affirmative Action/Ea“! Osborn-in. humus...

1154

Dear Chairperson:

In view of the importance of the role of academic chairperson in deter-
mining the success of university administration, I am undertaking a study of
changes that have occurred in this position in recent tines: using MSU academic
departments as a case study.

I ask you to kindly take the time to answer the following questions about
the job of chairperson as you have known it in your department. The
questionnaire is presented in four sections:

Part 1: Departmental organization and decision making process.

Part II: Changes in the position and related external influences.

Part 111: Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction and causes for leaving the
position.

Part IV: Improvement of the attractiveness of the position.

I greatly appreciate your taking the time to respond to this questionnaire,
and I assure you that all reSponses will remain anonymous both in my written
analysis and in all deliberations concerning this study. I will be contacting
you shortly to inquire if you would like to receive a summary of the results of
this study. Thank you very much.

Jose Kehrle
Ph.D. Candidate in H.E. Adm.

INSTRUCTIONS: Based upon your experience and viewpoints as chairperson, please
check the responses you consider most appropriate for each questions. For
further amplification you may write your own response to any of the questions or
utilize the last page of the questionnaire. Any additional personal experience
and/or information will serve to enrich the study and will be appreciated.

1155

PART I: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND SELECTED ASPECTS OF DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION

AND DECISION MAKING.

How long have you served in your present position as chairperson?

a. less than 1 year d. 5-7 years
b. 1-3 years e. 7-10 years
c. 3-5 years f. more than 10 years

What academic rank did you hold when appointed to your position of chair-
person?

a. Professor c. Assistant Professor
b. Associate Professor d. Other

 

How do you describe yourself at the time you assumed your present chair-
person' 5 position?

a. Young faculty b. Mid-career faculty c. Senior faculty

What is the number of faculty in your Department (Please note on basis of
FTE - full time equivalency).

a. 0-10 FTE d. 31-40 FTE
b. 11-20 FTE e. 41-50 FTE
c. 21-30 FTE f. over 50 FIE

Which degree programs does your Department administer (Indicate each degree
which applies).

a. Bachelor degree c. Ph.D. degree
b. Master degree d. Other

 

Please indicate the approximate percentage of tenured faculty members in
your Department.

a. Less than 50% c. 761-851
D. 51-75: d. More than 85%

What of the following would best describe the age of the faculty workforce
in your department?

a. Primarily young faculty (under 35 years)
_b. Primarily mid- -career faculty (36- 50 years)
:c. Primarily senior faculty (over 50 years)

1156

8. Comparing the 4 of standing committees in your department about l0 years
ago and now, which of the following do you find true?

___a. There are more committees now
___b. There are less committees now
‘___c. The number of committees is the same

9. Comparing the P of chairperson's supporting staff (assistants, coordinators,
directors, etc.) in your department about IO years ago and now, which of the
following do you find true?

___a. There is more supporting staff now

___b. There is less supporting staff now
___c. The same number

10. Please provide your best estimate as to the percent of your time allocated
to the following responsibilities in your role as Chairperson. Then,
provide your judgement to the percentage of time you would consider "ideal"
for allocating in each responsibility.

Present Allocation Ideal Allocation
: a. Administrative activities (policies, 1
planning, budgeting, communications,
meetings, office management)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X b. Assistance to faculty 1
X c. Assistance to students x
s d. Personal-professional performance 1
X e. Other x

 

 

 

11. In general, how much say or influence do each of the following have over
what goes on in your Department? Mark one on each line.

VERY GREAT GREAT SOME SLIGHT NO

INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE
a. Department faculty

as a whole ..................................

b. College administration ..................................
c. Department Committee ..................................
d. Department Chair ..................................
e. Students ..................................
f. Central administration ..................................
g. Tenured faculty ..................................

12.

$00.63

*3‘0
0 o o

13.

00's»
00.

15.

 

 

1157

How are decisions reached in your Department for each of the following:
Mark one on each line which most nearly approximates your understanding
of how decisions are made.
Chairperson Chairperson with Vote of Vote of
advisory group tenured all Dept
faculty faculty

Recruitment and selection

of new faculty .........................

Promotions and tenure .........................

Salary increases .........................

Leaves of absence .........................

Travel authorization .........................

Budget items for supplies

and equipment ..........................
Teaching assignments ..........................
Office and research space ..........................
Award of assistantships,

fellowships, scholarships ..........................
Requirements for majors

and graduate students ..........................

Please assess your voice and influence as chairperson on policy development
and decision making.

College level University level
Significant influence
Some influence
Little or no influence

 

 

 

 

How would you assess the responsibilities of your position as chairperson in
relation to your authority to fulfill these expectations?

a. High correlation between responsibilities and authority of position.

b. Some degree of correlation between responsibilities and authority of
position.

c. Considerable disparity between responsibilities and authority of the

position.

As presently constituted, the chairperson's position in my institution
serves a key leadership role and it is vital to the success of the
university.

___a. Strongly agree d. Strongly disagree

b. Agree e. No opinion

c. Disagree

1158

PART II: FACTS RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT NEW FEATURES: EXTERNAL INFLUENCES,
CHANGES IN THE CHAIRPERSON JOB AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY

1. A nunber of influences has been impacting upon higher education. Using
a scale from l (low) to 5 (high), please assess the degree to which your
department has been affected by the following factors and/or conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low High Not Applicable
1 2 3 4 5

a. Financial limitations
b. Decline in students enrollment 1 2 3 4 5
c. Increase in the enrollment of

minority groups (Black, Asian

Spanish and Indians) 1 2 3 4 5
d. Increase in the enrollment of

women 1 2 3 4 5
e. Increase in the enrollment of

older students 1 2 3 4 5
f. Increase of legislature and

legal restraints 1 2 3 4 5
9. Increase of competition

among departments and between

departments and non-academic

units 1 2 3 4 5
h. Increase of an aging faculty

workforce. 1 2 3 4 5
i. Decrease in the rate of hiring

of new faculty members 1 2 3 4 5
3. Use of micro-computer and/or

other technological advancement I 2 3 4 5
k. Faculty tendency for collective

solutions of professional problemsl 2 3 4 5
l. Faculty grievances 1” 2 3 4 5
m. Increase in the faculty

disciplinary orientation 1 2 3 4 5
n. Shift of the faculty attitude

from a local to a cosmopolitan

vision 1 2 3 4 5

 

Please be free to add and assess other important factors to this list.

0. 1 2 3 4 5
p. I 2 3 4 T‘s

 

1159

2. Please identify the direction and intensity of perceived changes in the
following aspects of your job as chairperson.

Much Some Little or Some Much
Increase Increase no increase Decrease Decrease
a. Amount and range of

 

reSponsibilities 1 2 3 4 5
b. Memos, reports, directives
and related paperwork 1 2 3 4 5

 

c. Bureaucratization of the
department relationship
with the institution 1 2 3 4 5
d. Bureaucratization of the
department relationship
with external agencies I 2 3 4 S
e. Centralization of the
decision making process

 

 

 

 

by the higher echelons 1 2 3 4 5
f. Chairperson's prestige 1 2 3 4 S
g. Chairperson's power I 2 3 4 5

 

h. Department faculty
decision power 1 2 3 4 5
i. External communication
with other associations,
agencies and organizations 1
j. Internal communications I
k. Departmental autonomy 1
l. Chairperson's authority 1

 

 

 

NNNN
uauauau:
aqua
U’WLHUT

 

3. .How well do the micro-computer resources in your department meet the needs
of the following?

 

 

 

 

Poorly Well
___a. Faculty research needs 1 2 3 4 5
___b. Faculty teaching needs 1 2 ’3 4 *5
___c. Students research needs I 2 3 4 5
___d. Clerical staff needs ‘I 2 '3 ’4 5
___e. Chairperson administrative needs I 2 3 4 S

 

4.

:ZZb. The department students

_'_d. The department administration

e. The college administration 1

PART III:

1150

How would you characterize the level of interest in using micro-computers
for each of the following groups?
Low
a. The department faculty 1
11
. The department clerical staff 1
11

Average High

MNNNN
wdwww

THE JOB OF THE CHAIRPERSON AND ITS RELATED SATISFACTIONS,
DISSATISFACTIONS AND CAUSES OF RESIGNATION.

Check five of the following facets of chairperson's job which you consider
contribute most significantly to the satisfaction and reward in your
chairperson's role.

 

IU

 

an
o

 

Q

 

-”
O

 

I" “I d.| 31°
0 O

 

d

 

5

 

3
o

 

O
a

 

 

Faculty development and achievement.

Student development and performance.

Realization of general goal achievement.

Program development.

Recognition department as a whole receives for its work.
Rewards and satisfactions of "job well done".
Opportunity to leave one's mark on the department.
Status and prestige.

Experience and knowledge.

Public relations.

Travel opportunities.

Opportunity to advance in administrative positions.
Power and influence.

Academic leadership.

 

 

Please assess your present level of enjoyment and satisfaction of being
Chairperson.

High level of enjoyment and satisfaction.

'0'

. Some degree of enjoyment and satisfaction.
c. Low level of enjoyment and satisfaction.
. No satisfaction at all.

C.

 

How do you see yourself in the University setting?

a. As an academic faculty member
b. As an administrator
c. Equally as a faculty member and an administrator

1151

Regarding your personal scholarship and related scholarly production, since
assuming the role of Chairperson, which statement best reflects your present

 

status?
a. Scholarly production has increased.
b. Scholarly production has decreased.
c. Scholarship production remains the same.

Check five of the following facets of chairperson's job which you consider
most stressful and dissatisfying in your chairperson role.
a. Paperwork overload.
. Requirements of justification of requests, decisions and programs.
. Lack of planning in relation to demands on the chairperson.
Relationship with higher levels of administration.
. Relationship internal to the department.
. The toll the job exacts on one's scholarship and teaching.
The toll the job exacts on one's personal life.
The long hours the job demands (evenings, weekends, etc.)
. Inadequacies of department resources (budget and personnel).
General frustrations related to the chairperson's position.
. The role conflict stemming from being simultaneously part of the
faculty and of the administration.
l. The lack of manageability of the position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What factors would most likely cause you to not accept a reappointment for
another term in the position of chairperson? (Please check each one that
applies).

a. Negative relationships with the Dean's Office: non-support and/or
non-confidence from that office becomes prominent.

b. Negative working relationships with the department faculty:
loss of the confidence of the faculty and/or fundamental disagree-
ment with the faculty in policy and program.

c. General frustrations related to the position: work load too high,
associated with lack of appropriate support and feelings of
non-accomplishment.

d. Professional toll: you feel losing professional touch and think
it is time to go back to teaching and research.

e. Personal toll: you feel sacrificing yourself, getting tired of
working hard while others in your department don't.

f. Non compensatory financial incentive for assuming the chairperson.

Dislike of administrative details and clerical tasks associated

with the position.

h. Excessive control of decisions by faculty in matters of promotion,
tenure, salary and sabbatical leaves.

 

 

 

10.

11.

1152

Which factors listed in question 6 would lead you to resign your position

as chairperson before the end of the term?

(Circle the letters below that

correspond to those factors)

2 2 fl .9; f. .9 31

How many chairpersons have served in your department during the last 10

years.

a. 1

b. 2 c. 3 d. more than 3

What conditions characterized the leaving of your predecessor in the
department chairpersonship?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

g.

 

 

 

 

 

Retirement

Resignation

Death

No interest in reelection
No reappointment
Promotion

Other

 

Why did you accept the job of Chairperson (check one or the leading reason).

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

 

Opportunity for providing leadership to the academic program.
Opportunity to try academic administration.

Job had to be done - it was about my turn.

Personal improvement in salary and/or prestige.

Stepping stone to position of higher responsibility.

Other reasons:

 

Will you accept another term as Chairperson if nominated?

a.
b.
c.

Yes
NO

On certain conditions. Please explain the reasons:

 

 

 

1153

PART IV: THE POSITION OF CHAIRPERSON: ATTRACTIVENESS AND EFFECTIVENESS

1. How significant in general are the following factors to the attractiveness
of the Chairperson's position? (Note: Most of these factors appeared
earlier on the survey form under questions regarding job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction. Now you are being asked to indicate your overall view of
the significance of those factors to the attractiveness of the chairperson-
ship, whether or not they are applicable in your situation).

High Some Little or No
Significance Significance Significance
a. Substantial salary differential ----------------------------------
b. Substantial reduction of
paperwork ----------------------------------
c. Reduction of work load ----------------------------------
d. Backing and support from Dean's
Office and other adm. offices -----------------------------------
e. Upgrading significance and
prestige of the position -----------------------------------
f. Matching the job responsibilities
with resources to carry them out ----------------------------------
9. Availability of microcomputer
facilities -----------------------------------

h. Support from department faculty
to make decisions and implement

policies -----------------------------------
i. Appropriate job definition -----------------------------------
j. Administrative training for

the position -----------------------------------
k. Additional personnel assistance

(e.g. assistant chairperson) -----------------------------------
l. Change the position to full-

time administrative job -----------------------------------
m. Improved sabbatical arrangements

for the chairperson -----------------------------------
n. Provision for travel funds -----------------------------------

o. Assure chairperson's input in

decisions involving Department

interests ....................................
p. Longer term of office ....................................

1154

PART V: ADDITIONAL VIENPOINTS, RESPONSES AND CLARIFICATIONS.

For the purpose of accurate data analysis by category, please check to see if I
have classified your department in the appropriate category.

I. Arts, Letters, Humanities and Communications.
II. Engineering, Agriculture, Human Ecology and Natural Sciences.
III. Business, Social Sciences and Education.

Please return to: Jose Kehrle
c/o Professor Louis Hekhuis

Department of Administration and Curriculum
430 Erickson Hall

BIBLIOGRAPHY

165

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aatish, S. (1977). Ina note of deans and chaitnersons in

radua e ducat on 'n selected colle es at Michi an

State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Abbot, M. G. (1975). The school as social system:
indicators for change. In J. V. Baldridge and T. E.

Deal (Eds.), nanaging change in educational
gtganizatign . Berkeley: McCutchan, 176-200.

Aldmon, H. F. (1959). Critical behavioral regnirements of
neads of denattnents. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Tennessee.

Aldrich, H. E., & Pfeffer, J. (1976). Environments of

organizations. Annnal Review at Sociology, 2, 79-105.

Argyris, C. (1959) Understanding human behavior in

organizations: One viewpoint. In M. Haire (Ed.),

0 o a zat o eo . New York: John Wiley &
Sons.

Babbie, E. R. (1975). Sociology: An inttoguction.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and confiict in the
univetsity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). Ine finngtions o: the executive.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Bennett, J. B. (1983). Managing tne nondenic denattment:
gases nng notes. New York: American Council on
Education/MacMillan.

Blalock, H. Jr. (1961) Casua fluences in

on e enta e . Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina.

Bok, D. C. (1982). o vo . Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.

Bolton, C., & Boyer, R. (1973). Organizational
development for academic departments. Jgntnni__gt_

nigne; Edncatign, tg(5).

166

Booth, D. B. (1982). The denattment cheir: Ptofessional

dev 0 me t n ole on ct. (Higher Education
Research Report No. 10). Washington, DC: AAHE-ERIC

Boyer, W. W. (1974). The role of department chairmen in
collective bargaining: the University of Delaware

experience. {outnal ot the Qollege end University
Personnel Associetion, e§(2), 49-54.

Brann, J. B. (1972). The chairman: An impossible job
gets tougher. In J. B. Brann & T. A. Emmet (Eds.), The

aeedemic o; diyision chaitnen: A complex role.
Detroit: Balamp.

Brann, J. B., & Emmet, T. (1972). The eeademic or
division chaitnan: A eomplex tole. Detroit: Balamp.

Brubacker, J., & Rudy, W. (1958). her d t n
ttansition. New York: Harper Row.

Buckley, W. (1967). Sociolegy eng nodetn eystens tneoty.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bullen, R. A. Jr. (1970). A study of the perceptions of
selected deans and departmental chairmen and faculty on
the role of the departmental chairman at the University

of Alabama. Dissertation Abstzacts Internetienel, £2,
3213-A. (University Microfilms No. 70-1369)

Centra, J. A. (1980). College enrollments in the 1980's:

Projections and possibilities. Jontnel ef Higher
Matteo. 5.111)-
Cheit, E. F. (1973). h ew d es her
egngetign. New York: MacGraw Hill.
Clark, D., & Guba, E. (1977). s o ache
uc ° st 0 ov ors know ed
ptoducers, end change egencies. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 139 805)
Clark, E. L. (1978). e m
e s s o n un versities: e ws

0: theit role. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Corson, J. J. (1975). Qovetnence of colleges end
nnivetsities. New York: MacGraw Hill.

167

Darkenwald, G. G. Jr. (1970). The department chairman
role in relation to the social organization of colleges
and universities. Dissertation Abstracts

international, Al, 2700-A. (University Microfilms No.
70-23, 430)

Davidson, R. C. (1968). The administrative role of
department chairmen in public four-year colleges.
Dissertation Abstracts lntetnational, 2A, 2935-A.
(University Microfilms No. 68-2416)

Davis, J. H. (1976). Selected perceptions of chairmen in
high innovative and low innovative departments.

Dissettation Abstracts Internetional, 1e, 7831-A.

(University Microfilms No. 76-12, 061)

Doyle, E. A. (1953). The status and tunctions ot the

de artme tal c a an. Washington, DC: Catholic
University of America.

Dressel, P. L. (1981). i st v ead rs i . San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Dressel, P. L., & Faricy, W. H. (1972). et to
tesnonsibility. San Francisco : Jossey Bass.

Dressel, P. L., Johnson, F. C., & Marcus, P. M. (1969).
Departmental operations: The confidence game.

Educatienal_zegerd. 274-278-

Dressel, P. L., Johnson, F. C., & Marcus, P. M. (1970).
Ine eenfigence ctisi . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Dressel, P. L., & Mayhew, L. (1974). nigner egueation as
e fielg of stngy. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Dressel, P. L., & Reichard, D. J. (1970). The university
department: Retrospect and prospect. Jentnel_gt_

Higher_Ed22atien. 11. 387-402-

Dressel, P. L., s Simon, L. A. (1976). Allocating
resources among departments. ew ns 0
Institutienal__3eseereb. 11. San FrancisCO: Jossey
Bass.

Emmery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1963). The casual texture

of organizational environments. fiumen Aeletions,
20-260
Etzioni, A. (1964). d a o s. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

168

Euwema, B. (1953). The organization of the department.
Educetienal Regotg, 31, 38-43.

Faricy, W. H. (1972). A clessigication 0; academic

departments at Michigan State University, based on

tnnctienel chatacteristics. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Faricy, W. H. (1974). Grouping departments. Journal of
Highet Educetion, 5;, 98-111.

Featherstone, R. L. (1972). The development of nanagement
eystems to; the academie gepattment. Boulder: Western

Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

Fellman, D. (1967). The departmental chairman. In G. K.
Smith (Ed.), in searcn o: leadersnip. Current Issues
in Higher Education.

Fincher, C. (1975). On the rational solutions of dominant

issues in higher education. a 0 her
Education. 16(5). 491-505-

Fisher, C. F. (1977). In develpping and evalueting
Warmin- San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.

Garbarino, J. W., & Aussieker, B. (1975). Fecnlty
bargeining: Qnenge and cenflict. A report prepared

for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education and the
Ford Foundation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Griffith, F. (1980). s t v c o :
Text and teeging . Midland, MI: Pendell.

Griffiths, D. (1964). Administrative theory and change in
organizations. In M. B. Miles (Ed.), lnnovetion in
egpeetign. New York: Teachers College.

Griffiths, D. & McCarty, D. (1980). emm t e
pennenip. Danville, IL: Interstate.

Gross, E., & Grambach, P. V. (1974). Qnenges in

v s o za 0 4- . New York:

McGraw-Hill.
Guntee, C. G. (1964). e o 0 me a e n
tne geyernence o; etete nniyetsities. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Washington State University.

169

Hamman, Mt. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population
ecology of organizations. Aneticen gonrnal of

§pgiglpgy, £2: 929-64-

Havelock, R. G. (1971). Dlenning tor innovation through
dissemination ang utilizatien of knowledge. Ann

Arbor: Institute for Social Research.

Heimler, C. H. (1967). The college departmental
chairman. Edueational Aecorg, A§(2), 158-73.
Hertzberg, F. (1966). Wo d e nature of t e man.

Cleveland: World

Hill, W. W.,f & French, W. L. (1967). Perceptions of the
power department chairman by professors.

Administrative Science Quarterly, ll, 548-574.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychplogy of
p;genieetign_. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Keller, G. (1983). d m st . Baltimore: The
John Hopkins University Press.

Kerr, C. (1975). What we might learn from the
climacteric. Dnegelne, l04(1).

Kerr, C. (1983). Dses o; tne univetsity. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University.

Ladd, E. C. Jr., & Lipsett, S. M. (1978). Faculty support

for unionization: Leveling off at about 75 percent.
Ihe_Qbr2_isle_2f_nigbsr_zdusatien 16. 8-

Logan, W. (1965). The emerging patterns in American
higher education. Washington D.C.: American Council
on Education.

Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). thanizatien and
enyitpnnent. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Mangelson, W. L. (1978). Attitudes of academic department
chairpersons and faculty about the importance of

various formal abilities for chairpersons.
Dissertatien___Abetract§___1nternatienal. 11. 6564-A-

(University Microfilms No. 7804761)

McHenry, D. E., & Associates, Eds. (1977). Agedenic
gepettnente. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

McKeachie, W. J. (1968). Memo to new department
chairman. Educatiena1_necerd. 12(2). 221-227.

170

McKeachie, W. J. (1976). Reactions from a former
department chairman. In J. C. Smart & J. R. Montgomery
(Eds.), am n e artmen a eme . New

Directions for Institutional Research. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.

McKenna, D. L. (1958). A study of power interpersonal
relationships in the administration of higher

education. Dissettetion Absttects international, lg,

1275. (University Microfilms No. 58-03704)

McLaughlin, G. W., 5 Montgomery, J. R. (1976).
Satisfaction and committment of chairmen. In J. C.
Smart 8 J. R. Montgomery (Eds.), Examining departmental

nanagement. New Directions for Institutional
Research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Mohr, L. B. (1975). e e 3 ud rou on
dm 3 i t ct e effec iveness a d e ic enc
ten the Nationel Institute at Agneatipn. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan, Institute of Public Policy
Studies.

Norton, M. S. (1978). d e me t

enaitpetsen in eolleges o: edneetipn. Tempe: Arizonia
State University. (Bulletin No. 37)

Norton, M. S. (1980). de n : as s
end :esponsibilitie . Tempe: Arizonia State
University, Department of Educational Administration
and Supervision.

Novick, J. (1971). The role of department chairmen in
university governance in large midwestern universities
as perceived by faculty, chairmen, and administrators.
Diseertati2n___Abetreets___lnternatienal. 11. 5090-A-
(University Microfilms No. 71-10, 040)

Olswang, S. G. (1977). A comparative study of role
prescriptions, perceptions, and performances of
provosts, deans, and department chairpersons.

s s s e , 1D, 1161-A.
(University Microfilms No. 77-18, 402)

Pelman, D. H. (1974). New tools and techniques in
university administration. Egpeetipnnl_3egp:g, 55(1).

Parsons, T. (1956). Suggestions for a sociological
approach to the theory of organizations.

Administratixe_§21ense_nuarterlx. 1. 63-85.

Parsons, T. (1956). o em. New York: Free
Press.

171

Perkins, J. A. (1966). Tne pnivetsity in transition.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Peterson, M. W. (1968). An or at on ud of
pnivereitv departments. Unpublished doctoral

 

dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Peterson, M. W. (1970). The otganization of departments
(Research Report No. 2). American Association of

Higher Education.

Peterson, M. W. (1976). The academic department:
Perspectives from theory and research. In J. C. Smart
& J. R. Montgomery (Eds.), Ex nin De artment
Menagement. New Directions for Institutional Research.

Ramer, H. R. (1963). Perceptions of university
departments and of the role of their chairmen: A study
of some attititudes and opinions of selected
professors, department chairmen, deans, and central
administrators of the Ohio State University.

Dissettation Apstracts International, 21, 5144-A.

Roach, J. H. L. (1976). The academic department
chairperson: Functions and responsibilities.
Educatienal_zeserd. 51. 13-23.

Ryan, D. (1980). The dean as an individual in the organ-
ization. In D. Griffiths and D. McCarty (Eds.), The
dilemma of the deanship. Danville, IL: Interstate.

Schroeder, G. B. (1970). Leadership behavior of
department chairmen in selected state institutions of
higher education. - Dieeeptetien Apsttecte
Intetnational, AD, 5209-A. (University Microfilms No.
70-10, 132)

Scott, W. R. (1981). Organizations: rational, natural,

and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall, Inc.
Skubal, J. M. (1980). An enalysie g: the Agninisttetive

s 0 de d c so .
Unpublished doctoarl dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

Smart, J. C., and Montgomery, J. R. (Eds.). (1976).
Exam e men a a a e e t. New Directions for
Institutional Research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Terreberry, s. (1968). The evolution of organizational
environments. Agninisttetiye Seienee Quatterly,

590-613.

172

 

Trucker, A. (1984). Chairing the academic department.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Waltzer, H. (1975). The iob of academic department
cnairmen. (Occasional Paper). Washington, DC:

American Council on Education.

Weber, M. (1947). In A. H. Henderson & T. Parsons (Eds.),
The theory of social eng economic organization.

Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Wolotkiewcz, R. J. (1980). gellege administrator's
nengpgpk. Boston, Allyn, & Bacon.

Woodburne, L. S. (1958). Ptinciples 0; college and

univezsity edministretien. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University.

 

Wyrick, R. I. (1972). The effect of departmental
leadership on faculty satisfaction and departmental
effectiveness in a Big Ten university. Diesertation

Wiesel. 3.3.. 132-A. (University
Microfilms No. 72-19, 264)

Zucker, J. D. (1974). A model for determining the role
perceptions of department chairmen at a large
university. sse ta 0 stracts t ational, AA,

6926-A. (University Microfilms No. 74-10, 100)