». ... A ‘ , #37:, ‘ .v .33»? 3H9\“. ...._ .‘ l‘ . o_L.._‘ j; N .QWL.» ti... . Q , .* "I. Ham r I .W. 5.1.” 1.4.9 39 n. u: \ l. o _ ‘u. ram. .27 M an «w: .. ..f...T.U..s.4___.m. . Tuna”? mvfiww."k. g“ ELK; .\ . .anao ‘ L z I .W‘F. . J %.mc§¥§3e_. u£..5..,._.5..: 1mm} ‘4'! Yll .33.: .o-fiullt'l' 0:91,.0 THESlS ‘twill\lljglxlgllll 3 129 11331131 Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled An Analysis of Key Individual and Organizational Factors Contributing to Stress Among Chief Student Affairs Administrators in Selected Four-Year Public and Private Colleges and Universities presented by Shirley Marie Erickson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. . Education degree in (W ’ Major professor Dr. Iouis C. Stamatakos Date" May 1, 1985 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity hutitufl'on 0-1277 1 hdSlJ RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from LIBRARIES 4—! your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below; '(¢’_7 ,-m, lea ‘ ~ ‘ r — , 313 62 x059 7.. K, ‘7 ‘ v -a127~ 3:19:92: W 100 0219 llfiaailill' 79 088 - 5’ Klig $i9§figz . \ f***?‘”‘F 30° 03‘: a7§fil116 ~42“) .yh“ “WWW," ”v.- u.» . 0..~” AN ANALYSIS OF KEY INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO STRESS AMONG CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS IN SELECTED FOUR-YEAR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES BY Shirley Marie Erickson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1985 Err/- >07X Copyright by SHIRLEY MARIE ERICKSON 1985 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express her sincere apprecia- tion to Dr. Louis C. Stamatakos, her doctoral guidance committee chairperson and dissertation director, for his continuous guidance, encouragement and assistance throughout the preparation of this dissertation. Appreciation is also extended to Drs. Richard E. Gardner, Michael L. Moore and Eldon Nonnamaker who, as members of the guidance committee, willingly gave of their time and professional advice in the development, guidance and examination of the completed study. Without the invaluable contributions of these indi- viduals, this study would not have been possible. The writer is also appreciative of the Division of Research and Program Development of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) for their sup— port of the study, and to the Chief Student Affairs Adminis- trators (CSAAs) who responded to the questionnaire. Their full cooperation and support made the completion. of this study a reality. Finally, the writer reserves a special expression of appreciation to her parents, Bonnie and Donald Breuer, and to her friends, for their encouragement, understanding, support and tolerance during the years of doctoral study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LISTOF TABLES 0......I0.00....OOIOOOOIOIDOOIOIIOICUIOI v LISTOF FIGURES asoon.o-oooaooooooolIolocooooooo-oooooo vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 000.00.000.00...-aeooaloooeenlooooool 1 Background .................................... 1 Statement of the Problem ...................... 10 Purpose of the Study .......................... 12 Definition of Terms ........................... 13 Statement of the Research Questions and General Hypotheses .......................... 14 Design of the Study ........................... 20 Limitations of the Study ...................... 21 Delimitations of the Study .................... 22 Importance of the Study ....................... 23 Organization of the Study ..................... 25 II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ................. 27 Introduction .................................. 27 The Concept of Stress ......................... 27 The Role and Demands of the Chief Student Affairs Administrator ............... 39 Common Sources of Individual and Organizational Stress ....................... 57 Summary ....................................... 89 III. METHODOLOGY 0-0000-.oIOIOI-oloooocooolococo...noel 93 Introduction .................................. 93 Selection of the Sample .................. Development of the Questionnaire .......... Collection of the Data ................... Research Hypotheses ...................... Method of Data Analysis .................. Summary .................................. IV- ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS one...one-oooooecoooaoooao 110 Introduction .................................. 110 Main Characteristics of the Sample ............ 110 Analysis of the Data Related to Demographic InformatiOn ..................... 112 Analysis of the Data Related to Personality Characteristics of Chief Student Affairs Administrators .............. 118 111 CHAPTER Page Analysis of the Data Related to the Physical Health of Chief Student Affairs Administrators .............. 120 Analysis of the Data Related to the Organiza- tional Characteristics Contributing to Job- Related Stress Among Chief Student Affairs Administrators .............................. 126 Results of Tests of the Hypotheses ............ 142 Summary ....................................... 163 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS .00....IOOOOQOOOCOOIIOOCOIIICC 164 Introduction .................................. 164 Summary of Major Findings ..................... 167 Conclusions ................................... 178 Implications .................................. 182 Speculation ................................... 187 Recommendations for Further Research .......... 190 LIST OF REFERENCES I0.0ICIOOUOOIICII.DOOOCSOOOOOOICOII. 192 APPENDICES A. LETTER TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STUDENT F. G. PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS (NASPA) REQUESTING THEIR ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT IN IDENTIFYING THE CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS FOR THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION .................................. 205 LETTER FROM NASPA INDICATING THEIR SUPPORT OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION ................... 206 CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATOR STRESS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSAASQ) 0....OOICOOIOCIOOCOOUICOO 207 LETTER TO THE PILOT STUDY GROUP FROM THE INVESTIGATOR .I....I.....C.00....UOCCCOCIICCCII. 213 EXPLANATION OF THE ANXIETY SCALE QUESTIONNAIRE (ASQ) O.I.0.0000IIOOOOCIIOOOOO'OI. 214 LETTER FROM DR. STAMATAKOS TO SUBJECTS ......... 215 FOLLOW-UP LETTER FROM THE INVESTIGATOR TO RESPOND— ENTS WHO PROVIDED INCOMPLETE INFORMATION ....... 16 iv LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1 Summary of Selected Demographics of the Chief Student Affairs Administrators ................ 113 2 Anxiety Scale Questionnaire (ASQ) Raw and Sten Scores of the Chief Student Affairs Administrators ... 121 3 Frequencies, Means and Standard Deviations of Symptoms of Physical Ill-Health of the Chief Student Affairs Administrators ................ 123 4 Frequencies, Means and Standard Deviations of Organizational Characteristics Contributing to Job-Related Stress Among Chief Student Affairs Administrators ........................ 128 5 Means and Analysis of Variance Results for the Relationship Between Individual Stress and the Chief Student Affairs Administrators' Charac- teristics of Highest Degree Earned, Educational Preparation, Number of Years of Administrative Experience, Number of Years in Present Adminis- trative Position, Number of Years in College Student Affairs Profession, Marital Status, Sex and Age ................................... 145 6 Means and Analysis of Variance Results for the Relationship Between Organizational Factors Contributing to Stress and the Chief Student Affairs Administrators' Characteristics of Highest Degree Earned, Educational Preparation, Number of Years of Administrative Experience. Number of Years in Present Administrative Position, Number of Years in the College Student Affairs Profession, Marital Status, Sex and Age ................................... 149 7 Summary of Analysis of Variance Results for Hypoth- esis Three (Relationship Between Individual Stress and the Chief Student Affairs Admini- strators' Institutional Characteristics of Type and Size) ..................................... 153 8 Summary of Analysis of Variance Results for Hypo- thesis Four (Relationship Between Organizational Factors Contributing to Stress and the Chief Student Affairs Administrators' Institutional Characteristics of Type and Size) ............. 155 Page TABLE 9 Means and Analysis of Variance Results for the Relationship Between Overall Organizational Stress and the Chief Student Affairs Adminis- trators' Characteristics of Age, Educational Preparation, Number of Years of Administrative Experience and Marital Status ................. 156 10 Summary of Analysis of Variance Results for Hypothesis Five (Relationship Between Over- all Organizational Stress and the Chief Student Affairs Administrators' Charac- teristic of Age) .............................. 158 11 Summary of Analysis of Variance Results for Hypothesis Six (Relationship Between Overall Organizational Stress and the Chief Student Affairs Administrators' Characteristic of Educational Preparation) ...................... 159 12 Summary of Analysis of Variance Results for Hypothesis Seven (Relationship Between Overall Organizational Stress and the Chief Student Affairs Administrators' Characteristic of Number of Years of Administrative Experience) ........ 161 13 Summary of Analysis of Variance Results for Hypothesis Eight (Relationship Between Overall Organizational Stress and the Chief Student Affairs Administrators' Characteristic of Marital Status) ............................... 162 vi LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1 Selye‘s General Adaptation Syndrome (G.A.S.) ...... 32 2 Stimulus-Response Model of Stress ................. 33 3 The Person-Environment Model of Stress ............ 37 4 Sources of Stress at Work and Their Consequences for the Individual ................ 58 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background Stress is a major problem in the contem- porary United States. It negatively affects the daily lives of scores of millions of Americans. It causes a bewildering array of physiological, psychological, and social malfunctions. On an economic level, the effects of stress probably cost the nation over $100 billion annually. Moreover, available evidence suggests that stress-related maladies are on the rise (Mitchell, 1977, p. vi). Stress affects the lives of all people everywhere. It affects personality, modifying an individual's percep- tions, feelings, attitudes and behavior. It also reaches beyond its immediate victims to affect the political, social and work organizations whose activities they direct. Top-level administrative health and well-being are among the most critical resources available to an organiza- tion. A great portion of any organization's effectiveness derives directly from the personal effectiveness of the small number of key administrators at the top (Albrecht, 1979). Those who set strategy, decide on major courses of action, allocate its primary resources, and take risks in guiding the organization invest themselves as human beings as well as merely their talents (Albrecht, 1979). It has become increasingly evident, that the mental and physical 2 well-being of this particular group of administrators has a direct impact upon the quality of an organization's overall effectiveness in carrying out its mission. Recently, top-level administrative stress has received considerable attention from medical specialists, behavioral scientists and organizational development spe- cialists. Clearly, the monetary impact of stress-related problems to individuals and organizations are beyond calcu- lation. The industrial sector has taken the lead in an effort to identify the tremendous losses suffered by organi- zations due to excessive occupational stress. The following costs to industry have been identified as a result of execu- tive mental and physical health problems: 0 Premature employee death costs American industry $19.4 billion a year. 0 An estimated $10 to $20 billion is lost through absenteeism, hospitalization, and early death among executives. O Alcoholism costs industry about $15.6 billion annually due to absenteeism and medical costs. 0 Approximately 32 million workdays, and $8.6 billion in wages is lost annually to heart-related diseases. 0 The cost of recruiting replacements for executives felled by heart disease is close to $700 million a year (Goldberg, 1978). In addition to these figures, other associated costs include I‘lost skills, experience, contacts, and wisdom of executives whose careers are cut short, and the diminished effective- ness of managers plagued by nagging maladies and emotional upsets“ (Goldberg, 1978, p. xii). f! 3 Stress has been widely investigated from many per- spectives. For this reason, a group of individual and organizational factors contributing to top-level administra- tive stress have been identified across a number of occupa— tional settings. While several conceptual models of stress exist, the model developed by Cooper and Marshall (1976) and adapted by Yates (1979) to depict the leading sources of top-level administrative stress, served as the primary model for this study. The Cooper and Marshall model, thoroughly illustrated and discussed in Chapter II, presents a classi- fication of sources of stress at work and how these stres- sors interact with characteristics of individual and extra— organizational sources of stress (Yates, 1979). The model divides the possible sources of stress in the work setting into the two major categories of individual and organiza- tional stressors. Several of the most common individual stressors include: lack of meaning in the job, frustrated ambition, obsessive concern for work, level of anxiety, level of emotionality, tolerance for ambiguity, level of stress tolerance and Type A behavior (Yates, 1979). The second category, organizational stressors, is divided into five primary areas: factors intrinsic to the job, role in the organization, career development, relationships at work and factors associated with organizational structure and climate (Yates, 1979). From this conceptual model, stress is characterized as the outcome of the interaction of the characteristics of the individual and the environment. 4 Although executive stress has been studied exten- sively from a business and industrial point of view, little attention has been focused on top—level administrative officers of colleges and universities. Stressful situations experienced by administrators and managers in all profes- sions are familiar to college administrators as well: 0 the pressure of time and deadlines; o experiencing rapid and multiple changes; 0 never having enough time to accomplish everything; fear of failure; 0 0 being unsure about career and life direc- tions; 0 working in a role whose responsibilities are ambiguous or viewed differently by different people in authority; and 0 disliking a job or finding it unfulfill- ing but not knowing what to do about it (Schuler, 1981, p. 14). In addition to the previously identified common causes of stress, there exist several sources of stress unique to the top-level college and university administra— tor. Responsibilities encountered by these administrators that are both critical and typical sources of major uncer- tainty include: o employing tenured faculty and senior staff as enrollment declines and/or the budget shrinks: 0 identifying where the market for students is and how best to serve it; o determining how to compete effectively against other institutions; / 5 o recruiting and retaining high quality faculty and staff despite the institu- tion's inability to grant competitive salaries and merit increases; 0 coping with intensified public scrutiny and trustee involvement; 0 articulating the mission of the institu— tion well enough to secure needed resources; and o devising ways to assist graduating stu- dents in their search for jobs (Schuler, 1981). The limited information on stress in the higher education literature in general, and the student affairs area in particular, required the investigator to examine literature in other fields; namely, studies of business and industrial executives and managers. While some writers would question the direct applicability of studies of busi- ness and industrial executives when compared with, higher educational administrators, the investigator believes that the similarities found in the nature of the work of these individuals justifies the comparison. Typically, when the question of appropriateness of comparing certain aspects of business and industrial organi- zations with those in institutions of higher education, writers point out that such comparisons are not desirable. This viewpoint stems primarily from the belief that these organizations are far too different in organizational struc- ture and climate, purpose and goals, internal and external operations, financial resources and the ability to accu- rately measure effectiveness in terms of outputs (Corson, 6 1960; Burns, 1962; Rourke and Brooks, 1966; Hester, 1971). Most notably, in his book The Academic Community: An Essay on Organization, Millet summarized his position in this area when he stated, “...I believe that ideas drawn from business and public administration have only a very limited applica- bility to colleges and universities" (1962, p. 4). Members of academic communities have resisted changes in higher education management practices because they have believed "that higher education could easily be damaged by administrative innovations which might be per- fectly acceptable in other types of organizations“ (Rourke and Brooks, 1966, p. 1). In their book, The Managerial Revolution in Higher Education, Rourke and Brooks point out three primary reasons for resistance on the part of members of the academic community to the application of business and industrial management techniques: Opposition from administrators and fac- ulty members to the new form of manage- ment is rooted in certain basic beliefs regarding both the administrative and the educational processes that have long been prevalent in colleges and universities in this country. These beliefs are (1) that educational outputs cannot be measured, and that any attempt to do so is ludi- crous if not actually subversive of the purposes for which academic institutions exist; (2) that there is an inherent conflict between administrative effi- ciency on the one hand and academic effectiveness on the other; (3) that efforts to improve management efficiency are really designed to increase the power of administrators at the expense of faculty members (1966, p. 8). 7 However, there are also those who believe that a group of fundamental responsibilities exist that are common to all top-level administrators, irrespective of the type of organizational setting in which they work. These primary functions include: staffing, supervising, communicating, budgeting, coordinating, organizing, planning, evaluating and providing for an organizational climate that promotes and encourages the realization of its goals and objectives (Burns, 1962: Rourke and Brooks, 1966: Hester, 1971; Blau, 1973). When considering academic institutions as bureau- cracies, Blau, in his book The Organization of Academic Work, stated that: Universities and colleges have some bureaucratic characteristics, such as a formal division of labor, an administra- tive hierarchy, and a clerical apparatus. But, they do not have other bureaucratic attributes: for example, there is no direct supervision of the work of the major group of employees, the faculty, and there are no detailed operating rules governing the performance of academic responsibilities (1973, p. 11). In addition to the above view, the author further added that even though colleges and universities are organi- zations, they are unquestionably different in many ways from most work organizations (Blau, 1973). "However, this dif- ference does not extend to senior administrators, whose basic management functions of mobilizing and distributing resources for the effective achievement of objectives are 8 essentially the same in academic institutions and other organizations, albeit the ways to execute these responsibil— ities successfully are not the same" (Blau, 1973, p. 49). More specifically, the role of the Chief Student Affairs Administrator (CSAA) in higher educational institu- tions as related to managerial behavior in a business or industrial setting, was directly addressed by Bursch (1962) when he stated: Centralized, coordinated student person- nel administration is mainly justified from a management viewpoint, that is, the dean of students or vice-president for student affairs makes his (her) profes- sional contribution largely by enabling the institution to carry out its total purpose more efficiently (1962, p. 144). Later, Bursch added that: The administrative problems of a dean of students boils down to budget, communica- tions, evaluation, and planning, even as do the problems of administrators in other areas (1962, p. 147). With the previous discussion in mind, justification is, therefore, made for comparing top-level administrators in higher educational institutions with executives and managers in business and industrial organizations. The rationale for this comparison is established in that there exist an identifiable group of primary functions that are common to all top-level administrators irrespective of the organizational setting in which the administrator works. More specifically, the investigator believes that the sim- ilarities found in the nature of the work of these individ- uals supports the comparison. 9 The extensive research on stress in business and industrial executives (Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Cooper and Payne, 1978; Kets de Vries, 1979; Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Yates, 1979; Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980; Cooper and Mar- shall, 1980; Moss, 1981), as well as the considerable evi- dence of stressful work conditions in the higher educational setting, created by decreasing enrollment, changing-student clientele, increasing public scrutiny, declining financial resources and diminishing career opportunities for higher education administrators (Cross, 1972; Bailey, 1974; Nelson and Murphy, 1980; Schuler, 1981), has led the investigator to conclude that stress should be investigated in top-level college and university administrators. Thus, the pertinent‘ research relevant to the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress in business and industrial executives is examined and related to a particular group of top-level administrators in the college and university setting. More specifically, the focus of this study is on the CSAA in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities. Therefore, the interest of the investigator is to identify and analyze those key individual and organizational stressors within the higher educational setting, which emerge as prominent in the context of the performance of the CSAAs' duties and responsibilities. To that end, a critical analysis of the data collected for this study, specific to the CSAA and the higher educational setting, is presented in Chapter IV. 10 Statement of the Problem Stress in the workplace is a significant and timely problem. It has been the subject of extensive investigation from many viewpoints, most importantly, from a psychologi- cal, physiological and social—psychological perspective (McGrath, 1976). In any event, 'stressor effects that lead to distress for individuals are undesirable because distress is often associated with identifiable individual and organi- zational costs" (Quick and Quick, 1979, p. 22). Some top- level administrative stress is beneficial and necessary to motivate individuals toward better performance and personal growth and development. However, most of the recent liter- ature on stress calls attention to the fact that managerial stress exists as a real problem in the work world, with serious implications for the health and well—being of indi- viduals in managerial positions (Cooper and Payne, 1980). Subsequently, the organization's overall effectiveness is dependent upon the mental and physical well-being of its chief administrative officers. Their individual effective- ness has a direct impact upon the organization's success in carrying out its mission, goals and objectives. Change has been rapid everywhere in the past sev- eral years. Student affairs administrators are not exempt from these changes; finding themselves beset with problems on how to keep abreast of theoretical, operational and technological change (Paul and Hoover, 1980). Along with the unstable economic conditions for higher education, the 11 viability of student affairs is being severely tested. To amplify the situation, in recent years, a vacancy in the CSAA position has provided institutions with the opportunity to assess the relative worth and organizational structure for student affairs (Rickard, 1982). The impact of change, then, on the organization and administration of student affairs programs and services has contributed significantly to the stressful work conditions for CSAAs. Major studies outside of higher education have identified a group of individual and organizational inter- acting factors contributing to executive and managerial stress (McGrath, 1976; Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Cooper and Payne, 1978; Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Yates, '1979; Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980). These identifiable work conditions include such factors as task difficulty, work overload, role conflict, role ambiguity and relationships with individuals at work. While there has been limited direct discussion of stress in the higher education literature in general, and the student affairs area in particular, there is consider- able evidence of stressful work conditions in the higher educatioual setting, created by decreasing enrollment, changing student clientele, increasing public scrutiny, declining financial resources and diminishing career oppor- tunities (Cross, 1972; Bailey, 1974; Nelson and Murphy, 1980; Schuler, 1981). However, to the best of this investi- gator's knowledge, a critical analysis of the key individual 12 and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities has not been conducted. With this in mind, the major problem addressed in this study has been to determine whether or not there are certain individual and organiza- tional factors which contribute to more stress at work than other factors for CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the investigator is to analyze the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities. To that end, the central research question of this study is: Are there certain individual and organizational factors which contribute to more stress at work than other factors for CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities? Secondary purposes of the investigator are: (l) to analyze the differences in the key individual and organiza— tional factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in simil— arly sized four-year public and private colleges and univer- sities, and (2) to examine the extent of the relationship between organizational stress and the CSAAs' characteristics of age, educational preparation, number of years of admini- strative experience and marital status among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and univer— sities. 13 Definition of Terms The following terms are defined as they are used in this study: Chief Student Affairs Administrator (CSAA): An individual within a four-year public or private higher education insti- tution who reports directly to the institution's chief executive officer and is responsible for administering the student affairs and services area of the institution. The various titles for CSAAs used most frequently include: vice Chancellors, vice presidents, deans, and directors of stu- dents, student life, student affairs, student development, student services and student personnel (Crookston, 1974). Stress: The nonspecific response of the body to any demand made upon it (Selye, 1974). More simply stated, stress is the result of an individual‘s response to various life pressures and strains. Stressor: A cause or source of stress. Individual or personal stressors: Those stressors that reIate to an individual's personal makeup (e.g. personality, age, sex, and similar attributes). Organizational or environmental stressors: Those stressors that arise from sources at an individual's workplace. égginistrative area (of concentration: A concentration in Business Administration, Public Administration, Educational Administration. Student Personnel Administration and Higher Education Administration (Paul and Hoover, 1980). Nonadministrative area of concentration: A concentration in Guidance and Counseling, general and other areas of Educa- tion, Social Sciences, Physical Science, and the Humanities (Paul and Hoover, 1980). Four-year public college or university: Those institutions of higher education offering at least programs of studies culminating in the bachelor of arts or bachelor of science degree and whose primary financial support is generated from tax revenues. Four-year private college or university: Those institutions of higher education offering at least programs of studies culminating in the bachelor of arts or bachelor of science degree and whose primary financial support comes from sources other than taxes. 14 Statement of the Research Questions and General Hypotheses In view of the stated problem, this study attempted to answer three major research questions. First, are there certain individual and organizational factors which contri- bute to more stress at work than other factors for CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and univer- sities? General Hypothesis One stated: There will be certain individual and organizational factors which contri- bute to more stress at work than other factors for CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and univer- sities. Secondly, are there differences in the key indi- vidual and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in similarly sized four-year public and private colleges and universities? General Hypothesis Two stated: There will be no differences in the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in similarly sized four-year public and private colleges and universities. Job stress is a condition arising from the inter- action of people and their jobs and is characterized by changes within individuals that force them to deviate from their normal functioning (Brief, Schuler and VanSell, 1981). There is a growing body of research evidence to suggest that in any job there are a wide variety of potential sources of stress (Cooper and Payne, 1978; Marshall and Cooper, 1979; McLean, 1979; Cooper and Marshall, 1980). However, three broad areas of sources of stress appear to be prevalent across several diverse occupations: “characteristics and 15 processes of organizations; particular job demands, working conditions, and interpersonal relationships; and character- istics and needs of individuals“ (Brief, Schuler and Van- Sell, 1981, p. 65). A review of the related literature (Kearns, 1973; Gowler and Legge, 1975; Cooper and Marshall, 1976; McGrath, 1976; Cooper and. Marshall, 1977; Cooper and Payne, 1978; Kets deVries, 1979; Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Yates, 1979; Cooper and Marshall, 1980; Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980; Moss, 1981) revealed an extensive group of individual and organizational interacting factors identified by researchers and writers as common sources of stress across a wide range of occupational settings. From this group of factors, seven major categories of stress were identified: factors intrin— sic to the job, role in the organization, career develop- ment, relationships at work, organizational structure and climate, extraorganizational sources of stress and charac- teristics of the individual. Of the major sources of stress previously listed, colleges and universities are described in the higher educa- tion literature as experiencing comparable problems which could be classified as individual and organizational stressors (Cross, 1972: Bailey, 1974; Bender, 1980; Nelson and Murphy, 1980; Schuler, 1981; Rickard, 1982). These job-related stressors which are identified for all of higher education are likely to be intensifying the problem areas specific to the student affairs profession and, increasing the probability of stress in CSAAs. 16 In portraying CSAAs as a group at risk in society, the investigator is not making a claim that these higher educational administrators suffer more stress than individu- als in other occupational groups (Marshall and Cooper, 1979). But, rather, it appears to be more realistic to view different sectors of society in terms of the distinctive pattern of pressures and strains that they experience (Mar- shall and Cooper, 1979). For example, paced-assembly line workers suffer from monotonous work in poor physical condi- tions; police officers may report feelings of social isola- tion from the rest of the community (Marshall and Cooper, 1979); medical doctors may experience anxiety regarding society's high expectations of their profession (Cooper and Marshall, 1980); and CSAAs may report problems unique to their work conditions within the higher educational setting. More specifically, the changes in the role and functions of CSAAs over the past few decades have been determined primarily by changing societal demands on insti- tutions of higher education as well as increasing needs and interests of students. A review of the major studies related to the role and demands of the CSAA revealed that there is a continuing pattern of change in the role and functions of individuals occupying these positions (Rey- nolds, 1961; Rodgers, 1963; Ayers, Tripp and Russel, 1966; Upcraft, 1967; Dutton, Appleton and Birch, 1970; Brooks and Avila, 1974; Lilley, 1974). In addition, college and uni- versity administrators, faculty, presidents and students 17 hold different perceptions of the role of CSAAs. As a result, it becomes increasingly apparent that CSAAs may be subject to role conflict and ambiguity. Thus, the CSAAs' role in the organization may serve as a major source of stress. With respect to the student affairs profession, another source of stress is related to career development. Career development, which refers to the impact of overpro- motion, underpromotion, status incongruities, lack of job security, thwarted ambition and other areas (Cooper and Marshall, 1976; Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Davidson and Cooper, 1983), plays a critical role in every professional's life. Reductions in force or consolidation of positions, decreasing professional mobility and widespread underemploy- ment may be contributing to increased frustration and stress for CSAAs (Bender, 1980; Harder, 1983). Therefore, the area of the CSAAs' career development may also serve as a major source of stress. ' The third and final major research question was: is there a relationship between organizational stress and the CSAAs‘ characteristics of age, educational preparation, number of years of administrative experience and marital status among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities? Specifically, four General Hypotheses were formulated: a) There will be a lower overall level of organiza— tional stress associated with CSAAs over the age of 45. 18 b) There will be a lower overall level of organiza- tional stress associated with CSAAs who received a graduate degree in an administrative area of con— centration. c) There will be a lower overall level of organiza- tional stress associated with CSAAs who have over 11 years of administrative experience. d) There will be a lower overall level of organiza- tional stress associated with CSAAs in the single, marital status category. When investigating stress in CSAAs, as with any occupational group, it is important to be aware that all individuals have their own unique life histories; demo- graphic variables; experiences; behavior patterns and per- sonalities (Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Marshall and Cooper, 1979; McLean, 1979; Cooper and Marshall, 1980; Cooper, 1981; Davidson and Cooper, 1983). All of these characteristics can be instrumental in determining individual responses to stress (Davidson and Cooper, 1983). Previous research has demonstrated that age, educa- tional preparation, number of years of administrative exper- ience and marital status are related to stress. As far as the relationship between age and level of stress is con- cerned, the related research indicates that individuals who are older are more likely to experience lower levels of job-related pressures and to be more satisfied with their jobs (Stouffer, et a1., 1949; Gurin, Veroff and Feld, 1960; Langner, 1962; Indik, Seashore and Slesinger, 1964; Bender, 1980). The adequacy of preparation and training or famili— arity with the situation as a result of past experience are 19 major determinants in which situations are viewed as stress- ful by the individual (Farber and Spence, 1956; Pronko and Leith, 1956; Ulrich, 1957; Gurin, Veroff and Feld, 1960; Berkun, et a1., 1962; McGrath, 1970). Finally, in relation to the issue of marital status and, more specifically to being married, it appears that there are certain "pressures and stresses that are built into the process of two or more people sharing a life together ..." (Pines, Aronson and Kafry, 1981, p. 181). This view of marriage as a stressful event is reflected in the widely used Holmes-Rahe "Life Events Survey" (Shaffer, 1982). The survey, designed to take into account the consequences of changes in people's lives, indicates that five of the top 10 most stressful life events are related to marriage and various marital crises. There is considerable research evidence to support the contention that individuals who marry and remain in profes- sional positions do experience additional stress (Broschart, 1979; Cooper and Marshall, 1980; Cooper, 1981; Pines, Aron- son and Kafry, 1981; Shaffer, 1982; Cooper 1983). However, most of these studies and related literature have involved samples of a wide range of occupational groups, complicating attempts to segregate the impact of the personal character- istics from other organizational factors. The present investigation attempted to eliminate the issue of diverse occupational settings by surveying a homogeneous population; namely, CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities. ___'.— 20 In an effort to measure the dependent and independ- ent variables identified in these research questions, the investigator has developed a questionnaire for use in the data collection process. The items were organized into a four-part questionnaire and distributed to a sample of CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and uni- versities. Design of the Study This study utilizes a self-reporting method of information collection designed to measure the perceived extent to which certain individual and organizational fac- tors contribute to stress among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities. with this in mind, a questionnaire was developed for use in this study that consisted of four major parts: (1) demographic infor- mation, (2) personality characteristics, (3) physical health measure and (4) organizational characteristics. The information collected on the completed. ques- tionnaires is used to: (l) verify that respondents are CSAAs; (2) collect demographic information on the CSAAs; (3) determine whether or not there are certain individual and organizational factors which contribute to more stress at work than other factors for CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities; (4) analyze the differences in the key individual and_ organizational factors which contribute to stress among CSAAs in similarly sized four-year public and private colleges and universi- ties; and (5) examine the extent of the relationship between 21 organizational stress and the CSAAs' characteristics of age, educational preparation, number of years of administrative experience and marital status among CSAAs in selected four- year public and private colleges and universities. All CSAAs within the National Association of Stu- dent Personnel Administrators (NASPA) four—year public and private member institutions in Region IV—East were surveyed. Of the 135 CSAAs surveyed, 100 usable questionnaires were returned. The results of the survey were subjected to computer tabulation and statistical analysis. Limitations of the Study The population selected for examiniation is limited to CSAAs within NASPA four-year public and private member institutions in the United States. This study is further limited in scope to the number of institutions selected for inclusion in the sample; namely, those NASPA four—year pub- lic and private member institutions in Region IV-East. In addition, since this study involves only NASPA region IV- East, which is comprised primarily of midwestern states, the findings may not be generalizable to other geographic regions of the country. Secondly, this study is limited by factors intrin- sic in the use of the questionnaire as a form of information collection. These factors include the problems of non- returns, truthfulness of respondents, the biases of the respondents, validity depending on the ability and will- ingness of the respondents to provide the information and 22 the possibility of misinterpretation. of the questionnaire items by the respondents. In addition, and especially pertinent to this study, is the difficulty involved with respondents accurately measuring their own levels of stress. Lastly, this study is restricted to an analysis of the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs. Ths lack of research in this area limits the extent to which the results may be generalized. Delimitations of the Study The intent of this study has been to analyze the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities. While there are several vari- ables involved in the complex ‘phenomenon of stress, this investigator has focused only on some selected individual and organizational related characteristics of the CSAA, acknowledging that a number of aspects of the CSAAs' per- sonal makeup and work environment will not be addressed. Further, while it is recognized that a thorough and accurate understanding of stress as it relates to the CSAA may be useful in assisting CSAAs in the development of various strategies for minimizing and managing stress, this study was not intended to address any stress coping tech- niques and strategies. For this reason, no attempt is made to identify and examine the various individual and organiza— tional stress management strategies CSAAs utilize in dealing with stress. 23 Finally, examination of the stress literature has not been exhaustive by any measure. Only the relevant edu- cational, business and industrial literature has been reviewed, with the intent of identifying key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among various white collar and professional workers. Importance of the Study Although there is considerable evidence of stress- ful work conditions in the higher educational setting (Cross, 1972; Bailey, 1974; Nelson and Murphy, 1980; Schu- ler, 1981), to the best of this investigator's knowledge, a critical analysis of the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities has not been conducted. Results of a study of this nature could have implications for all members of the academic community. First of all, a study with this focus is an essen- tial move toward developing a more comprehensive and system- atic body of knowledge about the major individual and organ- izational factors which contribute to stress among CSAAs in higher educational institutions. A thorough and accurate understanding of stress as it relates to the CSAA could be useful in assisting CSAAs in the development of various strategies for minimizing and managing stress. Secondly, CSAAs themselves could utilize the results of this study to gain a clearer understanding of the various aspects of the CSAA position which could serve as 24 potential sources of stress to them. This knowledge could, in turn, affect the way in which CSAAs approach and inter- pret their future roles within the profession. Finally, individuals differ in their susceptibility to specific stressors, that is, in their psychological and physiological response to stress and the resulting i11- nesses. Therefore, it may be useful and valuable to deter- mine the differences among individuals in susceptibility which are due primarily to personal characteristics. This knowledge could be beneficial in the process of identifying within the student affairs profession, those individuals at high risk due to identifiable personal characterisitics. In addition, this information could be useful with respect to the recruitment, promotion, training and professional devel- opment concerns related to the CSAA. Clearly, then, the consequences of excessive stress to individuals and organizations are many and varied. How- ever, most consequences are dysfunctional, disruptive and potentially harmful to both the individual and the organiza- tion. A study of this nature could serve to minimize or reduce the individual and organizational costs and effects associated with excessive stress experienced by CSAAs. The identification and subsequent analysis of the key factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in the higher education environment, should yield timely and valuable information to both those in the student affairs profession as well as other members of the academic community. 25 Organization of the Study This study includes five chapters. Chapter I has introduced the study and provided the relevant background information; stated the problem addressed; described the purpose of the study; defined the terms of the study; stated the major research questions and general hypotheses; ex- plained the design of the study; outlined the limitations of the study; expressed the delimitations of the study; stated the importance of the study; and concluded with this over- view of the general organization of the study. Chapter II is a review of the relevant literature related to the concept of stress, the role and demands of the CSAA applicable to this study and summary of the common sources of individual and organizational stress across vari- ous white collar and professional work groups. Special attention is given to the relevant stress research concern- ing business and industrial executives and managers. Chapter III, which sets forth the design of this study, outlines the procedures used in the sample selection, describes the data collection instrument, summarizes the data collection process, states the research hypotheses and discusses the method of data analysis. . Chapter IV consists of an analysis and interpreta- tion of the data collected for this study. This chapter presents a summary of the main characteristics of the sam- ple, analyzes the responses to the four-part questionnaire and reports the results of the tests of the hypotheses. 26 Chapter V contains an overview of the study, a summary of the major findings and conclusions, implications for the student affairs profession, speculation and recom- mendations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE Introduction This chapter contains a review of the relevant literature related to the present study of key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among Chief Student Affairs Administrators (CSAAs) in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities. The chapter consists of a review of the related literature in three major areas: (1) the concept of stress, (2) the role and demands of the CSAA applicable to the present investiga- tion, and (3) the common sources of individual and organiza- tional stress across various occupational groups. Since there is limited information on stress in the higher educa- tion literature in general, and the student affairs area in particular, special attention is given to the relevant literature and related studies concerned with business and industrial executives and managers. The Concept of Stress Stress is a word derived from Latin and was used popularly in the 17th Century to mean 'hardship, straits, adversity or affliction (Cooper, 1981). Only during the late 18th and early 19th Centuries did its use evolve to 27 28 denote force, pressure, strain or strong effort with refer— ence to a person or to a person's organs or mental powers (Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Cooper, 1981; Davidson and Cooper, 1983). It was these connotations of an external pressure being resisted by the person or object which sought to distort and disrupt which were taken up when the term gained currency in engineering and physics and, subsequently, the social science (Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Marshall and Cooper, 1979). "In phy- sics, then, 'stress' refers to the internal force generated within a solid body by the action of any external force which tends to distort the body; 'strain' is the resulting distortion and the external force producing the distortion is 'load'" (Cooper and Marshall, 1977, pp. 2-3). The notion that both stress and strain contribute to long-term ill health rather than merely the short-term discomfort described in the aforementioned physics defini- tion, can be found early in the development of the stress concept (Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Cooper, 1981). "In 1910, for example, Sir William Osler assumed a causal relationship between hard work, stress and strain with his patients suffering from 'angina pectoris" (Davidson and Cooper, 1983, p. 11). It is apparent, then, that a chronological history of thought on stress is difficult to set forth, since the word stress itself predates the relevant history of the concept of stress in modern usage (Ivancevich and Matteson, 29 1980). However, the origins of the stress concept as it relates to this study can be traced back to the beginning of the 20th Century when the social and biological sciences began investigating the effects of stress on the physical and mental health of people (Davidson and Cooper, 1983). At that time, American physiologist Walter Cannon introduced the term homeostasis to designate the maintenance of the internal milieu. The idea of distortion and the object's natural homeostatic tendency to resist is seen in Cannon's use of the word stress in connection with the laboratory experiments on the “fight or flight" reaction (Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Marshall and Cooper, 1979) "He described his subjects (humans and animals) as being 'under stress' when they displayed certain reactions of the adrenal medulla and the sympathetic nervous system in the situations of cold, lack of oxygen, excitement, etc., to which he exposed them“ (Cooper and Marshall, 1977, pp. 3-4). Although the focus of Cannon's early research was on specific reactions that were critical in maintaining internal balance during emergencies, it was evident that he was dealing with the concept of stress (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980). In his later work, Cannon adopted "the term stress and spoke of critical stress levels which he defined as those which could bring about a collapse of the homeostatic mechanisms" (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980, p. 4). From a homeostatic point of view, then, "stress is some stimulus condition that results in disequilibrium in the 30 system and produces a dynamic kind of strain, that is, changes in the system against which mechanisms of equili- brium are activated“ (Lazarus, 1966, p. 12). Even though Cannon's work in the 19205 was clearly dealing with the concept of stress, the current usage of the term is most closely associated with Hans Selye. Selye, an endocrinologist, is frequently referred to as I'the father of stressfl' His early work in the 19305 provided the first significant breakthrough in stress research and formed the foundation for much of the subsequent work in this area (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980). After reviewing numerous research results and con— ducting several scientific experiments of his own, Selye developed the "General Adaptation Syndrome" (G.A.S.) theory in an attempt to explain the process of stress-related illness (Cooper, 1981). Stress, then, was defined by Selye as "the state which manifests itself by the G.A.S., and, alternately, as the nonspecific response of the body to any demand made upon it" (Greenwood and Greenwood, 1979, p. 30). “Stress is a condition with which every human being is familiar, yet the term is so widely misused that it is often subject to confusion and ambiguity" (Yates, 1979, p. 19). Selye addressed this confusion with the meaning of stress when he stated: Stress is part of our daily human experi- ence, but it is associated with a great variety of essentially dissimilar pro- blems, such as surgical trauma, burns, emotional arousal, mental or physical effort, fatigue, pain, fear, the need for 31 concentration, the humiliation of frus- tration, the loss of blood, intoxication with drugs or environmental pollutants, or even with the kind of unexpected success that requires an individual to reformulate his (her) lifestyle. Stress is present in the businessman (person) under constant pressure; in the athlete straining to win a race; in the air- traffic controller who bears continuous responsibility for hundreds of lives; in the husband helplessly watching his wife's slow, painful death from cancer; in a race horse, its jockey and the spectator who bets on them. Medical research has shown that, while all these subjects face quite different problems, they respond with a stereotyped pattern of biochemical, functional and structural changes essentially involved in coping with any type of increased demand upon vital activity, particularly adaptation to new situations" (Selye, 1976, p. 14). These stress-producing factors that make such demands are called stressors (Selye, 1974, 1976). Distinguishing between the widely differing specific effects of stressors "and the common biologic response that they elicit is the key to a proper understanding of biologic stress" (Selye, 1976, p. 14). It was this conceptual distinction between the specific and nonspecific consequences of any demand made on the body that was the most important step in the scien- tific analysis of stress phenomena (Selye, 1976). The three phases of this nonspecific defense reac- tion were labeled the General Adaptation Syndrome by Selye. He referred to it as “general because the consequence of stressors had effects upon several areas of the body; adap- tation refers to its stimulation of defenses designed to help the body adjust or deal with the stressor; and syndrome 32 indicates that individual pieces of the reaction occur more or less together, and in fact, are at least partially inter- dependent" (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980, p. 11). The G.A.S. is illustrated below in Figure l and involves three stages: (1) alarm reaction, (2) resistance, and (3) exhaus- tion. Stage 1 Stage 2 5W3 .//// \\\ NumuLudd “\\\v/// \\nwnma Alarm Reaction Resistance Exhaustion Figure 1. Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome (G.A.S.). (Yates, 1979, p. 73) The G.A.S. theory was one of the'first attempts to explain the process of stress-related illness by describing three stages an individual encounters in stressful situa- tions (Copper, 1981). Selye postulated the three stages in the G.A.S. as: 1. the alarm reaction in which an initial shock phase of lowered resistance is followed by counter-shock during which the individual's defense mechanisms become active; 2. resistance, the stage of maximum adapta- tion and, hopefully, successful return to equilibrium for the individual. If, however, the stressor continues or the defense does not work, he (she) will move on to the third stage; 33 3. exhaustion, when adaptive mechanisms collapse (Cooper, 1981, pp. 6-7). This framework provides a distinction between short- and long-term implications of harm and suggests that ultimate outcomes of stress can be beneficial (Marshall and Cooper, 1979). In current usage the immediate discomfort and anxi- ety (Stage 1) are typically referred to as the stress reac- tion, while long-term sufferings (Stage 3) are viewed as consequences of stress (Marshall and Cooper, 1979). Selye's G.A.S. theory reflected the prevalent feeling of the 19303 and 19409 that stress could be under— stood exclusively by a stimulus-response model (Cooper, 1981). An example of a simple stimulus-response model of stress is illustrated below in Figure 2. FORCE overload resisting INDIVIDUAL nonspecific state of stress DEFENSE MECHANISMS—D failure to adapt RETURN TO EQUILIBRIUM DISTORTION: long-term ill effects Figure 2. Stimulus-Response Model of Stress (Cooper, 1981, p. 7) 34 While Selye's work of the 19305 was of considerable importance, his early research efforts were somewhat restricted to the stimulus-response laboratory setting (Cooper and Marshall, 1977). Later, in the 19403 and 19503, a more contemporary view of stress was formulated by Harold G. Wolff. Wolff viewed stress as a state of the human organism and was concerned with describing it as an inherent characteristic of life (Cooper and Marshall, 1977). This view of stress was apparent when he stated that "stress is a dynamic state within an organism in response to a demand for adaptation, and since life itself entails constant adapta- tions, living creatures are continually in a state of more or less stress' (Wolf and Goodell, 1968, p. 4). Having generalized this concept, Wolff recognized its individualis- tic nature and, therefore, placed considerable importance on the idea that different stressors will have different mean- ings for various individuals, depending upon their past experience (Cooper and Marshall, 1977). Although many current definitions of stress are closely related to the stimulus-response or energy-exchange models of earlier researchers, there is a movement toward viewing stress as an interactive process (Lazarus, 1966; Appley and Trumbull, 1967; McGrath, 1970; McLean, 1976; Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Cooper, 1981). This interactional theory of stress "pro- vides for individual differences, variability of measures, variability of situations, social context, and implicit, inner reactions“ (Sells, 1970, p. 137). ‘-~-.,fl-4\o‘.~o'eo‘ . ‘vx ‘ a» “’4‘ 35 During the 19603 and 19705, the interactionist thinking about stress became prominent (McGrath, 1970; Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Cooper, 1981). The modern theorist most closely associated with this position is Lazarus (Cooper and Marshall, 1977). Lazarus noted that it is the nature of the relationship between the environmental stimulus and the reacting individ- ual that is crucial in defining stress (Marshall and Cooper, 1979). Therefore, Lazarus referred to stress as "a very broad class of problems differentiated from other problem areas because it deals with any demands which tax the syse tem, whatever it is, a physiological system, a social sys- tem, or a pmychological system, and the response of that system“ (Cooper, 1981, p. 8). Further, Lazarus added that “the reaction depends on how the person interprets or appraises (consciously or unconsciously) the significance of a harmful, threatening or challenging event“ (Cooper, 1981, p. 8). Lazarus viewed the concept of threat as a key intervening variable in psychological-stress theory. In addition, he recognized the importance of cognitive proc— esses in the production of threat and the reactions to it when he stated: For threat to occur, an evaluation must be made of the situation, to the effect that a harm is signified. The individ- ual's knowledge and beliefs contribute to this. The appraisal of threat is not a simple perception of the elements of the situation, but a judgment, an inference 36 in which the data are assimilated to a constellation of ideas and expectations (Lazarus, 1966, p. 44). If change occurs in any one element, for example, the back- ground situation against which the stimulus is perceived, it could radically alter the perceiver's interpretation (Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Cooper, 1981). Accordingly, in Lazarus' view, “an environmental demand can produce (psychological or perceived) stress only if the focal organism anticipates that he (she) will not be able to cope with it, or cope with it adequately, or cope with it without endangering other goals“ (McGrath, 1970, p. 17). With this in mind, "stress exists not in an imbalance between objective demand and the organism's response capa- bility, but in an imbalance between perceived or subjective demand and perceived response capability" (McGrath, 1970, p. 17). Therefore, in Lazarus' view, it is the cognitive appraisal of a demand capability imbalance that is the necessary and sufficient condition for threat or psychologi- cal stress (McGrath, 1970). Modern writers have, then, moved away “from the early preoccupation with external force and acknowledge that stress is essentially individually defined and must be understood with reference to characteristics of both the focal individual and his (her) environment, as it is the outcome of a particular combination of the two“ (Cooper and Marshall, 1977, p. 6). These contemporary writers tend to 37 endorse this person-environment fit theory in their discus- sions, if not their definitions, of the stress concept (Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Cooper, 1981). This general person-environment fit model is sum- marized below in Figure 3. THE INDIVIDUAL Attitudes and Traits Needs ENVIRONMENT POTENTIAL STRESSORS JUDGMENT \ OF BACKGROUND THREAT mTUAUONAL"”dr state of stress FACTORS | * COPIING—> OVERCOME PROBLEMS unsuccessful LONG-TERM EFFECTS Figure 3. The Person-Environment Model of Stress (Cooper, 1981, p. 10) Overall, the person-environment fit theory is con- cerned "with how characteristics of the person and environ- ment affect well-being” (Caplan, 1983, p. 35). Human behav- ior is, then, not understood in terms of either the environ- ment or the person alone, but in terms of the interrelation- ship between the two (Harrison, 1978). The person-environ- ment fit theory is a theory of stress which illustrates this “interrelationship of the person and the environment in terms of their 'fit' or 'congruence' with each other" (Har- rison, 1978, p. 175). 38 There are two types of fit between the individual and the environment that the theory distinguishes: (l) ”the fit of needs and values of the person with the environmental supplies and opportunities to meet these needs and values“ (Caplan, 1983, p. 36) and, (2) ”the fit between the demands of the environment and the abilities of the person to meet those demands” (Caplan, 1983, p. 36). The fit between the person and his or her environment is important when one considers the possible individual and organizational conse- quences of person-environment discrepancies (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980b). In summary, there exist two primary theories of stress: (1) stimulus-response and (2) person—environment fit. The stimulus response theory characterizes the indi- vidual “as reacting to situations with learned coping mech- anisms activated by homeostatic principles and fueled by energies which are in finite supply. Problems arise when the organism's supplies are insufficient to meet the physi- cal, psychological, and/or sociocultural. demands made lof them“ (Cooper, 1981, p. 7). This stimulus-response theory reflects the early preoccupation with the view of external force or pressure being resisted by the individual with his or her own defense mechanisms. While several variations of the stimulus-response theory of stress were prevalent in the 19303 and 19405, there was a later movement toward viewing stress as an interactive process (Davidson and Cooper, 1983). This 39 interactive relationship between the individual and his or her environment was the foundation for the contemporary person-environment fit theory of stress. Essentially, this modern theory of stress is an attempt to understand human behavior as a function of the interrelationship of charac- teristics of the person and the environment. Therefore, the concept of stress becomes more realistic when seen as an imbalance in the context of an individual-environment trans- action rather than being response-or situation-based (Cooper, 1981). With this in mind, in order to fully understand the sources of stress for the population of interest in the present investigation; namely, CSAAs, it is important to identify their individual and organizational causes of stress. The Role and Demands of the Chief Student Affairs Administrator The historical develOpment of programs and services in American colleges and universities, concerned with the welfare of students and their extra-classroom development, are functions whose heritage extends back to the early colo- nial days (Svoren, 1977). "A preliminary study of the founding of the earliest educational institutions within the boundaries of the present United States indicated that the assumption of responsibility for the extra-classroom life of the students grew out of the religious, social, and politi- cal life of the early colonists rather than from divergent or unique purposes of the founders of the institutions" 40 (Leonard, 1956, p. 4). This responsibility for overseeing the general welfare of students was, then, first assumed by the early colonial academies and colleges (Leonard, 1956). "Pioneer conditions augmented the need for extra-classroom care of students, but it was chiefly the compelling urge of the colonists to have their children learn the principles of their particular religion that led to the establishment of the early academies and colleges and to the housing, board- ing, and disciplining of the students in accordance with their sharply defined standards of conduct” (Leonard, 1956, p. 106). In the colonial college, much of what was later to be called ”student personnel work” was done by the college or university president and members of the faculty (Upcraft, 1967). Leonard, in his book the Origins of Personnel Ser- vices in American Higher Education, stated that: The first personnel officers in an Ameri- can college were the colony overseers at Harvard and the members of the boards of trustees in the other colleges. Later, presidents and members of the faculties shared the responsibilities and were assisted by tutors, ushers, stewards, and student monitors. They acted in loco parentis and were required to patrol the dormitories frequently and report all absences and misdemeanors to the board of trustees, which determined the punish- ments. There is evidence that these officers were concerned also with the health, recreation, and general welfare of the student. These services were not organized but existed as part of the situation in which older and younger people lived in close proximity in an environment that was often isolated from the rest of the colony (Leonard, 1956, p. 108). 41 Later, Leonard added that: While the basic belief that the adminis- trative staff should act in loco parentis still permeated every phase of college government, interpretation of the par- ental functions, especially concerning discipline, altered considerably' during the period. The increased number of stu- dents, the lack of isolation from com- munity life, the dependence of the insti- tutions upon larger enrollments, and the rising tide of articulate youths who would not give unreasoning obedience and demanded a hearing of their problems all contributed to the mitigation of many of the rules inherited from previous genera- tions. The personnel in charge of disciplinary problems underwent considerable change during the period. The trustees still wrote the rules for the colleges but tended to retire from active participa- tion in disciplinary actions. The presi- dents remained the chief disciplinary officers but delegated many of the responsibilities to others (1956, p. 112). Historically, then, it was not until the 19th Century that college and university presidents began to assign staff members to assist them in the areas of campus life outside the classroom (Rodgers, 1963). It was during this time that the broader aims of colleges, increased student enrollment, enlarged fiscal responsibilities and the demand for new and additional services resulted in the need for presidents to delegate some of their responsibilities to others (Svoren, 1977). Along with these major changes, it became apparent that the college and university personnel services needed to be organized and expanded to meet the needs of the ever 42 increasing number and variety of students (Leonard, 1956). This group of personnel services became known as "student personnel work" (Rodgers, 1963). Subsequently, there was the need to create administrative offices to administer these services. "One of the administrative positions that came into being in the early years of administrative expan— sion was that of the college dean. The role of the college dean was seen as an effort to counteract the standardization that was taking place in educational institutions" (Svoren, 1977, pp. 26-27). In referring to the role of the dean, Rudolph, in his book The American College and University, stated: To an extent, the deans were an effort to maintain collegiate and human values in an atmosphere of increasing scholarship and specialization. This is why so many of the early deans resisted the full swing to intellectualism which their faculty colleagues represented (Rudolph, 1962, p. 435). The development of student personnel work over the years has been largely an outgrowth of changes in American higher education (Johnson, 1970). ”When colleges existed solely for men, when the curricula were limited to prepara- tion for a few professions such as law, teaching, and theol- ogy, and when the numbers in attendance were few, the facul- ty was quite self-sufficient in assuming responsibility for selecting students and counseling with them on curricular, vocational, and even personal matters" (Johnson, 1970, p. 6). However, with the expanded system of American higher 43 education, it became apparent that college and university presidents and faculty were no longer able to handle all the concerns related to campus life. During the 19th Century, "a number of events signaled the further development of extra-classroom services for students" (Williamson, 1961, p. 4). One of these impor- tant events is stated below: Oberlin College Opened her doors to women in 1833; this move led to the appointment <3f lady principals or preceptoresses to give special attention to problems of women students. Out of this experience emerged the position of dean of women (Williamson, 1961, p. 4). In addition, Wrenn (1951) stated that: The first personnel deans appeared in the late eighteen hundreds with the appoint- ment of the first dean of men at Harvard in 1890, and the first deans of women by that title at Swarthmore College in 1890, the University of Chicago in 1892, and Oberlin College in 1894 (p. 30). Although the first full-time position in student personnel administration was created at the turn of the cen- tury at the University of Illinois (Nygreen, 1968), the development of an office to coordinate and direct student personnel services did not occur until post-World War 11 (Reynolds, 1961; Rodgers, 1963; Upcraft, 1967; Birch, 1969; Svoren, 1977). It was during this time period, that the call for coordination and direction of student services was initiated. Later, Lloyd-Jones stated the following about the dean of students position: 44 Often this job, as presidents will fre- quently state, has been created because they did not know what to do with the many personnel specialists who had taken possession of their campuses and they felt the need of someone to curb their ambitions, settle their jurisdictional fights, and relate them effectively to each other (Lloyd-Jones, 1954, p. 342). Along with this period of expansion in the American system of higher education came the need for a more sophis- ticated. and. complex administrative structuring and func- tioning of student personnel work. With this in mind, the develOpment of post-World War 11 student personnel adminis- tration was traced in a series of definitive statements published by the American Council on Education Studies (ACE) in student personnel work in colleges and universities. In the concluding brochure of this series, the following sum- mary was provided regarding the status of student personnel work: Organizational structure and proper staf- fing are the basis for accomplishing the objectives and functions of student per- sonnel services. During the development period of these services, related func- tions frequently operated in isolation ... Objectives and functions were clouded and confused. Positions such as those of dean of men and dean of women have existed for many years. Responsibilities inherent in these positions have varied among institutions and the positions often have had no consistent relationship to administrative structure. This lack of coordination, or of struc- tured administrative plan, has been characteristic of the growing-up period of student personnel services. It has never been corrected completely in many institutions, despite their acceptance of the specific contributions of these services as essential to the educational process“ (Feder et a1., 1958, p. 32). 45 With the development of centralized organization of student personnel serv- ices, confusion has arisen concerning titles for those holding administrative responsibility. No universally accepted designation has yet appeared which re- flects uniformity of job description ... The usage of the title Dean of Students to designate a chief administrative officer in a coordinate student personnel service program has become very common. In many institutions the title carries with it essential responsibility for staff coordination and supervision. To the student clientele, however, the title carries an implication of direct contact and service. Since such student contact is often difficult because of administra- tive load, the title of vice-president has been adOpted in many institutions having coordinated programs. The adminis- trative officer who works closely with other administrative officers and directly with a staff serves a function quite different from that of the dean whose major time and effort is spent in direct contact with students (Feder et a1., 1958. PP. 38-39). In general, then, the vast majority of colleges and universities provide administrative leadership and delegate administrative responsibility to a person identifiable as the chief student personnel administrator (Ayers, Tripp and Russel, 1966). However, the functions and consequently the role of the chief student personnel administrator has con- tinued to change since the post-World War II origins of the position (Birch, 1969). These changes in the role and functions of CSAAs have been determined largely by changing societal demands on institutions of higher education as well as the increasing needs and interests of students (Birch, 1969). 46 The role and functional responsibilities of CSAAs have been significantly expanded since they were identified in The Student Personnel Point of View in 1937 (Brodzinski, 1982). Several studies have been conducted regarding the role and functions of CSAAs in four-year institutions of higher education (Reynolds, 1961; Rodgers, 1963: Ayers, Tripp and Russel, 1966; Upcraft, 1967: Dutton, Appleton and Birch, 1970; Brooks and Avila, 1974: Lilley, 1974). All of these studies have, then, contributed to a more thorough understanding of the CSAAs' role and functions. Reynolds (1961), surveyed all coeducational liberal arts colleges in the United States with enrollment of under 2,000 students in an effort to determine current practices of CSAAs and to ascertain the degree of relationship of stu- dent personnel administrators to several student services functions (Birch, 1969). The following major findings were reported by Reynolds: 1. In the size and type group of institu- tions studied, there has been a steady growth in the establishment of offices headed by chief student personnel offi- cers since World War II. There has been some tendency for the establishment of these offices to be associated with size (p. vi). 2. The median age of the responding group was 41. Most of the respondents were male and married. The respondents had a median of 20 semester hours of graduate student personnel work, or the equivalent of a Master's degree (p. 188). 3._ Each of the 19 selected student personnel functions is performed by some of the responding chief student personnel offi- cers. The functions most often performed 47 are personal counseling, discipline, student personnel records and orienta- tion. Size of institution and region seem to have little relationship to the performance of the selected functions (p. 188). The student recruiting function is the only one not supervised by some of the responding chief student personnel offi- cers. Functions most often supervised are extra—curricular activities, housing (personnel), personal counseling, disci- pline, and orientation. Size and regional location of the institution do not seem to be related to the extent of supervision (p. 189). The chief student personnel officer in this study is responsible for final administrative authority most often in the areas of orientation, student person- nel records, placement, discipline, testing, health service, housing (person- nel), personal counseling, extra- curricular activities, and financial aids (p. 193). Personal and institutional characteris- tics studied seemed to be somewhat related to the degree of performance, supervision and policy relationships of the respondents,to the student personnel functions. More study of individual functions needs to be done in this area. The amount of graduate student personnel work and the amount of time devoted to student personnel work by the respondents seem to be related to the degree to which they consider their relationships to functions appropriate (p. vii). The expectation that the role of the chief student personnel officer in the size group studied would be substantially different than that of sudh officers in larger institutions seems to have been justified. The degree of performance and personal supervison of specific functions shown by the respondents would be imprac- ticable if not impossible in the large college or university (p. 194). 48 8. It would seem important to be concerned with experience and training for such officers in the student personnel areas where they personally perform or super- vise to a high degree (p. vii). In a second study concerned with the role and func- tions of the CSAA, Rodgers (1963) investigated specific behaviors which were critical to the work of CSAAs in state supported coeducational colleges and universities with enrollments of 2,000 to 10,000 students. The following specific findings were summarized by Rodgers: (1) Student Personnel Deans in smaller insti- tutions do more counseling with students than their counterparts in larger insti- tutions. (2) Student Personnel Deans in smaller insti- tutions are comparatively ineffective in developing cooperative relationships. (3) Student Personnel Deans in larger insti- tutions are more ineffective in conduct- ing investigations of reports of student misconduct than their counterparts in smaller institutions. (4) Student Personnel Deans do not consis- tently take the initiative to provide leadership and information, particularly to students and student groups. (5) Student Personnel Deans do not consis- tently take the initiative in communicat- ing the reasons for their decisions to all parties concerned. (6) Student Personnel Deans are consistently successful when working with individual students in disciplinary situations. (7) A majority of the Student Personnel Deans' contacts are with individual male students and he (she) is generally suc— cessful with these individuals. 49 (8) Student Personnel Deans are not consis- tently successful in their dealings with student groups, especially with frater- nity and sorority disciplinary problems. (9) Public Relations is the category in which the Student Personnel Dean is involved with a wide variety of people, particu- larly the press. Therefore, every con- tact he (she) makes has implications for his (her) effectiveness in public rela- tions. (10) Student Personnel Deans are not consis- tently aware that any action in which they participate exerts great influence on all considerations of their effective- ness as judged by their professional peers. (11) Student Personnel Deans do not consis- tently analyze and evaluate all areas of their responsibility to develop policies that will give direction and support to help reach the objectives of their pro- gram. (12) When policies or rules and regulations are either introduced or altered by the Student Personnel Dean, they are not always fully explained to all parties concerned. (13) Student Personnel Deans are more effec- tive when dealing with fraternities through an interfraternity council or the fraternity advisers than with the frater- nity groups themselves. (14) Student Personnel Deans are most effec- tive when working personnally with all phases of in-service training (Abstract, pp. 2-3). A more recent study, published by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on behalf of the Office of Education, also studied the CSAA. This study was based upon a comprehensive questionnaire which was ”completed and returned by approximately 95 percent of a 50 SO-percent sample of the universities, liberal arts col- leges, teachers colleges, and junior colleges of the Nation“ (Ayers, Tripp and Russel, 1966, p. 4). From this study, ”twenty administrative functions have been identified as the student services most prevalent in American higher educa- tion" (Ayers, Tripp and Russel, 1966, p. 43). Fifteen of the 20 administrative functions were provided by between 80 and 100 percent of the institutions. These functions included: recruitment, admissions, academic records, non- academic records, counseling, testing, financial aids and awards, nursing services, residence halls, job placement, other extracurricular, social or cultural programs, inter- collegiate athletics, intramural athletics, food services, and religious affairs (Ayers, Tripp and Russel, 1966). From this study, it became apparent that CSAAs at different institutions were not always responsible for the same group of functions. In a fourth study, Upcraft (1967), attempted to describe and analyze the role expectation of CSAAs in insti- tutions of higher education with 10,000 or more students. These expectations were analyzed according to the following variables: “type and size of institution in which the participants work, degree held, type of training, recency of training, previous work experience, and the person in the university structure to whom the CSAA reports" (Upcraft, 1967, p. 3). The study concluded "that there is a consensus of expectations concerning the role of the chief student 51 personnel administrator in the large university" (Upcraft, 1967, p. 99). The significant findings of the study relat- ing to the job performance of the Chief Student Personnel Administrator (CSPA) are summarized below according to the factors selected for role analysis (e.g., faculty relations, research and evaluation, public relations, student govern- ment, discipline, professional relations, staff relations, university relations, and student relations): (1) A significant consensus (69.9%) felt the CSPA should make use of a faculty commit- tee for the purpose of advising the chief student personnel administrator in major policy formulation (p.87). (2) A significant consensus (94.0%) felt the CSPA should attempt to communicate the purposes and functions of the student personnel office to the faculty by appearing before faculty meetings, etc. (p. 88). (3)4A significant consensus (100%) felt the CSPA should work closely with academic deans in areas of mutual concern (p.88). (4) A significant consensus (77.1%) felt the CSPA should conduct research studies which would contribute to the field of student personnel (p.88). (5) A significant consensus (92.8%) felt the CSPA should conduct evaluation studies of the student personnel office (p. 88) (6) A significant consensus (73.5%) felt the CSPA should speak periodically to major civic groups (p.89). (7) A significant consensus (85.5%) felt the CSPA should make it possible for any stu- dent or citizen to schedule an appoint- ment with the chief student personnel administrator (p. 89). (8) A significant consensus (92.8%) felt the CSPA should attend major university functions (p. 89). 52 (9) A significant consensus (78.9% of the (10) (11) (12) (l3) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) CSPAs with professional training compared with 58.1% of those without professional training) felt the CSPA should not pre- vent student government leaders from being publicly critical of university policies and/or officials (p. 89). A significant consensus (77.1%) felt the CSPA should involve student government in university policy formulation (p. 89). A significant consensus (80.7%) felt the CSPA should become acquainted with major student government leaders on a personal basis (p. 90). A significant consensus (71.1%) felt the CSPA should allow student government groups to invite 'controversial' speakers to campus without restriction (p. 90). A significant consensus (74.7%) felt the CSPA should not prevent the student news- paper from publishing articles detrimen- tal to the best interests of the univer- sity (p. 90). A significant consensus (86.8%) felt the CSPA should not 'make an example“ of a student iJ1.a disciplinary situation (p. 91). A significant consensus (79.5%) felt the CSPA should make use of a student judi- ciary system for handling selected disci- plinary situations (p. 92). A significant consensus (77.1%) felt the CSPA may or may not take disciplinary action against students convicted of offenses by civil authorities (p. 92). A significant consensus (72.3%) felt the CSPA should work on committees sponsored by state or national student personnel organizations (p. 92). A significant consensus (72.3%) felt the CSPA may or may not delegate the primary responsibility for the professional in-service training of staff members to his (her) immediate subordinates (p. 92). 53 (19) A significant consensus (68.7%) felt the (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) CSPA should make recommendations for appointment, promotion, or dismissal of subordinates on the basis of merit alone (p. 93). A significant consensus (75.9%) felt the CSPA should accept the full responsibil- ity for the decisions of his (her) subor- dinates (p. 93). A significant consensus (89.2%) felt the. CSPA should avoid involvement with fac- tional or clique groups on his (her) staff (p. 93). A significant consensus (66.2%) felt the CSPA should hold weekly staff meetings with those people who report directly to the chief student personnel administrator (p. 93). A significant consensus (92.8%) felt the CSPA should confer on a fairly regular basis with the president concerning the student personnel program (p.94). A significant consensus (73.4%) felt the CSPA should demand a reasonable amount of autonomy from the president in policy formulation within the student personnel program (p. 94) A significant consensus (98.9%) felt the CSPA should participate in policy formu- lation of the university (p. 94). A significant consensus (91.6%) felt the CSPA should justify budget expenditures to the president or governing board (p. 94). A significant consensus (88.0%) felt the CSPA should set aside time for appoint- ments with individual students to discuss anything of importance to those students (p. 94). A significant consensus (69.9%) felt the CSPA should attempt to communicate poli- cies and issues directly to students through mass meetings, newspaper arti- cles, special newsletters, etc. (p. 95). 54 A study conducted by Dutton, Appleton and Birch (1970) of all 715 National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) member institutions, was a research endeavor to determine the assumptions and beliefs of stu- dents, faculty, college and university presidents, and deans of students regarding important issues in higher education and of their perceptions of the role, convictions, and perspectives of the dean of students. The major conclusions drawn from this study about the role of the CSAA can be summarized as follows: There was considerable support for a role that (1) includes a primary commitment to students rather than to administrative tasks, (2) avoids conflict with students, and (3) permits him (her) to help stu- dents, to be accessible to them, to be perceived as a counselor and an advocate for students. There was also consider- able support for the position that the dean's own personal values, rather than the dictates of a president, should guide his (her) behavior. 0n the other hand students, more often than other partici- pants, express greater support for a dean's (l) commitment to 'the students,‘ and (2) his (her) noninvolvement in control and discipline and value enforce- ment. Presidents consistently seem to attach more importance to administrative tasks, integration of counseling and dis- cipline, and the upholding of institu- tional standards and values (Dutton, Appleton and Birch, 1970, p. 7). This information indicates that CSAAs function in the midst of widely conflicting expectations, which, may provide a basis for understanding why CSAAs experience role ambiguity, confusion, and sometimes conflict with members of the aca- demic community (Dutton, Appleton and Birch, 1970). 55 In another study of the CSAA, Brooks and Avila (1974) identified the CSAAs' primary areas of responsibil- ity. Their report was based on the results of a nationwide survey of CSAAs in a random sample of 50 percent of the senior colleges and universities, exclusive of the seminar- ies, listed in the 1970-71 Education Directory. The 14 most frequently reported areas of responsibility were: "counsel- ing service, student activities, health service, student union, foreign students, placement, financial aid, student publications, intramurals, housing, campus police, admis- sions, intercollegiate athletics, and registration and records” (Brooks and Avila, 1974, p. 43). The eight func- tions listed by at least 60 percent of the administrators were: “counseling service (94%), student activities (91%), health service (82%), student union (70%), foreign students (68%), placement (65%), financial aid (62%), and student publications (61%)” (Brooks and Avila, 1974, p. 43). Although 55 other functions were indicated by CSAAs, none were listed by more than six percent of the respondents (Brooks and Avila, 1974). In the seventh and final study, Lilley (1974) studied the status of the CSAAs' role as perceived by the CSAAs within four-year institutions of higher education with student populations between 1,000 and 2,500. The 10 func- tions Lilley found to be of most direct concern to the CSAA were “(being the) chief administrator, policy formation affecting students, determining ldbjectives, ‘preparing’ the 56 budget, recruiting staff, non-academic discipline, student government, student-faculty liaison, interpreting policy to students, and advising faculty on students' needs” (1974, p. 9). In addition, the 10 functions that were of least con- cern to the CSAAs were “student recruitment, student admis- sions, admissions testing, alumni services, intramural and intercollegiate athletics, campus stores, speech and hearing remediation, married students' housing, and commuter serv- ices“ (Lilley, 1974, p. 9). From his study of the functions of the Chief Student Personnel Officer (CSPO) Lilley con- cluded: In reviewing the present data, it was apparent that the functions presently receiving the greatest attention by CSPO's are characterized by order, con- trol, organization, and leadership. In other words, the present role of the CSPO appears to be one of coordinating and administering a ‘heterogeneous group of functions (1974, p. 9). To summarize, studies investigating the role of the CSAA clearly indicate that there is a continuing pattern of change in the role and functions of individuals occupying these positions. In addition, many suspect that the role of the CSAA ”has become clouded and clarification is needed" (Birch, 1969, p. 18). This role conflict, which continues to plague the CSAA, has multiple causes: “historical iden- tification of the position as the administrative control agent of the president; separation of student affairs from academic affairs; conflicting role expectations, particu- larly during periods of crisis; disagreement among students, 57 faculty, and administration on the decision making process for university policy; and lack of an identifiable profes- sional status” (Rickard, 1972, EL. 219). It appears, then, that the CSAAs' position is subject to a high degree of role ambiguity, primarily because of a lack of consensus on what the role of the CSAA is and should be. As a result, this lack of a complete understanding of the CSAAs' role in the administrative structure, as well as the opposing role expectations often inherent in the CSAAs' position, may be contributing to the problems and pressures CSAAs encounter in carrying out their job responsibilities. Common Sources of Individual and Organizational Stress A review of the relevant literature (Gullahorn, 1956; Kugelmass and Lieblich, 1966; Kearns, 1973: Gowler and Legge, 1975; Cooper and Marshall, 1976; McGrath, 1976: Cooper and Marshall, 1977: COOper and Payne, 1978: Kets de Vries, 1979; Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Yates, 1979; Cooper . and Marshall, 1980; Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980; Moss, 1981) revealed a formidable list of individual and organiza- tional interacting factors identified by researchers and writers as common sources of stress. From this list of factors, seven major categories of stress were identified: factors intrinsic to the job, role in the organization, career development, relationships at work, organizational structure and climate, extraorganizational sources of stress and characteristics of the individual. 58 Cooper and Marshall (1976) developed a conceptual model to illustrate the sources of stress at work and how these stressors interact with characteristics of individual and extraorganizational sources of stress (Yates, 1979). While several conceptual models of stress exist, the model developed by Cooper and Marshall (1976) and adapted by Yates (1979) to depict the leading sources of top-level adminis- trative stress, served as the primary model for this study. The Cooper and Marshall (1976) model is illustrated below in Figure 4: SOURCES OF STRESS PERSONAL STRESSO RS SOF DISEASE AT WORK EXSCYESSIVOE MSTRESS "flaws“: To ”a EXTRAORGANIZATIONAL 9m SOURCES OF srness Physical working conditions Time ornament! deadline! Midlife crisis Exorbiunt work demmds Femimlyu problems Information overload Com ting Job 685m 006 teehmal problems Financial difficulties amimomannmw * Re: conflict" Coronary artery a "malty f°',,.- ”I. THE INDIVIDUAL . di Temtorialbound —"' Lack oifmeennginthejob va‘ 0" ______-—-——.—; CAREER DEVELOPMENT 2mg“: m°gr m Decree-Inn” _._ “we” mm Undemromotion _. Level of anxiety ——- Heavy dr'" Ing 1: f #87“ of emotionglity HOW “Ohm Menct’abll health Lock 0 ob secun o erence or am iguity ' ' —"' pr ems Thwarted ambition: Level f stress tolerance 3:: gigs; :—: Suooes Type A behavior ' “ Numerous other RELATIONSHIPS AT woax ______""‘"” Poor reletionshi with peers, uborrlinetes, ad boss Threats from below ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CLIMATE Leeks ofperticipetion Bureaucratic peninees conformity Leek ofreepons ivenea Figure 4. Sources of stress at work and their consequences for the individual. (Yates, 1979, p. 38) 59 Conceptually, the model suggests that there are three major categories of stressors: individual, extraor- ganizational and organizational. Individual stressors are those which relate to an individual's personality. Six of the most common individual stressors are: lack of meaning in the job, frustrated ambition, obsessive concern for work, level of anxiety, level of emotionality and tolerance for ambiguity (Yates, 1979). The extraorganizational category of sources of stress is comprised of personal stressors that do not arise exclusively from the work setting or from the individual's personality but that are related to both (Yates, 1979). ”These stressors include the midlife crisis, family prob- lems, commuting difficulties, and financial problems“ (Yates, 1979, p. 56). Finally, the model divides the possible organiza- tional sources of stress at work into five main categories: factors intrinsic to the job, role in the organization, career development, relationships at work and factors asso- ciated with the organizational structure and climate (Yates, 1979). These organizational stressors are those which arise from sources at an individual's workplace. Individual Stressors Individuals vary tremendously in their capacity to deal with stress. This individual variation in level of stress tolerance is an important contingent factor in the Cooper and Marshall (1976) model presented earlier. The six 60 most common individual stressors that impact on an individ- ual's susceptibility to stress are: lack of meaning in the job, frustrated ambition, obsessive concern for work, level of anxiety, level of emotionality and tolerance for ambigu- ity (Yates, 1979). Some individuals are better able to cope with these stressors than others: they adapt their behavior accordingly. "On the other hand some personality types seem more predisposed to stress: that is they are unable to cope or adapt to the stress-provoking situation” (Marshall and Cooper, 1979, p. 42). Several factors may contribute to these individual differences for coping with stress: ”personality, motiva- tion, being well- or ill-equipped to deal with problems in a particular area of expertise, fluctuations in abilities (particularly with age), insights into one‘s own motivations and weaknesses..." (Marshall and Cooper, 1979, p. 42). Therefore, it is useful and valuable to examine the individ- ual characteristics that research evidence indicates are predisposers to stress (Cooper and Marshall, 1977). The majority of the research associated with char- acteristics of the individual has focused on personality differences between high- and low-stressed individuals (Cooper and Marshall, 1978). This research has taken two primary directions: one has concentrated on examining the relationship between various psychometric measures primarily using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and Cattell's 16 Personality Factors scale (16 PF) and stress related disease, mainly coronary heart disease (CHD); 61 and the other stress- or coronary-prone behavior patterns and the incidence of disease (Cooper and Marshall, 1976, 1977, 1978; Marshall and Cooper, 1979). In the first category, psychometric measures, ”early clinical studies by psychosomatically oriented internists and psychiatrists led to a number of theories about a pmedisposing state of neuroticism being confronted by external stress, leading to the reaction of anxiety, changes in cardiovascular function and in time, some cases, to coronary heart disease. As studies increased in sample size and methodologic refinement, clinical judgments about anxiety and neuroticism were replaced by psychologic measures“ (Jenkins, 1971, p. 250). 'The primary tests utilized in these studies were the MMPI and 16 PF. Several significant studies utilizing the MMPI (Ostfeld, Lebovits and Shekelle, 1964: Brozek, Keys and Blackburn, 1966; Bakker and Levenson, 1967: Lebovits, Shekelle and Ostfeld, 1967; Mordkoff and Rand, 1968: Bruhn, Chandler and Wolf, 1969) revealed results which indicated that prior to their illnesses, patients with coronary disease differ from individuals who remain healthy on sev- eral MMPI scales, most notably those in the neurotic triad of hypochondriasis (Hs), depression (D), and hysteria (Hy) (Marshall and Cooper, 1979). "The occurrence of manifest coronary disease increases the deviation of patients' MMPI scores further, and in addition, the breakdown of ego defenses becomes apparent. Patients with fatal disease tend to show greater neuroticism (particularly depression) in 62 prospective MMPI's than those who incur and survive coronary disease” (Jenkins, 1971, p. 251). In addition, the results of two major studies utilizing the 16 PF (Lebovits, Shekelle and Ostfeld, 1967; Bakker, 1967) were consistent with the six previously cited MMPI studies, portraying the patients with CHD or related illnesses as emotionally unstable and introverted (Cooper and Marshall, 1977). To summarize, the major ”limitation of these studies is that they are, on balance, retrospective. That is, that anxiety and neuroti- cism may well be reactions to CHD and to the stress-related illnesses rather than precursors of it" (Cooper and Marshall, 1976, p. 23). A more selective approach to personality measure- ment was employed by Kahn, et a1. (1964), yielding results which were more practical in nature than those indicated in the previous general explorations. This group of research- ers examined ”a sample of managers on a series of personal- ity' variables: extroversion ‘versus introversion, flexi- bility versus rigidity, inner versus outer directedness, open versus closed mindedness, achievement status versus security oriented and related these to job stress“ (Cooper and Marshall, 1978, p. 98). The following provides a sum- mary of the major findings of their study: “(1) outer- directed people were more adaptable and more highly reality— oriented than inner—directed; (2) 'rigids' and 'flexibles' perceived different types of situations as stressful, the former being more susceptible to rush jobs from above and dependence on other people, while the latter were more open 63 to influence from other people, and thus easily became overloaded: (3) achievement-seekers showed significantly more independence and job involvement than did security- seekers' (Cooper and Marshall, 1977, pp. 47-48). The other research approach to investigating indi- vidual stress differences and behavior patterns began with the work of Friedman and Rosenman (Rosenman, Friedman and Strauss, 1964, 1966; Friedman, 1969) in the early 19603, when they observed a relationship between behavioral pat- terns and the occurrence of CHD. “They found that individ- uals manifesting certain behavioral traits were signifi- cantly more at risk to CHD. These individuals were later referred to as the 'coronary-prone behavior Type A' as dis- tinct from Type B (low risk of CHD)" (Cooper and Marshall, 1977, p. 48). As a result, Friedman and Rosenman isolated two main types of behavior patterns and categorized indi- viduals into Type A and Type B personalities. ”Type A behavior is characterized by high achievement, striving, hard driving, competitiveness, motivation, time urgency, abruptness of gesture and speech, devotion to work and a preoccupation with deadlines. Type B behavior, on the other hand, is characterized by the relative absence of behavior associated with Type A persons, no sense of time urgency, no free-floating hostility, ability to relax without guilt and so on" (Davidson and Cooper, 1980, p. 375). Recent research investigating the effects of stres- sors on managers ”suggests that the conditions most respon- sible for facilitating Type A behavior are those encountered 64 in the work environment" (Davidson and Cooper, 1980, p. 378). A number of research studies have been conducted to investigate Type A behavior in relation to the work setting, which suggest that stressors within the work environment itself enhance Type A behavior patterns (Sales, 1969: Caplan and Jones, 1975; Howard, Cunningham and Rechnitzer, 1977; Waldron, et a1., 1977). Of particular interest, is a major study which compared Type A and Type B managers on a set of job stress factors identified by factor analyses of a 31- item job questionnaire (Howard, Cunningham and Rechnitzer, 1977). “Based on the five factors of ambiguity, locked-in, stagnation, isolation, and contentment, there were signifi- cant differences between the two personality types on both the locked-in and contentment measures” (Howard, Cunningham and Rechnitzer, 1977, p. 831). Those individuals with Type A behavioral patterns scored significantly lower than the Type 88 on both of these measures. In addition, when examining the Type A behavior pattern in the work environment, it is important to recog- nize that the “sources of most stress are those which may lead to decreased levels of perceived control. The work environment factors which have been isolated as fitting into this category include: job involvement, responsibility for people and things, role ambiguity, role conflict, overpromo- tion, ladk of participation in decision-making, poor rela- tionships at work, and work overload“ (Davidson and Cooper, 1980, p. 378. 6S Extraorganizational Stressors The second major category of stressors involves extraorganizational sources of stress. These stressors, as characterized in the Cooper and Marshall (1976) model, include midlife crisis, family problems, commuting difficul- ties and financial problems. This category comprises per- sonal stressors that do not arise exclusively from the work setting or from the individual's personality but that are related to both (Yates, 1979). There are a: number of extraorganizational sources of stress which interface between life inside and outside of the organization which affect the physical and mental well- being of top-level executives. These sources of stress include: family' problems, life Icrisis, financial (diffi- culties, conflict of personal beliefs with those of the organization and the conflict of organization with family demands (Cooper and Marshall, 1977). "These are important potential stressors since they act imiea feedback loop between work and the outside environment: problems outside work—> affect-> individual at work-> exacerbate—> problems outside work" (Cooper and Marshall, 1976, p. 22). In recent years, mudh has been written about the midlife crisis. This point in life typically occurs between the ages of 35 and 45 and is experienced by a significant percentage of individuals in professional and managerial positions (Yates, 1979). "For many, it is a time when one becomes more aware of physical aging and the increasing 66 proximity of death. With this realization comes an assess- ment of one's accomplishments in meeting previously set career goals. Many managers will be left with feelings of disappointment and frustration" (Kets de Vries, 1979, p. 10). Another contributing factor to mid-career stress is the increased competition for a limited number of positions within the organization (Kets de Vries, 1979). "Such compe- tition may be stressful for the majority of managers, who will be disappointed in their career goals. Management by ambiguity, not only to avoid confrontation and face reality, but also to prevent short-term morale problems, becomes the rule and may contribute to the incidence of stress symptoms" (Kets de Vries, 1979, p. 10). In addition, "mid-career is also the period when job obsolescence becomes noticeable. Low job satisfaction and morale, absenteeism, and decreased productivity will be side effects. For some it will mean that their role in the organization has become untenable, which can be an extremely stressful experience” (Kets de Vries, 1979, p. 10). The midlife crisis is, then, an identifiable time when individuals undergo a period of crisis as they compare who they are with who they had hoped to be by this time in their careers. WAll in ahl, the midlife crisis can be as turbulent as the identity crisis of adolescence, but as with any crisis there is always an opportunity for growth and development" (Yates, 1979, p. 58). 67 There is evidence to suggest that persons outside Imf the work setting, especially the spouse, relatives and close friends, are effective in buffering the impact of work stress on the mental and physical well-being of executives and managers (Cooper, 1981). A top-level executive or manager's family has the greatest potential of being either a source of relief from stress or a source of stress itself (Yates, 1979). Nevertheless, when tensions and worries about major family problems are prevalent, there will inevi- tably be a great deal of stress (Yates, 1979). “The most common family problems center on money, sex, child-rearing practices, and communication (usually a lack of it)" (Yates, 1979, p. 59). These conflicts and strivings that the family experiences have probably the most significant influence on the performance and satisfaction of the individual adminis- trator and, as a result, on the climate and success of the organization (Cooper, 1981). The majority of the research with respect to family problems experienced by managers has focused on the male manager's relationship with his wife and family (Pahl and Pahl, 1971; Gowler and Legge, 1975: Rapoport and Rapoport, 1976). Gowler and Legge (1975) have termed the wife's role in relation to her husband‘s career aspirations as the "hidden contract" in which the wife agrees to be supportive and maintain a well-ordered domestic life for the family while he pursues his career. The primary problem areas arise over the allocation of resources, in particular, of 68 time and commitment to what Gowler and Legge (1975) have termed the “occupational/productive" and "domestic/consumer“ activities. The specific agreement that the manager comes to with his wife in terms of the distribution of his time and commitment to these roles is of vital importance (Gowler and Legge, 1975). The organization benefits from this "hidden con- tract“ arrangement when it is able to place endless demands on the manager in terms of commitment and resources, on the assumption that a supportive wife awaits him at home. However, the tensions and pressures embedded in this agree- ment may lead to stresses serious enough to break, or sub- stantially alter the ”hidden contract," with severe con- sequences for the organization as well as the two partners more immediately involved (Gowler and Legge, 1975). In addition, marriage itself is a major life event which may be stressful. “For both men and women, marital stressors bear a closer relationship to depression and an accompanying behavioral and physical malfunctioning than other social stressors, such as job, finances, or parenting“ (Gherman, 1981, p. 86). As a transition event, marriage presents a series of adjustments and brings new roles and new self-images (Gherman, 1981). "The establishment and maintenance of a. home, with the attendant problems of handling finances, maintenance, communication, seeking shared interests, plan- ning for the future education or career of both husband and 69 wife, and thinking about the possibility of becoming parents are a few of the stressors that follow marriage" (Gherman, 1981, p. 86). Consequently, it is apparent that satisfac- tion in marriage impacts on the executive or manager's job performance. Along with marriage, many couples face the possi- bility of becoming parents. The decision-making process involved with this major life event can be stressful. ”The development of parental sense of competence, the added responsibility of another person's life and future, in- creased financial pressure, reorganization of the marital relationship, assumption of the parenting role, and time and emotional demands all require adaptation" (Gherman, 1981, p. 86). All family influences on the careers of executives and managers can be viewed as sources of tension and pres- sure. “This influence seems to reflect an intense and all-absorbing involvement of managers in their daily work of meeting planned objectives, achieving required results, and traveling a desired promotional route. Any influences from family and personal obligations that threaten to disturb these patterns of daily work are viewed as extraordinary pressures“ (Moss, 1981, p. 49). Conceivably, ”no other stressor connected with urban life is so devastating as is commuting to and from -work” (Yates, 1979, p. 59). A group of researchers, study— ing the relationship between stress and heart disease in 70 executives across various occupational groups, found commut- ing to be a high stress area for many of the subjects (Tan- ner et a1., 1976). A major finding of this study revealed that for some executives, the actual commuting to and from work was the most stressful activity of the day. However, the effect of this stressor, as with any other, is only partially determined by the intensity of the stressor it- self; how the executive responds psychologically to it is just as important (Yates, 1979). The fourth main source of extraorganizational stress stems from financial difficulties. In an effort to acquire additional material possessions, many top-level executives and managers work an excessive number of hours to gain strategic promotions. This behavior, in turn, adds to the pressure and stress which affects other areas of the executive's life. In addition, financial difficulties are especially stressful since they tend to be taken personally; often viewed as a reflection on an individual's ability to earn the money desired to meet family needs (Yates, 1979). Several other areas of extraorganizational stress could be identified, including social relationships, chang- ing societal values and norms and the tensions resulting from media coverage of major local, national and interna- tional events (Yates, 1979). Thé present time period has been referred to as the ”Age of Anxiety," exemplified by the accelerated pace with which the American life processes and surroundings are changing within the span of a single gener- 71 ation (Albrecht, 1979). The result of these major changes in American lifestyles has been a national epidemic of stress-related diseases (Albrecht, 1979). Organizational Stressors The final major category of stressors involves several possible sources of organizational stress. Refer- ring back to the Cooper and Marshall (1976) model, the main sources of stress at work are divided into five categories: factors intrinsic to the job, role in the organization, career development, relationships at work and factors asso- ciated with the organizational structure and climate. Factors intrinsic to the job that are potential stressors include: "boredom, poor physical working condi— tions, time pressures and deadlines, exorbitant work demands, information overload, and job design and technical problems" (Yates, 1979, p. 37). Much research has been conducted in this area with the major emphasis being on two factors: working conditions and quantitative and qualita- tive work overload (Cooper and Marshall, 1978). "Traditionally, concern has centered on the physi— cal conditions of the work environment which can contribute to stress. Many physiological experiments and observations of work under adverse conditions have supported the exist- ence of sudh a relationship. Factors, such as noise, heat and cold, long working hours, shift work, repetitive work, and hazardous work, can be stressful” (Kets de Vries, 1979, 72 pp. 7—8). "Two conditions that are most often associated with poor physical working conditions are noise and crowd- ing' (Yates, 1979, pp. 39-40). A more important stressor for executives and mana- gers than working conditions is work overload (C00per and Marshall, 1978). Several types of overload may be identi- fied: (i) Quantatitive overload -- This type exists when the individual has too much work to do in a given period of time. He (she) may be fully competent in his (her) work but the time restriction is what elicits the stress reaction. Quantitative over- load could involve working for long hours without appropriate rest periods, as with excessive overtime. It can be created by an inability to complete work due to fre- quent interruptions or by the imposition of unrealistic deadlines. (ii) Qualitative overload -- Stressful reac- tions due to this type of stressor may result when the work exceeds the techni- cal or intellectual competence of the individual. The work may demand continu- ous concentration, innovation and mean- ingful. decisions. An. important factor contributing to qualitative overload is job complexity. The higher the inherent difficulty of the work, which may require a great deal of sophisticated information and high-level academic skills, the more stressful the job. This form of overload may be experienced by individuals working in research and development. organiza— tions. Professionals in health care, law, et cetera, are also subject to this type of overload. A consequence of this stressor, wherever it is present, is emotional and mental fatigue, gastroin- testinal disorders and headaches. (iii) Combination of quantitative and qualita- tive overload -- In some job situations there is a combination of both quantita- tive and qualitative overload,- this is frequently encountered, for example, in 73 air traffic controllers at busy airports; in this work stressfulness may be directly 'related to the multi-faceted nature of decision-making which may be a function of the importance of the conse- quences of the decision, its complexity, the adequacy of the information avail- able, the amount of time available for the decision-making process, and the like. Quantitative and qualitative overload may frequently occur in manage- ment and administrative positions (Beech, Burns and Sheffield, 1982, pp. 2-3). Research into work and overload has been given substantial empirical attention over the years (Cooper and Marshall, 1977). In an attempt to summarize this reseach, French and Caplan (1972) have suggested "that both qualita- tive and quantitative overload produce at least nine differ- ent symptoms of psychological and physical strain: job dis- satisfaction, job tension, lower self-esteem, threat, embar- rassment, high cholesterol levels, increased 'heart rate, skin resistance, and more smoking. In analyzing these data, however, one cannot ignore the vital interactive relation- ship of the job and employee,- objective work overload, for example, should not be viewed in isolation but relative to the individual's capacities and ‘personality" (Cooper and Marshall, 1976, pp. 15-16). In addition, work underload may also present diffi~ culties if an individual's job fails to provide meaningful stimulation or adequate reinforcement (Beech, Burns and Sheffield, 1982). "Thus, jobs whiCh involve dehumanizing 74 monotony, no opportunity to use acquired skills and exper- tise, an absence of any intellectual involvement and repeti- tive ‘performance ‘provide instances of underload” (Beech, Burns and Sheffield, 1982, p. 3). ”Decades ago, jobs were viewed as static, rela- tively rigid positions within the organization's task and authority structure; more recently, they are viewed as dynamic structural units amendable to modification and change. The variety of tasks incorporated into the job, the amount and quality of feedback regarding performance on the job, the absence of hygenic job factors, and/or the lack of autonomy in accomplishing various job tasks are potential sources of stress' (Quick and Quick, 1979, p. 16). With this in mind, it is apparent that every job description includes factors which for some individuals at some times will be sources of stress (Marshall and Cooper, 1979). Another major source of organizational stress is associated with a person's role at work (Cooper and Mar- shall, 1976). The key stressors related to the executive or manager's role in the organization include: role conflict, role ambiguity, responsibility for people and territorial boundaries (Yates, 1979). However, the majority of the research in this area has concentrated on role conflict and ambiguity (Cooper and Marshall, 1977). The complete set of expectations communicated to an employee lead to the definition of his or her role in the organization (Quick and Quick, 1979). "A clearly-defined 75 role in which the expectations are specific and consistent generates less stress than an ill-defined role which can be a source of high stress levels" (Quick and Quick, 1979, p. 15). In addition, these stress levels will increase if dif- ferent supervisors, colleagues (n: subordinates communicate conflicting and incompatible expectations of the employee (Quick and Quick, 1979). "Role conflict exists when an individual in a particular work role is torn by conflicting job demands or by having to do things he/she really does not think are part of the job specification. The most frequent manifestation of this is vflufll a person is caught between two groups of people who demand different kinds of behavior or expect that the job should entail different functions“ (Cooper and Marshall, 1977, p. 25). "Thus, there may be conflicting job demands, differences of view of superiors or problems related to conflicts with personal, professional or societal values" (Beech, Burns and Sheffield, 1982, p. 4). In gen- eral, the major studies over the years have indicated that individuals who experience more role conflict have lower job satisfaction and higher job-related tension than those who do not experience a high degree of role conflict (Kahn, et a1., 1964). As a source of stress in organizational life, role conflict has been studied more extensively than any other single organizational stressor (Yates, 1979). Thus, there 76 is reason to believe that top-level administrators in col- leges and universities experience role conflict similar to their counterparts in the business and industrial sectors. In fact, the role of the CSAA has been the subject of a great deal of debate and discussion over the past several years. This role conflict, which continues to plague the CSAA, has multiple causes: ”historical identification of the position as the administrative control agent of the president: separation of student affairs from academic affairs; conflicting role expectations, particularly during periods of crisis; disagreement among students, faculty, and administration on the decision making process for university policy: and lack of an identifiable professional status" (Rickard, 1972, p. 219). It appears, then, that the CSAAs' position is subject to a high degree of role conflict: pri- marily, because of a lack of consensus on what the role of the CSAA is and should be. As a result, this lack of com- plete understanding of the CSAAs' role in the administrative structure may contribute to the problems CSAAs encounter in their positions. Role ambiguity exists when an individual has inade- quate information about his or her work role and about the scope and responsibilities of the job (Cooper and Marshall, 1978). Thus, "ambiguity in organizations is related to the adequacy of information to do a job properly. It refers to both role definition and accuracy of feedback. When this information is missing, ambiguity and helplessness are experienced" (Kets de Vries, 1979, p. 8). 77 The effects of role ambiguity upon individuals in work organizations generally parallel those of role conflict (Yates, 1979). Major studies in this area have found that individuals who suffer from role ambiguity experienced lower job satisfaction: higher job-related tension: a greater sense of futility and lower self-confidence than those individuals not occupying ambiguous positions (Kahn, et a1., 1964). In addition, another important potential stressor associated with an individual's organizational role is responsibility for people (Cooper and Marshall, 1976). In a major study of administrators, engineers and scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, researchers found that the more responsibility managers had for people as opposed to things, the more likely the individual would experience stress (French and Caplan, 1972). "French and Caplan de- fined responsibility for people as including their work, their careers and professional development, and their job security. Responsibility for things was said to include budgets, projects, and equipment and other property“ (Yates, 1979, p. 46). Consequently, the major research findings by French and Caplan in the NASA study "indicate that responsibility for people must play some part in the process of stress particularly for clerical, managerial and professional workers. They found that responsibility for people was significantly related to heavy smoking, diastolic blood 78 pressure and serum cholesterol levels. The more the indi- vidual had responsibility for things as opposed to people the lower were each of these CHD risk factors“ (Marshall and Cooper, 1979, p. 33). Finally, the last primary stressor related to the executive or manager's role in the organization is the area of territorial boundaries. “Individuals occupying positions at the organization's boundaries are potentially susceptible to a considerably higher degree of conflict and ambiguity. This applies to both external boundaries (the dividing line between organization and environment) and intraorganiza- tional boundaries“ (Kets de Vries, 1979, p. 8). The nature of this type of position demands continuous crossover into other departments within the organization as well as coordi- nating activities with people from outside the organization (Yates, 1979). To summarize, "there is theoretical and empirical evidence to support the contention that people occupying boundary-spanning positions in an organization (i.e., those positions that seek to relate the organization to other environmental sectors and which guide the organization in its efforts to procure scarce resources, and accomplish both organizational and societal goals) do experience more stress“ (Cooper and Marshall, 1980, p. 65). As a result, organizational boundaries can be another important source of stress in organizational life (Yates, 1979). 79 A third set of organizational stressors is related to career development. Problems involved with career devel- opment include: underpromotion, oVerpromotion, lack of job security, status incongruence, thwarted ambition and other areas (Cooper and Marshall, 1976). ”For many managers their career progression is of overriding importance -- by promotion they earn not only money but also status and the new job challenges for which they strive. Typically, in the early years at work, this striving and the aptitude to come to terms quickly with a rapidly changing environment is fostered and suitably rewarded by the company. Career progression is, perhaps, a problem by its very nature" (Cooper and Marshall, 1978, p. 91). With respect to the student affairs profession, a recent study of career patterns and characteristics of 104 CSAAs found that opportunities for upward mobility may be decreasing (Harder, 1983). This decrease in career advance- ment opportunities is a result of several factors: a. Indications are that tenure in the posi- tion of chief administrator is increas- ing. b. Chief administrators tend to be under 50 years of age. c. Nearly half of the administrators reported that at present they plan to stay in their positions until retirement. d. Changes in the mandatory retirement age for educational personnel may allow individuals to stay in their positions longer. 80 e. Higher education is in a period of eco- nomic instability and student enrollment decline, resulting in reductions in force or consolidation of positions. f. The period of growth in the number of new colleges or campuses that occurred in the 19505 and 19605 is over. Indications are that the number of colleges or campuses will remain steady or even decline. Therefore, new positions established in the past will not be available in the future (Harder, 1983, pp. 447-448). Thus, when job mobility decreases, CSAAs tend to remain within their present institutions. Often, this may result in increased frustration and tension for the administrator and may have a negative impact on the organization. In addition, some of the basic reasons for which individuals pursue student affairs as a career may be disap- pearing with the changes in higher education (Bender, 1980). These reasons have, in the past, included: working in a collegiate environment, desiring the security afforded through employment in higher education, and valuing the flexibility and mobility which higher education tradition- ally offered (Bender, 1980). "Given the realities of con- temporary higher education and the conditions which have presaged a troubled future, it is doubtful whether the motivations for pursing a career in student affairs are in fact realistic. Decreasing professional mobility and wide- spread underemployment will no doubt contribute to the dissonance between what one expects from a career in student affairs and what one actually experiences" (Bender, 1980, p. 3). 81 Career develOpment plays a critical role in every executive or manager's life. There are, however, certain times and events in the career life cycle that can be more stressful than others. These major points include: career entry, mid-career and retirement (Kets de Vries, 1979). ”At middle age, and usually middle-management levels, a career becomes more problematic and most execu- tives find their progress slowed, if not actually stopped. Job opportunities become fewer, those jobs that are avail- able take longer to master, past (mistaken?) decisions cannot be revoked, old knowledge and methods become obso- lete, energies may be flagging or demanded for family acti- vities and there is the press of fresh young recruits to face in competition" (Cooper and Marshall, 1977, p. 34). Therefore, the mid—life period is a time when many individ- uals experience doubts about the quality of their past accomplishments and the likelihood. of significant future contributions. Frequently, the cause of stress is a dis- crepancy between actual accomplishments and expected ones (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980). In addition, another source of stress is related to the approaching of retirement. "Given society's emphasis on career for personal identity, retirement can be traumatic. It evokes an image of uselessness and disrupts the rhythm of life. It is also a time when the manager reviews his (her) past career" (Kets de Vries, 1979, p. 10). 82 When individuals retire, particularly if they retire from careers providing a great deal of reinforcement, “the consequences are likely to include a loss of self- esteem and a feeling of worthlessness, a depressed state, decreased appetite and sexual drive, sleep disturbance, and increase in physical complaints generally, apathy and a loss of motivation Factors determining the stressfulness of retirement include preparation for the event, alternative sources of reinforcement (hobbies, social contacts, and the like), and financial security" (Beech, Burns and Sheffield, 1982, p. 7). Consequently, the “career development issues aris- ing during midcareer or beyond the midforties are seen as extraordinary pressures -- part of a declining career cycle (that is, midcareer changes, second careers, late career insecurities, the threat of forced early retirement)“ (Moss, 1981, p. 49). Thus, it is apparent that a relationship exists between an individual's location in the career life cycle and the intensity of the stress reactions they will experience. The fourth major category of sources of stress at work is related to the nature of relationships that the exe- cutive or manager has at work with supervisors, subordinates and colleagues. A number of behavioral scientists have suggested that good relationships among members of a work group are a central factor in individual and organizational 83 health (Cooper and Marshall, 1977). However, very little research work has been done in this area to either support or reject this hypothesis (Cooper and Marshall, 1977). In the Goddard study at NASA, the researchers iden- tified the quality of relationships that individuals have with their supervisors, subordinates and colleagues as a key organizational stressor (French and Caplan, 1972). The researchers defined poor relationships as those that involved “low trust, low supportiveness, and low interest in listening to and dealing with problems. They discovered that poor relations were often the result of role ambiguity, inadequate communication, and role conflict. Once estab- lished, poor relations tend to produce psychological stress in the form of low job satisfaction and belief in the exis- tence of job-related threats to a person's well-being" (Yates, 1979, p. 51). In a study which utilized Fleishman's leadership questionnaire on consideration and initiating structure, the researcher focused on the attitude and relationship of work- ers and managers to their immediate supervisor (Buck, 1972). "The consideration factor was associated with behavior indicative of friendship, mutual trust, respect and a cer- tain warmth between boss and subordinate" (Cooper and Mar- shall, 1977, p. 31). Individuals who felt that their super- visor was 1ow on consideration reported feeling more job pressure than others (Cooper and Marshall, 1977). The 84 reasons workers and managers stated for feeling under pres- sure included: (1) viewing their supervisors as frequently changing the work responsibilities of subordinates without first discussing the changes with them,- (2) seeing their supervisors as being authoritarian and as taking all of the credit for any suggestions assisting the organization: (3) feeling that their supervisors would not be supportive of the decisions they make and, consequently, would be less likely to back them up; and (4) viewing their supervisors as using them to compromise their own beliefs (Buck, 1972). It is apparent, then, that considerate behavior of supervisors seems to have contributed significantly to feelings of job pressure (Cooper and Marshall, 1976). “Apart from the supportive group interaction that may occur as a buffer against the development of stress symptoms, relationships between stress and leadership style can be found. A common, again rather obvious finding seems to be that considerate leadership style has a smress- reducing effect" (Kets de Vries, 1979, p. 9). In a study examining job satisfaction among profes- sionals in the field of student affairs, over one-halfiof those responding to a questionnaire indicated that they did not respect their CSAA (Bender, 1980). This major finding does not reflect positively on the supervisory relationship that CSAAs have with their staff members. It becomes increasingly apparent that “while each member of the organi— zation will have a different motivation for membership in 85 that organization, the membership should have an understand- ing of the leader and the manner in which decisions are made. For such an understanding to occur, greater contact between the Chief Student Affairs Officer and the members of the organization needs to take place“ (Bender, 1980, p. 8). It appears, then, that increased participation in decision making may result in increased job satisfaction. In addi- tion, ”participation is an efficient way of reducing many other stresses which also lead to psychological strain“ (Kets de Vries, 1979, p. 9). Officially, one of the most critical functions of an executive or manager is his or her supervision of the organization's human resources. "It has long been accepted that an inability to delegate might be a problem, but now a new potential stressor is being introduced in the manager's interpersonal skills -- he (she) must learn to manage by participation” (Cooper and Marshall, 1977, p. 31). The belief that greater participation by more people in decision making processes is both desirable and inevitable has received increasing support in recent years. For many individuals, such developments are likely to involve change, conflict and stress. .A group of factors which may tend to cause resentment, anxiety and stress for the executive or manager concerned with the new emphasis on participation include: (1) mismatch of formal and actual power: (2) resentment of the erosion of his or her formal role and authority; (3) ‘being subject to irreconcilable pressures 86 (e.g., to be both participative and to achieve high produc- tion); and (4) refusal of subordinates to participate (Donaldson and Gowler, 1975). Along with the obvious factors of office politics and colleague rivalry, stress can also be caused by a lack of adequate social support in difficult situations (Marshall and Cooper, 1979). The role of support systems in relation to stress has been studied extensively (Caplan and Killilea, 1976). These researchers define support systems as: ... attachments among individuals or between individuals and groups that serve to improve adaptive competence in dealing with short-term crises and life transi- tions as well as long-term challenges, stresses and privations through (a) pro- moting emotional mastery, (b) offering guidance regarding the field of relevant forces involved in expectable problems and methods of dealing with them, and (c) providing feedback on individual's behav- ior that validates his (her) conception of his (her) own identity and fosters improved performance based on adequate self-evaluation (Caplan and Killilea, 1976, p. 41). In addition, both authors view support systems as including professions and formal community institutions as well as natural systems. Levels of co-worker support among colleagues varies and depends upon the following: (1) the degree to which supervisors model supportive behavior and use participative supervision; (2) the structure of the organization and the positions within it; and (3) the nature of the employee- organizational relationship (House, 1981). "At highly competitive managerial levels it is likely that problem 87 sharing will be inhibited for fear of appearing weak; much of the literature particularly mentions the isolated life of the top executive as an added source of strain" (Cooper and Marshall, 1977, p. 32). Thus, the executive or manager is often faced with a lack of adequate social support in diffi— cult situations. The fifth and final major source of organizational stress involves factors associated with the organizational structure and climate. Every organization has a distinctive environment which strongly affects the overall emotional- cognitive processes of the individuals who make up the work group (Albrecht, 1979). Those aspects of the structure of an organization which can make working life either satisfac- tory or stressful include: lack of participation in the decision making process, no sense of belonging, lack of effective consultation and communication, bureaucratic pettiness, pressures toward conformity, lack of responsive— ness and office politics (Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Yates, 1979). “An increasing number of research investigations are being conducted in this area, particularly into the effect of employee participation in the workplace" (Cooper and Marshall, 1976, p. 20). The early research on participation in the work setting was in terms of its effect on production and atti- tudes of workers (Cooper and Marshall, 1976). Researchers found that “the greater the participation the higher was the 88 productivity, the greater the job satisfaction, the lower the turnover and the better were the relationships between boss and subordinate“ (Cooper and Marshall, 1976, p. 20). In the Goddard study at NASA involving administra- tors, engineers and scientists, a major research finding was that low participation seems to have the greatest harmful effect on job satisfaction and threat (French and Caplan, 1972). In addition, the researchers found that individuals who experienced a high level of participation in decisions, had the following characteristics: low psychological strain, high utilization of skills and abilities, good working relations with immediate supervisor, colleagues and subordinates, positive attitudes toward work, and a high level of productivity (French and Caplan, 1972). Thus, an individual's sense of psychological well-being may be strongly influenced by the amount and quality of participa- tion in those decisions closely tied to important aspects of the executive or manager's work (Yates, 1979). The majority of the research in the area of employee participation seems to indicate that greater parti- cipation leads to lower staff turnover and higher productiv- ity (French and Caplan, 1972). However, “when participation is absent, lower job satisfaction and higher levels of physical and mental health risks may result" (Cooper and Marshall, 1977, p. 39). 89 To summarize, several sets of individual, extra- organizational and organizational stressors have been iden— tified as interacting factors contributing to top-level administrative stress. It appears then, that stress is not a characteristic of either the environment or the individ- ual, but is the outcome of the interaction of the two. Accordingly, the individual's perception of the environment is that which defines it as stressful. Summary In this chapter, three areas of the relevant liter- ature related to the present study of key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and univer- sities were reviewed. In the first section of the chapter, the concept of stress was presented by tracing the origins of the stress concept as it related to this study. There were several ways in which the concept of stress could be defined. However, the majority of the definitions fell into one of three categories: stimulus definitions, response definitions or stimulus-response definitions (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980). In the second section of the chapter, the role and demands of the CSAA applicable to the present investigation were reviewed. The review began with a historical overview of the development of programs and services in American colleges and universities concerned with the welfare of students and their extraclassroom’development. In the 90 colonial college, much of what was later to be called stu- dent personnel work was done by college and university presidents. Later, as American colleges and universities grew in size and diversity the presidents of these institu- tions began to delegate certain responsibilities for student problems to subordinate administrative officers (Svoren, 1977). Two of these positions that came into being during the early years of administrative expansion were positions of dean of men and dean of women. Along with the period of expansion in the American system of higher education came the need for a more sophis- ticated and complex administrative structuring and function- hmg of student personnel work. Significant evidence was found in the literature which indicated that centralization of student personnel services under an administrative offi- cer was essentially a post-World War II phenomenon in many institutions of higher education (Svoren, 1977). Later, this administrative officer responsible for student person- nel areas of the colleges and universities was identified as the CSAA (Ayers, Tripp and Russel, 1966). However, the functions and consequently the role of the CSAA has continued to change since the post-World War II origins of the position (Birch, 1969). These changes in the role and functions of CSAAs were determined largely by changing societal demands as well as the increased needs and interests of students. Following a review of the major studies related to the role and demands of the CSAA, it was 91 ascertained that there is a continuing pattern of change in the role and functions of individuals occupying these posi- tions. As a result, and among other things, the probable existence of role conflict and ambiguity in the CSAA posi- tion supports the need for the present study. The third and final section of the chapter was concerned with a review of selected literature involving the common sources of individual and organizational stress across various white collar and professional work groups. Since there was a limited amount of information on stress in the higher education literature in general, and the student affairs area in particular, special attention was focused on the relevant literature and related studies concerned with business and industrial executives and managers. From the literature reviewed in this section, a formidable list of individual and organizational interacting factors were identified by various researchers and writers as common sources of stress. While several conceptual models of stress were available for review, the model devel- Oped by Cooper and Marshall (1976) and adapted by Yates (1979) was selected for this study to depict the leading sources of top-level administrative stress. Within this context, seven major categories of stress were identified and reviewed extensively: factors intrinsic to the job, role in the organization, career development, relationships at work, organizational structure and climate, extraorgani- zational sources of stress and characteristics of the indi- vidual (Yates, 1979). 92 Chapter III contains the design of the study, an outline of the procedures used in the sample selection, description of the data collection instrument, summary of the data collection process, statement of the research hypotheses and discussion of the method of data analysis. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction The main purpose of the investigator was to analyze the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among Chief Student Affairs Administrators (CSAAs) in selected four-year public and private colleges and uni- versities. 'ma that end, the focus of the researdh was on those key individual and organizational stressors within the higher educational setting which emerged as prominent in the context of the performance of the CSAAs' duties and respon- sibilities. Secondary purposes of the investigator were: (1) to analyze the differences in the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in similarly sized four-year publhc and private colleges and universities, and (2) to examine the extent of the relation— ship between organizational stress and the CSAAs' character- istics of age, educational preparation, number of years of administrative experience and marital status among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universi- ties. ' The chapter consists of a discussion of the selec- tion of the sample, the development of the questionnaire, the process of data collection, the research hypotheses and an explanation of the method of data analysis. 94 Selection of the Sample The population selected for examination was limited to CSAAs within the National Association of Student Person- nel Administrators (NASPA) four-year public and private mem- ber institutions in the United States. It was determined that member institutions of NASPA would be appropriate for this study because: 1. Membership in the IAssociation includes institutions of varying size, purpose and geographical location: 2. Chief student personnel administrators by virtue of employment in member institu- tions are presumed to have professional interest in better understanding the role of the student personnel administrator in higher education today; 3. The Association has continually mani- fested concern for a better understanding of the student personnel administrator and the basis for his (her) behavior at various institutions of higher education (Birch, 1969, p. 21). With this in mind, a sample was selected from the population of CSAAs within NASPA four-year public and pri— vate member institutions in the United States. The sample selected for study included all CSAAs within the NASPA four-year public and private member institutions in Region IV-East. Region IV-East of NASPA is comprised of eight states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Although NASPA Region IV-East includes primarily all midwestern states it does, however, represent a wide diversity of institutions in both size and type. 95 To identify the appropriate subjects to be sur— veyed, the investigator enlisted the assistance of the NASPA Central Office for information regarding the 1983-84 NASPA four-year public and private member institutions in Region IV-East (see Appendix A for a copy of the letter). The study received the support of the Division of Research and Program Development of NASPA and, subsequently, mailing labels were obtained which identified the CSAAs who were to be included in this study (see Appendix B for a copy of the letter). Development of the Questionnaire The limited information on measures of stress in the higher education literature in general, and the student affairs area in particular, required the investigator to examine stress-related instruments used. in Iother fields: namely, studies involving business and industrial executives and managers. Consequently, there was no standardized ques- tionnaire available to obtain the data required in this study. Therefore, after reviewing the instruments used in several related studies (Gurin, Veroff and Feld, 1960; Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963, Indik, Seashore and Slesinger, 1964; Cooper and Marshall, 1977, 1978; Kiev and Kohn, 1979} Marshall and Cooper, 1979: Cooper and Marshall, 1980; Cooper and Melhusidh, 1980; Tung and Koch, 1980; Corlett and Richardson, 1981), the investigator found it necessary to develop a questionnaire specific to the present study of CSAAs for use in the data collection process. 96 The present investigation utilized a self-reporting method of information collection designed to measure the perceived extent to which certain individual and organiza— tional factors contributed to stress among CSAAs in selected four—year public and private colleges and universities. To that end, the Chief Student Affairs Administrator Stress Questionnaire (CSAASQ) was developed for use in this study that consisted of four major parts: (1) demographic informa- tion, (2) personality characteristics, (3) physical health measure and (4) organizational characteristics (see Appendix C for a copy of the questionnaire). Since content validity is generally determined by expert judgment (Gay, 1981), two Michigan State University professors reviewed the initial instrument. These experts thoroughly examined all items on the questionnaire and made a judgment that the items represented the intended content area. In addition, a pilot study was conducted to field test the instrument for content validity and clarity with a group of 20 CSAAs who were within NASPA four-year public and private member institutions; however, not within Region IV- East of NASPA. The random sample of 20 CSAAs were sent a letter signed by the investigator informing them that they were part of a pilot study and were being asked to offer comments and suggestions for inclusion in the final ques- tionnaire (see Appendix D for a copy of the letter). Eight- een or 90% of the pilot study group completed and returned 97 the questionnaires. Following an extensive review of their comments and suggestions, minor revisions were incorporated into the final copy. The final questionnaire consisted of four major parts: (1) demographic information, (2) personality charac- teristics, (3) physical health measure and (4) organiza- tional characteristics. Part one, Demographic Information, consists of 10 items, each of which serves to gather perti- nent demographic information concerning selected individual characteristics about the CSAAs and organizational charac- teristics about their respective institutions. These 10 items were grouped into the following categories: type of institution, size of institution, level of educational pre- paration, area of concentration of graduate studies, number of years of administrative experience, number of years in present administrative position, number of years in the college student affairs profession, marital status, sex and age. The second part, Personality Characteristics, con- sists of 40 anxiety items which comprise the Anxiety Scale Questionnaire (ASQ) (Krug, IScheier and Cattell, 1963). Although relevant research has found "'the existence of at least 16 primary source traits which need to be considered in understanding the total personality, psychological test— ing almost always calls for a compromise between the theo- retical and the practical“ (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963, p. 3). Therefore, the ASQ was utilized to assess the rele- vant psychological aspects of the subjects for this study. 98 First published in 1957, the ASQ included what were considered t£>lx3 the best 40 anxiety items from among sev- eral thousand personality items whiCh had been pmeviously examined (Cattell, 1973). The number of items per anxiety component is approximately proportional to that component's importance ixi the anxiety pattern (Krug, Scheier and Cat- tell, 1963). These five anxiety components include: 0 (apprehension), Q4 (tension), Q3 (low self-control), C (emotional instability), and I; (suspicion) (see Appendix E for an explanation of the questionnaire). "The ASQ was develOped as a means of getting clini- cal anxiety information in a rapid, objective, and standard manner. It is brief and nonstressful, applicable to all but the lowest educational levels, and appropriate for chrono- logical ages of 14 or 15 years on upward throughout adult- hood. The scales give an accurate appraisal of free anxiety level, supplementing’ clinical. diagnosis, and facilitating all kinds of research or screening operations where very little diagnostic or assessment time can be spent with each examinee" (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963, p. 3). A total anxiety score is readily obtained by utilizing a standard key that fits over the test booklet. "The higher score always means more anxiety“ (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963, p. 12). This is the score for which norm tables have been provided "and for which reliability and validity estimates are principally supplied“ (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963, p. 13). 99 A number of stress—related studies have utilized the ASQ. It was selected as an instrument for this study primarily because it can be self-administered, it is reason- ably reliable and has been extensively validated. With respect to reliability estimates, “a test-retest coefficient (If .60 has been reported for a sample of 170 medical stu- dents over a two-year period" (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963, p. 23). The validity of the ASQ has been approached from three sources: “(a) how well the test score correlates with the pure anxiety factor it was designed to measure: (b) how well the test score corresponds with clinical judgment regarding anxiety level; and (c) how well the test score relates in) other questionnaire measures of anxiety" (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963, p. 27). Therefore, “the validity of the ASQ has been approached in three independent ways. The evidence from a number of factor-analytic investiga- tions, from studies of clinically assessed anxiety, and from other questionnaire measures of anxiety converges to the conclusion that the validity of the ASQ -- the extent to which it measures the central core of the anxiety concept -- approaches .90" (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963, p. 29). Part three, Physical Stress Measure, consists of 20 items which comprise a slight adaptation of the Gurin Psychosomatic Symptom List (Gurin, Veroff and Feld, 1960). This symptom checklist type questionnarie is widely used and accepted as a criterion of physical health. Although the Gurin Psychosomatic Symptom List is not as sufficiently 100 rigorously based conceptually as the ASQ, it is still a reasonably reliable and valid instrument (Marshall and Cooper, 1979). The Gurin Psychosomatic Symptom List is a physical health measure which relies on subjective symptom-oriented instead of objective disease-based criteria measures (e.g., medical records, physical examinations, etc.). On this scale, the respondent is asked to indicate the frequency with which he or she has felt like the described symptom during the past six months. These symptoms of ill-health, which are widely agreed to be potentially stress-induced, include: sleeping difficulties, nervousness, headaches, loss of appetite, upset stomachs, shortness of breath and others (Marshall and Cooper, 1979). The higher scores on the Gurin Psychosomatic Symptom List always indicate a greater presence of physical ill-health. As with any self-reporting method of information collection, a major limitation involved with using the Gurin Psychosomatic Symptom List is the fact that the symptoms were scored by the subjects themselves rather than by objec- tive observers. However, "this particular scale has the advantages over similar measures of being short, relatively non-clinical and of having a well-documented history of use in social science research“ (Marshall and Cooper, 1979, pp. 54-55). 101 Finally, part four, Organizational Characteristics, consists of 40 items designed to measure the CSAAs' per- ceived level of job-related stress in five major categories: factors intrinsic to the job, role in the organization, career development, relationships at work and factors asso- ciated with the organizational structure and climate. The 40 item questionnaire was adapted and developed from items on both the 15 item index of Job-Related Strain (JRS) (In- dik, Seashore and Slesinger, 1964) and the 35 item Adminis— trative Stress Index (ASI) (Tung and Koch, 1980). The subjects were asked to rate each job-related factor on a five-point Likert-type rating scale on the degree to which the item serves as source of stress. The JRS index is widely used to measure the amount of strain experienced by workers as a result of job—related factors (Miller, 1983). The index consists of 15 items to which respondents are asked to estimate how often they are bothered by each type of symptom on a five-point Likert-type scale. As with most measures of social-psychological stress, the JRS index does not reflect the multi- dimensionality of the construct (Tung and Koch, 1980). Indik, Seashore and Slesinger (1964) did recognize the multi-dimensionality of the construct and reported that based on their instrument and the data from a sample of 8,234 industrial employees representing diverse age, educa- tional and occupational backgrounds, that the "evidence of clustering is weak, and gives no encouragement toward 102 improvement of the index through analysis of component factors. Each item correlated with the index much more strongly than it correlated with any other component item“ (p. 28). This evidence points to an important limitation of the JRS as an instrument for tapping several sources of occupational stress. The studies to date suggest that the JRS taps only generic role related sources of stress (Tung and Koch, 1980). The ASI was developed as a more comprehensive measure of job-related stress, that is, one which would reflect the multi-dimensionality of the construct. More specifically, the index was designed as an attempt to iden- tify the different sources of job-related stress experienced by elementary and secondary educational administrators (Tung and Koch, 1980). In developing the ASI instrument, the JRS served as the initial questionnaire core. "This index was supplemented by items suggested from a review of current publications for public school administrators, and by items suggested from stress logs which were kept by 40 school administrators for a period of one week" (Tung and Koch, 1980, p. 66). ”The pilot instrument was field tested for content validity and clarity with a group of 25 practicing adminis- trators" (Tung and Koch, 1980, p. 66). After revisions and a second pilot test involving 20 administrators, the final instrument comprised of 35 items with a five-point Likert- type scale was developed (Tung and Koch, 1980). Of these 35 103 items, 12 items were retained from the JRS and 23 items evolved out of the stress log information and a review of the relevant public school administrator publications (Tung and Koch, 1980). “Thus, it was hoped that the ASI would permit a more comprehensive assessment of stress in this particular population than would be permitted by existing instruments, such as the JRS, which could tap only one, or at best two, underlying sources of job-related stress' (Tung and Koch, 1980, p. 66). ' To summarize, the main purpose of the investigator was to analyze the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities. With this in mind, the aforementioned four-part questionnaire was devel- Oped to collect the data required in this study. Collection of the Data The administrators identified within the NASPA four-year public and private member institutions in Region IV-East, who appeared to be the CSAAs, were mailed a letter signed by Dr. Louis C. Stamatakos, the dissertation direc- tor, explaining the purpose and importance of the study and requesting cooperation in completing the questionnaire (see Appendix F for a copy of the letter). 'The letter was accom- panied by a questionnaire and a self—addressed stamped envelope. Before mailing, each questionnaire was coded solely for follow-up purposes. Both the letter and the cover page of the questionnaire informed the CSAAs that all 104 responses would remain anonymous and confidential. In addition, the cover letter included accurate instructions for the individual to forward the materials to the apprOpri- ate person for completion if he or she was not the CSAA. The CSAAs were asked to respond within two weeks from the initial mailing. For the first mailing in February of 1984, materi- als were sent to the 135 CSAAs of NASPA four-year public and private member institutions in Region IV-East. There were 86 responses or a 64% return rate from the initial mailing. A follow-up mailing was sent to nonrespondents approximately one month after the initial mailing. The second mailing consisted of the original cover letter with a personal note written by the investigator at the bottom, another copy of the questionnaire and a self-addressed stamped envelope. Also, in an effort to gain additional information, a special letter was sent to three CSAAs who had responded, but who had not completed the entire questionnaire (see Appendix G for a copy of the letter). Subsequent to this mailing, 26 additional responses were received within three weeks. This return rate represented 83% of the total number of CSAAs surveyed. However, 12 of the questionnaires which were returned were not usable. Of the 135 CSAAs sampled, responses were received from 112 or 83%. Four administrators indicated that they were CSAAs at two—year institutions, three CSAAs refused to respond and five CSAAs provided incomplete information on 105 their questionnaires. As a result, the total number of usable questionnaires was 100 or 74% of the total number of CSAAs sampled. The information collected on the completed ques- tionnaires was used to: (1) verify that the respondents were CSAAs; (2) collect demographic information on the CSAAs: (3) determine whether or not there were certain indi- vidual and organizational factors which contributed to more stress at work than other factors for CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities: (4) analyze the differences in the key individual and organiza- tional factors which contributed to stress among CSAAs in similarly sized four-year public and puivate colleges and universities: and (5) examine the extent of the relationship between organizational stress and the CSAAs' characteristics of age, educational preparation, number of years of adminis- trative experience and marital status among CSAAs in selec- ted four-year public and private colleges and universities. Research Hypotheses The purpose of the investigator was to analyze the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities. To that end, the focus of the investigation was on those key individual and organizational stressors within the higher educational setting which emerged as prominent in the context of the performance of the CSAAs' duties and responsibilities. Secondary purposes 106 of the investigator were: (1) to analyze the differences in the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in similarly sized four-year public and private colleges and universities, and (2) to examine the extent of the relationship between organizational stress and the CSAAs' characteristics of age, educational prepara- tion, number of years of administrative experience and marital status among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities. For the purpose of analysis, there were eight research hypotheses. Each of these null hypotheses is stated below: Hypothesis 1: There will be no identifiable indi- vidual characteristics which contri- bute significantly to more individ- ual stress at work than other char- acteristics for CSAAs in selected four-year public and private col- leges and universities. Hypothesis 2: There will be no identifiable organ- izational factors which contribute significantly to more stress at work than other factors for CSAAs in selected four-year public and pri- vate colleges and universities. Hypothesis 3: There will be no significant inter- action effect of type and size of institution on the CSAAs' levels of individual stress. Hypothesis 4: There will be no significant inter- action effect of type and size of institution on the 'organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs. Hypothesis 5: There will be no significant differ- ences in the overall level of organ- izational stress associated with CSAAs less than 45 years of age and those who are 46 years of age or older. 107 Hypothesis 6: There will be no significant differ- ences in the overall level of organ- izational stress associated with CSAAs who received a graduate degree in an administrative area of concen- tration and those who received a graduate degree in a nonadministra- tive area of concentration. Hypothesis 7: There will be no significant differ- ences in the overall level of organ- izational stress associated with CSAAs who have less than 11 years of administrative experience and those who have 12 or more years of admin- istrative experience. Hypothesis 8: There will be no significant differ- ences in the overall level of organ— izational stress associated with CSAAs who are single and those who are married. Method of Data Analysis The processing of the data was handled through the Michigan State University Computer Center. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), an integrated system of computer programs designed for the analysis of social science data, was utilized for this study (Nie, et a1., 1975). In addition to the usual descriptive statistics, analysis of variance was performed on the data. More speci- fically, the SPSS sub—program Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was the statistical technique utilized to analyze the rela- tionsip between the dependent and independent variables identified in the research hypotheses. In its most common application in educational research, ANOVA is used to deter- mine the significance of differences between groups and 108 within groups. Since this study, among other things, sought to examine the extent of the relationship between various individual and organizational sources of stress and certain characteristics of the CSAAs, ANOVA was determined to be the appropriate statistical tool for analysis. The eight research hypotheses were to be rejected if the F value for the ANOVA exceeded the value for the appropriate degrees of freedom (Tuckman, 1972). The level of significance was set at the .05 level for rejection of all eight null hypotheses. The results of the statistical analyses performed on the data are presented in Chapter IV. Summary The central purpose of the investigator was to analyze the key individual and organizational factors con- tributing to stress among CSAAs in selected four—year public and private colleges and universities. To that end, the focus of the research was on those key individual and organ- izational stressors within the higher educational setting which emerged as prominent in the context of the performance of the CSAAs' duties and responsibilities. The population of the present study consisted of all CSAAs within NASPA four-year public and private member institutions in the United States. The sample selected for study included all CSAAs within the NASPA four-year public and private member institutions in Region IV-East. 1A questionnaire was developed to collect the data required in the present investigation. To that end, the 109 questionnaire consisted of four major parts: (1) demo- graphic information, (2) personality characteristics, (3) physical health measure and (4) organizational character- istics. The study utilized a self-reporting method of data collection through the use of a mailed questionnaire. An initial mailing yielded a 64% response rate. After a follow-up mailing to nonrespondents, the total number of usable questionnaires was 100 or 74% of the total number of CSAAs sampled. The research hypotheses of the study were presented along with an explanation of the statistical procedures utilized. In Chapter IV, the complete results of the sta- tistical analyses performed on the data are presented. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS Introduction The Chief Student Affairs Administrators (CSAAs) who responded to the four-part Chief Student Affairs Admin- istrator Stress Questionnaire (CSAASQ) utilized for this study, were asked to provide information concerning selected individual characteristics about themselves and organiza- tional characteristics about their respective institutions. In this chapter, the investigator: (1) delineates the main characteristics of line sample, (2) summarizes and presents the results of the data collection instrument by the cate- gories of demographic information, personality characteris- tics, physical health measure and organizational character- istics, and (3) presents the results of the tests of the hypotheses. Main Characteristics of the Sample Of the 135 CSAAs sampled, 100 or 74% returned usable questionnaires and were included in the investiga- tion. Sixty-two of the CSAAs (62%) in this study served in four-year privately supported colleges and universities. In addition, more than one-half of the CSAAs were from four- year public and private institutions of less than 2,499 students. 110 111 With respect to level of formal education, 47% of the CSAAs in this study held the doctorate, while 41% held the Master's degree. Only 11% of the respondents reported no degree beyond the bachelor's. In addition, 60 of the CSAAs (60%) in this study had earned their highest degree in an administrative area of concentration (e.g., Business Administration, Public Administration, Educational Adminis- tration, Student Personnel Administration and Higher Educa- tion Administration). When considering the professional backgrounds of the CSAAs in this study, a mean of 17.30 years of total administrative experience was found. In addition, the aver- age length of service in their present CSAA position was 6.76 years. Further, and with respect to the number of years in the college student affairs profession, a mean of 15.78 years was reported for the CSAAs in this study. Regarding the personal characteristic of marital status, the vast majority of the CSAAs (80%) were married. Of the 80 married CSAAs, six were females and 74 were males. Further, among the total CSAAs in the present study there were 19 females (19%) and 81 males (81%). Finally, the CSAAs' personal characteristic of age illustrated that the great majority of the CSAAs were between 36 and 55 years of age (72%) with the most frequently reported category being from 36 to 45 years of age (40%). In summary, the CSAAs in this investigation appear to have characteristics similar to CSAAs in other studies (Frantz, 1969; Grant and Foy, 1972; Brooks and Avila, 1974; 112 Harway, 1977; Gross, 1978,- Paul and Hoover, 1980; Harder, 1983). These similarities were especially prevalent in the areas of level of educational preparation, length of service in present administrative position, sex and age. Analysis of the Data Related to Demographic Information As part of the investigation, ‘the CSAAs who responded to the CSAASQ were asked to provide information concerning selected individual characteristics about them- selves and organizational characteristics about their respective institutions (see Appendix C for a copy of the questionnaire). Ten items in Part one, Demographic Informa- £i_op, were concerned with these characteristics and were grouped into the following categories: (1) type of insti- tution; (2) size of institution; (3) level of educational preparation: (4) area of concentration of graduate studies: (5) number of years of administrative experience; (6) number of years in present administrative position: (7) number of years in the college student affairs profession; (8) marital status; (9) sex and (10) age. Table 1 consists of a summary of the responses of the CSAAs pertaining to these selected characteristics. In an effort to provide for a clearer picture of the nature of those participating in the study, a brief analysis follows. Type of Institution As indicated in Table 1, 62 of the subjects were from privately supported four-year colleges and universities (62%), while 38 CSAAs were from public institutions (38%). 113 Table 1. Summary of Selected Demographics of the Chief Student Affairs Administrators Characteristic Frequency Percentage Type of institution: Public 38 38.0 Private 62 62.0 *total 100 100.0 Size of institution: Less than 2,499 54 54.0 2,500-4,999 14 14.0 5,000-9,999 12 12.0 10,000-19,999 8 8.0 20,000 or more 12 . 12.0 *total 100 100.0 Highest degree earned: BA or BS 11 11.0 MA or MS 41 41.0 EdOD. or Ph.D. 47 47.0 (missing responses) 1 1.0 *total 100 100.0 Area of concentration of highest graduate degree: administrative area 60 60.0 nonadministrative area 38 38.0 (missing responses) 2 2.0 *total 100 100.0 Total number of years of administrative experience: 1-5 5 5.0 6-11 18 18.0 12-17 25 25.0 18-23 35 35.0 24 or more 17 17.0 *total 100 100.0 Table 1. (continued) 114 Characteristic FrequenCy Percentage Number of years in present administrative position: 1-5 55 55.0 6-11 22 22.0 12-17 16 16.0 18-23 3 3.0 24 or more 3 3.0 (missing responses) 1 1.0 *total 100 100.0 Number of years in college student affairs profession: 6-11 21 21.0 12-17 28 28.0 18-23 26 26.0 24 or more 16 16.0 *total 100 100.0 Marital Status: Single 19 19.0 Married 80 80.0 (missing responses) 1 1.0 *total 100 100.0 Sex: Female 19 19.0 Male 81 81.0 *total 100 100.0 Age: less than 35 13 13.0 36-45 40 40.0 46-55 32 32.0 56-65 15 _15.0 65 or more 0 0.0 100 100.0 *total 115 Size of Institution As reported in Table l, CSAAs from public and private institutions of less than '2,499 students made up more than one-half of the sample (54%), while those repre- senting the largest institutions with enrollments of more than 20,000 accounted for 12% of the total. Whereas those CSAAs from institutions in the middle, with enrollments of from 2,500 to 4,999, 5,000 to 9,999 and 10,000 to 19,999 accounted for 14%, 12% and 8% respectively of the total or represented a cumulative total of 34% in these middle groups. Highest Degree Earned As illustrated in Table l, 47 of the CSAAs (47%) had earned either the Ed.D. or Ph.D. and 41 (41%) had earned a Master's degree. Only 11 of the individuals (11%) occupy- ing the CSAA position reported that their highest degree earned was the bachelor's. One of the CSAAs (1%) failed to complete this questionnaire item. Area of Concentration of Highest Graduate Degpee Using the categories developed by Paul and Hoover (1980) to classify the CSAAs' type of educational prepara- tion, it was found that 60 (60%) had earned their highest degree in an administrative area of concentration, while 38 (38%) had earned their highest degree in a nonadministrative area of concentration. Two of the CSAAs (2%) failed to com- plete this questionnaire item. 116 Total Number of Years of Administrative Experience Of the CSAAs in this study, those with between one and five years of administrative experience made up 5% of the sample and those with 24 or more years of experience accounted for 17% of the total. Therefore, the majority of the sample (78%) reported that they had between six and 23 years of administrative experience. More specifically, those CSAAs in the middle categories with total years of administrative experience of from six to 11, 12 to 17 and 18 to 23 years accounted for 18%, 25% and 35% respectively of the total. For the purpose of analysis, these five categor- ies were later combined to form two groups. Consequently, 23 of the CSAAs (23%) had between one and 11 years of admin- istrative experience and 77 (77%) had 12 or more years of administrative experience. I\ mean of 17.30 years of total administrative experience was calculated for the CSAAs in this study. Number of Years in Present Administrative Position Of the CSAAs in this study, more than one-half (55%) had been in their present administrative position for five years or less and those with 24 or more years of exper- ience accounted for 3% of the total. Thus, the remaining 41 CSAAs (41%) in the sample reported that they had held their present CSAA position for between six and 23 years. A further breakdown of those CSAAs in the middle categories of from six to 11, 12 to 17 and 18 to 23 years accounted for 22%, 16% and 3% respectively of the total. One of the 117 CSAAs (1%) failed to complete this questionnaire item. Ix mean of 6.76 years in their present administrative position was determined for the CSAAs in this study. Number of Years in the College Student Affairs Profession As revealed in Table 1, nine of the CSAAs (9%) in this study had been in the college student affairs profes- sion for five or less years. While at the other end of the spectrum, 16 of the CSAAs (16%) had been in the college student affairs profession for 24 (n: more years. However, the great majority of the sample (75%) reported that they had been in the college student affairs profession for between six and 23 years. A further breakdown indicates that those CSAAs in the middle categories of from six to 11, 12 to 17 and 18 to 23 years accounted for 21%, 28% and 26% respectively of the total. A mean of 15.78 years in the college student affairs profession was calculated for the CSAAs in the present study. Marital Status As reported in Table 1, the vast majority of the sample (80%) were married. In addition, the results of the data indicated that there were 12 single (12%), six divorced (6%) and one widowed (1%) CSAAs in the sample. For the pur- pose of analysis, these three categories were later combined to form one group. Consequently, 19 of the respondents (19%) were single (e.g., never married, divorced or widowed). One of the CSAAs (1%) failed to complete this questionnaire item. 118 Sex ,As represented in Table 1, there were 19 females (19%) and 81 males (81%) in the present study. 533 As illustrated in Table l, the vast majority of the CSAAs (72%) in this study were between 36 and 55 years of age. More specifically, those CSAAs in two of the middle categories of from 36 to 45 and 46 to 55 accounted for 40% and 32% respectively of the total. Hence, only a small number of CSAAs were less than 35 (13%) or 56 or more (15%) years of age. For the purpose of analysis, these five categories were later combined to form two groups. Conse- quently, 53 of the CSAAs (53%) were less than 35 to 45 years of age and 47 seven (47%) wene 46 to 66 or more years of age. Analysis of the Data Related to Personality Characteristics of Chief Student Affairs Administrators In this study, criteria manifestations of stress were measured at both the psychological and physical levels. Since anxiety is the primary psychological symptom of stress (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963: Cattell, 1973: Marshall and Cooper, 1979), the Anxiety Scale Questionnaire (ASQ) was utilized as the second major part of the questionnaire (see Appendix E). Hence, the ASQ served to assess the relevant psychological aspects of the subjects of this study. 119 Administration of this 40 item instrument required the respondent to select the appropriate responses to a multiple-choice type format. Their responses were compiled to determime a single total anxiety score based on all 40 items. Therefore, a breakdown of total anxiety into the five personality' components (e.g., apprehension, tension, low self-control, emotional instability and suspicion) was not calculated. The authors of the ASQ instrument consider a total raw score between 17 and 39 or a sten score of four, five, six or seven to indicate an average level of anxiety (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963). To clarify, a sten score is obtained by converting the raw score to a standard score with a lO-point range (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963). By utilizing a norm table based on 935 cases (530 men and 405 women) from the general adult population, the following four categories of anxiety levels have been developed: (1) raw scores between zero and 16 or a sten score of one, two or three (low level of anxiety), (2) raw scores between 17 and 39 or a sten score of four, five, six or seven (average level of anxiety), (3) raw scores between 40 and 45 or a sten of eight (above average level of anxiety) and (4) raw scores between 46 and 80 or a sten of nine or 10 (high level of anxiety). A raw score mean of 27.10 and a standard deviation of 11.40 were provided for the general adult population (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963, p. 18). 120 In this study, the range of the total anxiety scores were from two to 43 with a raw score mean of 17.38 and a standard deviation of 8.27 for the total sample of CSAAs. For the purpose of comparison, the total raw scores were grouped into the aforementioned four categories of anxiety levels. As indicated in Table 2, those CSAAs with raw scores from zero to l6, 17 to 39, 40 to 45 and 46 to 80 accounted for 48%, 48%, 4% and 0% respectively of the total. Thus, 96 of the CSAAs (96%) reported low or average levels of anxiety. In summary, the average raw score of the CSAAs (17.38) was low when compared with the average raw score of the general adult population (27.10). However, the raw score means of both groups were between 17 and 39 which indicates an average level of anxiety. Analysis of the Data Related to the Physical Health of Chief Student Affairs Administrators As stated earlier, criteria manifestations of stress were measured at both the psychological and physical levels. Since the Gurin Psychosomatic Symptom List (Gurin, Veroff and Feld, 1960) is widely used and accepted as a criterion of physical health, all of the CSAAs were asked to complete the 20 item instrument. This symptom checklist type of instrument was utilized for the third major part of the questionnaire. Thus, a slight adaptation of the Gurin Psychosomatic Symptom List served as the physical health 121 Teble 2. Anxiety Scale Questionnaire (ASQ) Raw and Sten Scores of the Chief Student Affairs Administrators Raw Score Cumulative Interval Sten Frequency Percentage Percentage 0—5 1 3 3.0 3.0 6-10 2 15 15.0 18.0 11-16 3 30 30.0 48.0 17-21 4 23 23.0 71.0 22-27 5 12 12.0 83.0 28-33 6 10 10.0 93.0 34-39 7 3 3.0 96.0 40-45 8 4 4.0 100.0 46-53 9 0 0.0 100.0 54-80 10 0 0.0 100.0 Chief Student Affairs General Adult Administrators (n=100) Population (n=935) Raw Score Mean = 17.38 Raw Score Mean = 27.10 Standard Deviation = 8.27 Standard Deviation = 11.40 122 measure for this study, relying on subjective symptom- oriented versus objective disease-based criteria measures (e.g., medical records, physical examinations, etc.). For the first 16 items on this scale, the respon- dents were asked to indicate the appropriate response, on a five-point Likert—type rating scale, the extent to which he or she had felt like the described symptom during the past six months. Response categories for items one through 16 were: never (coded I), seldom (coded 2), sometimes (coded 3), frequently (coded 4) and always (coded 5). The symptoms of ill-health included: sleeping difficulties, shortness of breath, nervousness, loss of appetite, excessive drinking or smoking, etc. Table 3 illustrates the frequencies, means and standard deviations for these 16 symptoms of physical ill-health. In addition, for items 17 through 20, the response categories were limited to either yes or no. The respondents were asked to indicate the appropriate response to four general questions related to their physical health. The responses to items one through 16 were compiled to determine a total physical health score for each CSAA. With the minimum (16) and maximum (80) scores possible, the range of responses for this study were from 17 (low physical strain) to 48 (high physical strain) with a mean of 28.44 and a standard deviation of 6.35 for the total sample. These scores compare with an index range of 16 to 60 with a mean of 28.20 for a p0pu1ation of 8,234 industrial employees (Indik, Seashore and Slesinger, 1964). For the purpose of 123 rumoum «0 Omn. m¢.~ o N m mm no nonsuuonm xuOS uo accoe< mcauommma Ham. oh.a N v m ov me :uHmomIAHH chCuOE Gnu cw m: mcfiuuom mam. mo.m A m mm am am auasoumuun som50um men. mm.n o e as ae om some: endanger 0am. mv.a o o r em or mo mmoq mew. mo.m o 0 ON he hm monomcmom men. mm.m o n he mm m nmocmco>uoz mowuaco Iwwwao cam. ke.~ o an em me on mcammmam cofiumw>ma coo: mxmzam xaucoswowm mosfiuoEOm sooaom uo>oc sOumexm pudendum xocoswoum muOuMuumficwecr mufimumr acoccum wowno on» mo Suamomlada Amowmxzm mo mEOumsxm uo mcofiumM>oo numeroum 6cm memo: .mofiococvoum .m manna 124 mcwow mangoes one. me.~ o H NH mm Nm msoHDOwe hafimmm own. vN.N o m on me ma conga . mwcmm Hoe. km.a o N e mm as mcaummzm coco: new. m~.~ o o m 03 em meannemua mum. om.a o o m on me mmumaunmaz emo. Nv.~ o o m VN no mmocfiuufio mcfixosw no msfixcmuo mmo.a mm.~ A m ON AN om o>flnmooxm msoanoum ovn. mm.a o N 0 mm em ammo: cowumfi>wo coo: mxmzam >Hucosqouw moSMonOm condom uo>oc SOumsxm oumocmum xocoswwwm Avoccfiucoov .m ounce 125 ON.wN u now: Acme >uxflm I Away comuxwm “mouoom m0 omcmm AVMN.mucv m00>OHmem HmwuumsocH m0 m50uo Hm @H Ho 0 O OOH om v Van . mN H CMQZ Amvv unmwol>uu0u I Away coouco>om “mmuoom mo omcmm AooHucv mucumuumficfiE©< mmemmur ucoosum wowno NeoHDOHQ guano: no Hm0wm>zm and: IOMuumm >cm o>mz 30> 00 chocxmoun mco>uoc m o>mn 0u mcfiom one: 50> umcu uaom uo>m 30> o>mm Nov Ou oxfia pasoz 50> mmcfinu 0:0 uco >uum0 0a smooco >nuam0£ doom 50> on .uumm umos ozu mom N>oon u30> no women acououuwo cw mucosawm 0cm mcwmm «0 mqum Ham >0 omuonuon mum 30> Hmow 50> 00 oz mo> cowumoco :.0c= no :mo>: mozmcm Ou Umxmm one: mucoocommou .meou« mcficflmeou one 09 Afioscfiucoov .m manna 126 analysis, the total physical health scores were grouped into five categories: less than 20 (low presence of physical ill-health), 21 to 27 (below average presence of physical ill-health), 28 to 34 (average presence of physical ill- health), 35 to 41 (above average presence of physical ill- health) and 42 or more (high presence of physical ill- health). Accordingly, those CSAAs with scores of less than 20 made up 9% of the sample and those with scores of 42 or more accounted for 4% of the total sample. Thus, the major- ity of the sample (87%) had total physical health scores of between 21 and 41. More specifically, those CSAAs in the middle categories with scores from 21 to 27, 28 to 34 and 35 to 41 accounted for 39%, 37% and 11% respectively of the total sample. In summary, based on their responses to the items on the symptom checklist, the majority of the CSAAs (76%) in this study reported that their overall physical health was, for the most part, average when compare with other occupa- tional groups subjected to the Gurin Psychosomatic Symptom List (Indik, Seashore and Slesinger, 1964; Marshall and Cooper, 1979: Cooper and Marshall, 1980). Analysis of the Data Related to the Organizational Characteristics Contributing to Job-Related Stress AmopgyChief’Student Affairs Administrators Finally, the fourth major part of the questionnaire was designed to measure the CSAAs' perceived level of job- related stress. The 40 items were divided into five major categories, each measuring a primary source of job-related 127 stress experienced by CSAAs. These five major categories included: factors instrinsic to the job, role in the organ- ization, career development, relationships at work and fac- tors associated with the organizational structure and cli- mate. The 40 item questionnaire was adapted and developed from items on both the 15 item index of Job-Related Strain (JRS) (Indik, Seashore and Slesinger, 1964) and the 35 item Administrative Stress Index (ASI) (Tung and Koch, 1980). Administration of this 40 item instrument required the respondent to indicate the appropriate response, on a five-point Likert-type rating scale, the degree to which the item serves as a source of stress. Response categories for the items were: never (coded l), seldom (coded 2), some- times (coded 3), frequently (coded 4) and always (coded 5). Table 4 provides the frequencies, means and standard devia- tions for these organizational characteristics contributing to job-related stress. In an effort to provide for a clearer understanding of the degree and frequency with which the five major categories serve as a source of job-related stress, a brief analysis of the results follows. Factors Instrinsic to the Job As indicated in Table 4, the responses to the items comprising the first major category of "Factors Intrinsic to the Job,” revealed that this area of the CSAAs' work was the most frequent source of stress. Of the CSAAs in this study, over one-half (51%) reported that frequent interruptions in their regular work day "frequently“ (38%) or “always" (13%) 128 mm. rm. No.w mm. bw.N N©.N ov.n mO.N M? be Mr mm en mm SN em on me ON 0v Or mm .>mpxuoz Hmauoc on» mafinsc smacfim >Hnwmmom poccmo H was» 0:0 .omonnos c >>mon cop m>mc H swap mcaammm .mocHHomoc oepmwamonc: >9 mpcoscmammm QOnms no mpoonone no access Hmfiucmpm Imam c weapoaqsoo pom oHnHm Icoomon an H van» mcHHoom .mmcavoos copmmaowpcmcs ccm cowpme Inomcfi mom memosoou ooeooa Isms: .muonsos mango soum mpwma> .mHHmo oconeoaop >9 copesnuopcfi >Hpcosdonw >mcxno: smasmou >5 wcfi>mm .mcfimcoaamno nomcoH 0: can ochsou ma xno: >5 pan» mafiaooh now one o» OHmCanmCH mpopomh c0fipmfi>ma pudendum coo: m>m3Hm >Hpcosdoum mosapoeom socaom h®>®c hocmmdomm oapmwuopomumzu muonsuuchHep< muammm< pcocspm mowcu mcoa< mmonum copmflomIQOh 0.... mcssnwupcoo mogmanopomumsu Hmcoavmuficmmuo mo mcofimfiroo obmccmpm. ccm memo: .mofiocosqonh 1.. 3an 129 mm. mm. mo.e Po.w om.N oo.N er.n or or NN SN 5N on on m or mv mm mm PM n Ar n momcoqmou mafimmfisv on em F .mmonpm mo oousom n no o>nom QOn uzo> on camcfinucfi mnouomm cmpwo so; opmoacc« ommoan .Hamno>o .mow>opm mod» Iwawnc ccm mHHme .omcoazocx >8 can» we no ouoa mpoomxo soapspapmca >2 page measmom .oewp Hmcomuom >s mo oncooxo on» as mason mcquoz Hmsuoc one mo scam Ipso mowpw>wpom >pwmno>wcs no omoHHoo ca opmdaofipnme on m>ag H sans massmoe A.ouo .mvcoocpm .mmooeoe ummpm .mosmmoaaoov socx H was» oHQooQ Hmscw>ao Ica mo mo>fia one uoommm page mcoamwooo ome o» mew>mm cofiuca>oo oumccmpm coo: m>c3~c >Hpcoscouu moaauosom socaom no>oc >ocoswouh OHPmthuhthwfiU Aconchcoov .V canoe 130 mm.r om. mm. «0. en. Nm. m©.N o>.r 55.? vm.r VN.N mr.N 0v be Ar u noncommou wchmwev ON Ne Ne em 5N em mm mm mm nv mm me or en me mm Mr em .oHQooQ >cm8 Ho mxmmv one mswamchHooo ccm mchH>Hodsm .mm>wpomnno HmcowpsaHpmcH HHmHo>o MCH>oHnoc 8H m>mHQ coHp Iwmon >8 oHOH on» pcmpmuoccs HHHse no: oe H use» mcHHmme .onm ooh >8 mo moHpH IHHnHmcommou pcm onoom 0:9 pom: noon :0 nomads: mcHom .08 o» cocmHmmm moHHHHHnHm Icommou poo >Humo ou >pHHospsm mepHH con m>mn H page mcHHowe .mcoHpmeooQ Ixo ccm mHmom >8 ccmpmuoocs ».coc cheeses madam mcwaooe .08 Ho>o >vHHozpsm o>mn on: moose mo mccmsoc mcH IpOHHmcoo on» >mmwpmm 0» oHnm on no: HHH: H page mcchHne cowpmuficmmuo on» :« oHom coHumH>on cumccmpm coo: m>m3~m >Hpcozcomm mosHposom EocHom h®>®c mocmmmoum owumHHouomHmzo Aposcapcoov .V canoe 131 cu. om. mm. mm. er.w hm.w Nw.e m©.w oe.m o>.N Mr be we or em we rm mm mm mm mm on N Ar n noncoamop mchmHev em mm or .non Ha mHecmr op emHHHHmse HHHsH no: an H page mcHHmme .mHOHHoQSm >8 >n 08 Ho oopoomxo mH :msoco p08 wCHHoom .mchcoHcho :80: >8 mchcHH HowcoH o: 88 can ooh >8 HOH poHHHHmsa Ino>o 8m H ems» mstocx ecosmoHo>oQ Hoonmu .mmonum Ho oousom o no o>uom COHpmn IHcmmHo Hso> 8H oHou uso> op copmHoH mnouomm covmo so: omeHccH ommoHe .HHmHo>o .moopsomou powcsn mchmooHHm cam mcaumaona .mcwnsoom cowpmH>on 335% com: m>msz >Hv803dobu mosHpoaom eooHom H®>®C >ocosmoum OHpmHHopomnmco Aposcavcoov .v oHan 132 mu. ON.F mm. mm. mm.r MN.N N>.r Nm.v mm.r he mm mm Mr me NN VN mm mm mm AP u momcoemou mchmHev m or me mm ab 00 .moouum Ho oopsom o no o>uom ecosaoHo>oc Hoonmo uso> 09 covoHoH muopooH copHo so: opmoHccH omooHQ .HHmHo>o .xuo: Ho oq>p pcoHoHHHo >HHo00p o o» omcmno op coo: Has H .eca empHaHH mum eHmHH own» cH ooHvHCSpHoeqo HocoH» I080HQ ousasm >8 won» mcHsocx .op cHsoo no pHsosm pH was: ..poc mH once 0» mmonmouo hoouoo >8 page mcHHoom .>Hnmo oquoH on comm Insooco on HHH: H pose wcHHooH .COHpoNHcownoou no moHpHuoHHQ HmcoHpspHumcH :H pHHgm a rezone» couscou >HucmoHHchHm monopm one no copmcHsHHo on cHsoo noH He notpHm page mcchHgH cOHpoH>oQ cuoccopm coo: m>o3Hm >Hpco3douw moeroeoo sooHom h®>®C >oco3woum OHpmHHopomHoco Aco38Hpcoov .v oHnoH 133 .o8 vooHHo pone mcomeooo 68o ocoHpoo o.nooH>nooso opoHo Fm. 0N.N o 5 mm me we Io88H >8 oocosHHcH ow MCH>HH .oHOHnomzo >8 see: mm. mm; o o 9 S. ...m 320828 2.88.. 8 maid. .ocoHoHooo oco ocoHvoo Ar u oomcoamom MCHmmHEV >8 Ho o>Hpnomoso #0: mH no. mm; o v or R we 82:83 He 3.2» eczema .muopsos HHopo m:08o\coo3pon no. Rd H m on mm NH 322038 8:88 3 males .oopochuonsm >8 cco HHoo>8 coozpon gosh» Ho xooH we. 05.? o N we me me o m« ouosv pone mcaHoom .o>HpoHonooo con» Hocpo cooo Spa: o>HpHpoosoo oHos opo mm. 0N.N o m 0N we NN oocmooHHoo >8 none MCHHoom :80: no mmHsocowaoHom cOHuoH>oa coo: o>o3Ho >HpcosdoHH moEHpoeoo sooHoo Ho>oc oapownopoonono onoccopm >oco=monm AposcfivcooV .v oHnoB 134 vm. #0.? mm. no. on. Nv.N mo.N mm.w Nr.N mN.w Ne ON up me vm on we we mm mm Ar u noncoooou mcHomHev ON No NN we mu .ooonHOH >Hacopmamcoo #0: ma ccossoo Ho cHoco Hmepoo map page mcHHmme .>»cHopHoocs Ho opopm oSOHHoo o cH ow coHpspHpocH >8 Ho orange an» aura mcHHmme .8o99 pcosoHQEH o» oopoono 8o H cococp co>o mcoHoHooc mcons >0HH0Q cH >oo mepHH m>mg H was» mcHHwom opoEHHo cco ohswozpvm HocofiponwcoMHo .ooonum Ho oonsoo o no o>nom 9H0: 9o omficocoHvoHoH Hco> op copoHoH oboeoom copmo so: opooHccH ooooHQ .HHoHo>o .oopochuo9sm >8 Ho oHos no oco >9 cocopoonca mH 80H es our» mcHHmmH coHpoH>oo choccovm coo: o>o3Ho >Hpcosqouu moeroeoo EOUHom QO>OC >ococnohm 0H9oHHopooHoco Acoscwvcoov .w oH9oe 135 «v.9 mo.r mm. on.N mm.N oo.N mN.N Nv or .oo>H90on9o cco mHoow comoHo>o0 HHo: cco c0HooH8 HooHo o o>o9 908 oooc mm en mm :oszpHpmcH He page mcH>mHHmm .ocowpo>occw soc no omcoco 09 unoco poc mooc on em ma coHpspHpmcH ma page mcHHmwm .oonnomxo HocoHoooH Iona >8 oNHHH9: >HH0H 09 o8 pHsnom 90c 08 cco o>H90H89ooH >HHmomoooocc: ouo coHasp vaocH >8 H0 ocoHuoHsmou cco mp mv mm ooHOHHoQ ocv 9oz» mcchwce .ocoHoHooc oHoo9 uo po98sc o How omop con 90:8 009 ooHHcoou c0H9 IceHuocH >8 Ho onspocnao Hoeuom o99 pone mcHHoom Aw n moocoqoon mcHooHev Hm Ne om cOHpoH>oQ enmecaom coo: o>o3Ho >H9cozvoHH nosHpoeoo sooHom co>oc 0H9oHHo90oHo9o >0cocmonm Acocchcoov .v oH9oB 136 an n ooocoqoou wcHooHev .:o> 80H moonao Ho oousoo o oo oo>noo :oHocs o oo x903: co9H0 309 em. mm.N r we mm on v opooHccH ooooHa .>HHocH> .ooonpo Ho ooncoo o mo o>uom c0HuspH9ocH Hso> H0 o9o8HHo cco occaocnpo HocoHvoNHcomuo Am u moocomoou mcHooHsv on» 09 copoHon onopooH covHo om. nn.N r n Sn Nv we 309 o9o0HccH ooooHQ .HHoHo>o coHuoH>om coo: o>o3Ho >H9cocvoHH oosHposoo sooHoo Ho>oc 0H9oHHopoonocu cuoocopm mocommoph Acoccwpcoov .v oH9oe 137 served as a source of stress. In addition, over one-third of the CSAAs (37%) indicated that making decisions affecting the lives of individuals (e.g., colleagues, staff members, students, etc.) "frequently“ (27%) or ”always" (10%) served as a source of stress. Further, over one—third of the CSAAs (37%) revealed that participating in college or university activities outside of the normal working hours “frequently" (27%) or “always" (10%) served as a source of stress. Finally, one-fifth of the CSAAs (20%) reported that having too heavy a work load ”frequently" (17%) or “always“ (3%) served as a source of stress. Specifically, these four areas within the first major category of job-related stress, were reported most frequently by the CSAAs as sources of stress. Finally, when asked to indicate overall how often factors instrinsic to the job serve as a source of stress, 23 of the CSAAs (23%) reported that this factor was “fre— quently" (22%) or "always" (1%) a contributor to their job—related stress. When compared with the other four major categories of job-related stress, this area of the CSAAs' work was reported as the most frequent source of stress. Role in the Organization As reported in Table 4, the responses to the items comprising the second major category of "Role in the Organi- zation," indicated that this area of the CSAAs' work was the second most frequent source of stress. Of the CSAAs in this study, over one-fourth (27%) reported that supervising and 138 coordinating the tasks of several people “frequently“ (17%) or “always“ (10%) served as a source of stress. In addi- tion, more than one-fourth of the CSAAs (26%) indicated that securing, preparing and allocating budget resources "fre- quently“ (17%) or ”always” (9%) served as a source of stress. Specifically, these two areas within the second major category of job-related stress, were reported most frequently by the CSAAs as sources of stress. Finally, when asked to indicate overall, how often factors related to his or her role in the organization serve as a source of stress, 14 of the CSAAs (14%) reported that this factor was “frequently” (13%) or ”always“ (1%) a con- tributor to their job-related stress. When compared with the other four major categories of job-related stress, this area of the CSAAs' work was reported as the second most fre- quent source of stress. Career Development As illustrated in Table 4, responses to the items comprising the third major category of "Career Development,“ indicated that this area of the CSAAs' work caused the least amount of stress. Of the CSAAs in this study, less than one-fifth (17%) reported that knowing that future promo- tional opportunities in the field of student affairs are limited "frequently” (13%) or "always” (4%) served as a source of stress. This area within the third major category of job-related stress, was reported most frequently by the CSAAs as a source of stress. 139 Finally, when asked to indicate overall how often factors related to his or her career development serve as a source of stress, only one of the CSAAs (1%) reported that this factor was ”frequently” (1%) or ”always" (0%) a contri- butor to their job-related stress. When compared with the other four major categories of job-related stress, this area of the CSAAs' work was reported as the least most frequent source of stress. Relationships at Work As indicated in Table 4, responses to the items comprising the fourth major category of ”Relationships at Work,” revealed that this area of the CSAAs' work caused a relatively low amount of stress. Of the CSAAs in this study, fewer than 10 (10%) reported that any of the areas within this fourth major category of job-related stress served as a frequent source of stress. Finally, when asked to indicate overall how often factors related to his or her relationships at work serve as a source of stress, only three of the CSAAs (3%) reported that this factor was ”frequently“ (3%) or “always" (0%) a contributor to their job-related stress. When compared with the other four major categories of job-related stress, this area of the CSAAs' work was reported as the fourth most fre- quent source of stress. Organizational Structure and Climate As reported in Table 4, the responses to the items comprising the fifth major category of "Organizational Structure and Climate," indicated that this area of the 140 CSAAs' work was the third most frequent source of stress. Of the CSAAs in this study, 16 (16%) reported that believing that their institution does not have a clear mission and well-developed goals and objectives “frequently" (12%) or ”always“ (4%) served as a source of stress. In addition, 15 CSAAs (15%) indicated that feeling that the formal chain of command is run: consistently followed ”frequently" (12%) or "always” (3%) served as a source of stress. Further, 15 CSAAs (15%) revealed that feeling that their institution does not readily adapt to change or new innovations “fre- quently" (10%) or ”always” (5%) served as a source of stress. Specifically, these three areas within the fifth major category of job-related stress were reported most frequently by the CSAAs as sources of stress. Finally, when asked to indicate overall, how often factors related to the organizational structure and climate of his or her institution served as a source of stress, four of the CSAAs (4%) reported that this factor was “frequently“ (3%) or “always" (1%) a contributor to their job-related stress. When compared with the other four major categories of job-related stress, this area of the CSAAs' work was reported as the third most frequent source of stress. To summarize, 10 of the 35 items on the CSAASQ designed to measure the CSAAs' perceived level of job- related stress in this investigation were reported more frequently than other items. These 10 items included: (I) frequent interruptions in their regular work day; (2) making 141 decisions that affect the lives of individuals (e.g., col- leagues, staff members, students, etc.); (3) participating in college or university activities outside of the normal working hours; (4) supervising and coordinating the tasks of several people; (5) securing, preparing and allocating budget resources: (6) having too heavy a work load: (7) knowing that future promotional opportunities in the field of student affairs are limited; (8) believing that their institution does not have a clear mission and well-developed goals and objectives; (9) feeling that the formal chain of command is not consistently followed: and (10) feeling that their institution does not readily adapt to change or new innovations. In addition, the final item within each of the five major categories of job-related stress, asked the CSAAs to indicate overall, how often those factors related to that area serve as a source of stress. When comparing these five major categories with each other, the following rank order was determined: (1) Factors Intrinsic to the Job; (2) Role in the Organization; (3) Organizational Structure and Cli- mate; (4) Relationships at Work; and (5) Career Development. Finally, when asked to indicate how often "work as a whole" serves as a source of stress, 15 of the CSAAs (15%) reported work to be "frequently” (l4%)'or “always" (1%) a contributor to their stress. 142 Results of Tests of the Hypotheses There were three general hypotheses formulated at the outset of this investigation. For the purpose of analy- sis, these hypotheses were later stated as eight research hypotheses. Each of these hypotheses is restated below. Hypothesis one was investigated with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the null hypothesis that there will be no identifiable individual characteris- tics which contribute to more individual stress at work than other characteristics for the CSAAs (Elifson, Runyon and Haber, 1982). The null hypothesis was to be rejected if the F—ratio for the one-way ANOVA exceeded the value for the appropriate degrees of freedom (Tuckman, 1972). The level of significance was set at the .05 level for rejection of the null hypothesis. Hypothesis two was also investigated with a one-way ANOVA to test the null hypothesis that there will be no identifiable organizational factors which contribute to more stress at work than other factors for the CSAAs (Elifson, Runyon and Haber, 1982). The null hypothesis was to.be_ rejected if the F-ratio for the one-way ANOVA exceeded the value for the appropriate degrees of freedom (Tuckman, 1972). The level of significance was set at the .05 level for rejection of the null hypothesis. Hypotheses three and four were investigated in order to evaluate the interaction effect of type and size of institution on the CSAAs' levels of individual stress and 143 the organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs, respectively. A two-way ANOVA was selected for analysis of these two hypotheses (Tuckman, 1972). Either null hypothesis was to be rejected if the F-ratio for the two-way ANOVA exceeded the value for the appropriate degrees of freedom (Tuckman, 1972). The level of significance was set at the .05 level for rejection of these two null hypoth- eses regarding interaction effects. Hypotheses five through eight were each investi- gated with a one—way ANOVA to test the null hypotheses that there will be no differences in the overall levels of organ- izational stress associated with the CSAAs' characteristics of age, educational preparation, number of years of adminis- trative experience and marital status, respectively (Elif- son, Runyon and Haber, 1982). Each of the null hypotheses was to be rejected if the F-ratio for the one-way ANOVA exceeded the value for the appropriate degrees of freedom (Tuckman, 1972). The level of significance was set at the .05 level for rejection of each of the null hypotheses. First General Hypothesis It was hypothesized that there would be certain individual and organizational factors which contribute to more stress at work than other factors for CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities. Hypothesis 1: The investigator predicted that there would be certain individual characteristics which contribute to more stress at work than other 144 characteristics for CSAAs. The null hypothesis stated that “there will be no identifiable individ- ual characteristics which contribute significantly to more individual stress at work than other char- acteristics for CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities." The results of a one-way ANOVA did confirm the main effect of number of years of administrative experi- ence on the individual level of physical stress. Therefore, the significant F-ratio of (Fa6.824*, p<.05) allowed the investigator to reject the null hypothesis (see Table 5). yHypothesis 2: The investigator predicted that there would be certain organizational factors which contribute to more stress at work than other fac- tors for CSAAs. The null hypothesis stated that ”there will be no identifiable organizational factors which contribute significantly to more stress at work than other factors for CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities.“ The results of a one-way ANOVA did confirm the main effect of highest degree earned on the organizational factor of "Role in the Organiza- tion.” A significant F-ratio of (F=4.00*, p<.05) was obtained. The results of a second one-way ANOVA confirmed the main effect of sex on the organizational factor of "Factors Intrinsic to the 145 ecNm.w moH.N OHuoHIm om.>N mh.oH Ahhncv +NH ANV aH.Hm em.mH Ammucv HHIH .Hv oocoHHomxm o>w9ouuome804 mo ouoow «0 conscz omH. VNH.H OHuouIm ok.m~ om.oH Ammucv more o>HumuuchHaomcoz Ame m~.om no.6H Aooucv mou<.o>HumuomH:Hao< AHV coHuouomoHn HocOHuooccm ¢No.H moo. owuoulm mv.>N mv.>H Aheucv .o.9n no .o.0m Amy ma.o~ AH.~H HHeucv o: so as any mo.0m oH.oH .HHu:. no so am .Hv cocuom ooumoo uoonmwm noouum omouum oHuoHuouoouono o.u09ouuoHcH80< Hoomo>9e Hoowmowozo>on .muHouud 9coccum «oH9U moouum HocUH>H©cH .omc Uco xom .ocuoum Houauo: .cOHmooHOHN muwouud 9coccum omoHHOU oSu cw manor «0 monecz .cowuHoom o>HuouuchH80< econoue cH ouno» HO Honecz .oocoHuomxm o>HuouuchH80< no ouoo> HO Honssz .cOHuouomoHn Hocowuooccm .Uocuom ooumoa unocmwm «0 ooHumHuouoouofio .muOuouuchH804 muHouu< 9coccum onSU o9u 0cm ooouum HoccH>H0cH cooZuom mwnocowuoHom ozu HON muHcoom oocowuo> mo on>Hoc< cco ocoo: .m oHnoB 146 ape. awe. oHumuim m~.o~ H¢.~H Homing omHuunz Ame om.m~ mo.kH AoHucv onch AHV mSuMum HOHMHQZ mmk.H H¢¢.H oHumuim m~.o~ mH.mH HoHucv +e~ Ame oo.om vo.HH Amman. mmioH Hay Ao.a~ m~.oH Amman: HHINH Ame om.0m oo.H~ HHmucv HHIo Ame Ho.m~ -.~H Am use mIH HHV coHoooonm osmowmd acousum omoHHOU cH ouoo> m0 Honscz Hov.H mob. oHuoHIm oo.m~ oo.¢H Am «a. +v~ Ame oo.m~ oo.oH Am use mmioH He: Hm.o~ om.¢H .oHucv HHINH Ame oH.0m mo.oH “Nance HHio Hm. om.o~ H¢.HH Amman: mIH AHV cOMuHoom o>HuoHuoHcH8c< 9coooun cH ouoo> HO Honscz moouum moouum oHuoHuouoouozu m.u09ouuoHcH80< HoonHra HmonOHocona muHmHoa ecoosum HoHro moouum 9o80H>HccH AcoscHucoov .m oHnoe 147 mo.vma HHm.m Hmo.m oHumHim aH.H~ oo.mH revise «Hoe to oouov Ame mm.a~ am.mH Amman. mvimm can» mmoH AHV omd HHH.m moo.H oHumHim om.h~ oo.oH .Houcv onz Ame vk.om om.aH Amanv onaom HHS xom omouum moouum oHuoHuouoouo9U n.809ouuoHcHscd HmonHra HaoweoHoronm muumuoa osmosum moans moouum HospH>HccH Acoccwucoov .m oHnoB 148 Job.” A significant F-ratio of (F=4.268*, p<.05) was obtained. Finally, the results of a third one-way ANOVA confirmed the main effect of age on the organizational factor of “Factors Intrinsic to the Job.” A significant F-ratio of (F=7.949*, p<.05) was obtained. Therefore, these three sig- nificant F-ratios allowed the investigator to reject the null hypothesis (see Table 6). Second General Hypothesis It was hypothesized that there would be no differ- ences in the key individual and organizational factors con- tributing to stress among CSAAs in similarly sized four-year public and private colleges and universities. Hypothesis 3: The investigator predicted that there would be no significant interaction effect of type and size of institution on the CSAAs' levels of individual stress. The null hypothesis stated that ”there will be no significant interaction effect of type and size of institution on the CSAAs' levels of individual stress." The results of a two-way ANOVA did not reveal a significant effect of either type or size of institution on the CSAAs' levels of individual stress and no inter- action effect was demonstrated (see Table 7). Con- sequently, the investigator failed to reject the null hypothesis. 149 moo. me. nwo.P mNN. mNm. 0H9onim Amnucv oou< o>Hv Nn.N oN.N mo.N om.N r>.N IonaoHcHecocoz ANV Aconcv oon< mm.N mo.N Nm.w Nv.N mw.N o>H9onvacH8c< Aev cowponomopm Hocouuoosum ovm. mm». «me. *oo.v vno.w oHponIm NN.N No.N em.w mN.N m©.N Ahvncv .n.9m no .a.um Anv end HEN oaé and mod >355 o: no <= :3 mv.N hN.N QP.N oo.m or.n Awwucv mm no 4m va cocuom oonmoa poocwH: o9o8HHu xuoz 9o ucosnoHo>oa c0H9oNHcomno 90h o9» capowuoaoonocu 0cm oucposhvm onucmcoavoHom noouoo on» c« oHom 09 oHocHuacH m.n0vonachHsc< Hocowpouacomuo mnoaoom ocHoHH< acousum Hoaco moouam oviwcavc9prcoo mmovoom HocoavooachHo H0 mowamanoaoonoco .om< cco wow .osvovm Hokuo: .coHoooHoum mnHoHH< acousvm omoHHoo o9» cH muoo» H0 uo9scz .coapamom o>w9on9chH8c< ecoooum cH muoo> H0 uo9ssz .ooco IHuonxm o>H9ouachH8c< Ho muoo» H0 uo9832 .coHaouoaon Hocoauooscm .cocuom ooumoo voocmaz 3.3383833 938.2 28:8 H35 23 8:. 303m 3 magsflficou muouoom Hocoquoanomno coosvom aficocowuoHom on» you mpHsmom oocoHuo> H0 oHo>Ho8< cco ocoo: .0 oH9mH 150 who. VOV.N 5mm. PNm. Nmm.r OHpoHIH eo.r no.9 mm.“ oo.~ Ho.m Am use +e~ Ame oo.m mm.H mo.r nn.m en.~ an "av nmima Ave Hm.~ mm.P mo.r oH.m HH.N Horace EHINH Ame Pv.m on.~ mo.~ on.m Hm.m Ammucv Prim Ame om.m NH.N eo.o om.m Hm.m Ammucv mi? Are coHaHoom o>H9o99oHcH8c< pcoooum cH mnoo> Ho Ho9852 NrN.N NON.M VON. Omm.w wuv.N 0Hpohlm mm.~ vo.~ om.r ov.~ ne.m Aeeucv +NH Ame em.m en.m eo.m mo.m eo.m Ammusv PHI? APO oocoHHomxm o>H9o89o IHcH8c< H0 mnoo> Ho Ho98sz ovoEHHO :80: 9o 9co8QoHo>oO coavoNHcomuO 90h o9» capoHuovooHoco cco ousvocupm moacocowpoHom Hoouou o99 cH oHom 09 0HocanucH n.90uoH9oHcHsc< HocouvoNHcowHO onopooe oHHoHH< acouspm Howcu moouvm 0a mchc9Hupcoo whoaooh HocOHvoNHcomuo AooccHucoov .O oH9oe 151 oeP. mom.m mom. nvP. *oom.e oHpoHIe om.m so.~ oo.~ ee.m ms.~ APoucO onz ANO mn.m vn.~ mo.P mm.m oP.n AmPuoO oHoaoe APO Now eon.n ooo. nmm.m ooP.P . woo. oHoooie em.~ PP.~ no.~ ov.m oo.m AooucO eoHnnoz ANO oo.m PP.N ee.P om.m ee.~ AmPuoO onon APO mspoom HooHooz mnP.P NPP.P mam. mmo. mno.m oHpoHIe PN.N oo.N em.P ae.m om.m AoPnoO +a~ AmO Pm.~ mo.m oo.P em.m mo.~ AmmucO nmIoP AvO mm.m eo.m vo.m m~.N em.m AmmucO NPINP AnO mo.m ov.m oP.~ mm.m mP.n APmuoO PPIo ANO NP.N oo.m mo.P oe.m mo.~ Am uoO mIP APO conooHOHm mHHoHH< 9copcpm omoHHoo cH ouoo> H0 Ho9832 oaoaqHO xno: 9o acosaoHo>oO coHpouHcomHO 90% on» owpofiuopoouoco cco oucposupm oanocoHpoHom Hoouoo o9» cH oHom 09 0HocHuvcH .m.no¢ohvoHcH8c< Hocowponwcomuo ouopooh mHHoHH< acocspm Howco moonpm 09 mchc9Hu9coo ouovoom HocoHpouHcoMHO Aconcavcoov .w oH9oH 152 mo.va* NOO.N O¢¢.w ovw. OON.P *mvm.b oqponim mr.N MO.N em.e OM.N nn.N Abvucv ouos no melee ANO n¢.N ON.N ¢O.N mm.N No.n AmmucO melon co9¢ mooH APO ou< ovoSHHO xnoz ao vcoeaoHo>oO cowvonacomuO 905 on» 0H9oHno90ouoco cco ohcvosham oQHcocOHuoHom uoouoo ocv cH oHom 09 owocauvcH o.hovouuoHcH80< HocOHuoNHcomuO mnouooh ouHoHH< 9cocspm Hofico moouum opimcwvs9umvcoo ohovoom HocowpouHcomnO Acoscqvcoov .O oH9oe 153 3.9 www.0v mHv. OmO.>H Ohm.H hVN.H ON0.0m mmn. OOO. mMN. HmO. m m2 h www.mo mON.mOH Nv0.0m mm¢.m m2 moouum HooHo>9n uo Ho>oa moouum Hoon0H090>mm Ho Ho>o9 ooouum HocOH>H0cH- NO HO mascuw cHSqu AcOHuoououcHO md AcoHosuHumcH H0 ouHoO m AcOHucuHumcH mo om>9O d coHuoHuo> H0 ooucom AoNHm 08o om>e mo ooHuoHuouoouonu HocoHu IsuHuocH .ouOuouuoHcHscr ouHouud ucoccum moHSU onu 0cm moouuw HocpA>H0cH coozuom mw9oc0HuoHomO oouze oHoo990m>m HON ouHsoom oocoHuo> uo owo>Hoc< Ho >Ho885m..> oHnoB 154 Hypothesis 4: The investigator predicted that there would be no significant interaction effect of type and size of institution on the organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs. The null hypothesis stated that “there will be no sig- nificant interaction effect of type and size of institution (”I the organizational factors contri- buting to stress among CSAAs." The results of a two—way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of size of institution on the organizational factor of "Factors Intrinsic to the Job“ (F=2.607*, p<.05) but no interaction effect was demonstrated (see Table 8). The results of a second two-way ANOVA' revealed a significant effect of size of institu- tion on the organizational factor of "Role in the Organization“ (F=2.988*, p<.05) but no interaction effect was demonstrated (see Table 8). Consequent- ly, the investigator failed to reject the null hypothesis. Third General Hypothesis It was hypothesized that there would be lower over— all levels of organizational stress associated with certain CSAAs' characteristics of age, educational preparation, number of years of administrative experience and marital status (see Table 9). 155 mO.vQ* 0mm. nun.r O00. OOO.P OON. ONv.w Ohm. m m: ovoEHHO cco oucvosmem Hocodvouacomuo Poe. see. man. Nmb. Nmn. mmv.w Orb. h m: xuoz 9o oQHcchHnoHom mum. OOM.N hnn.r new. Nee. v00. NOO. m m: vcosquo>oO uoouoo wow. ova. mom. *Omm.N OON. nnv. m m: mew. mew. mom. OON.? *NOO.N veh.e ONO.N mmb.r m m: cowuonwcomuo 906 o9» 0» on» cH oHom oaochvcH ouovooh ooouvm 09 mcH909Hupcou muopooh Hocoavouacomno Nm Ho manage caooH: AcoaooouoaoHO ma AcoHoooHomoH Ho ouHmO m AooHosoHomcH Ho ooHHO a coavoHno> H0 oousom Aouwm cco oc>a Ho ooavownopoo Isuzu HocoHvsaHpocH .muovoupoHcHec< muHouH< acousvm «oucu o9» cco onouum 0» mcH939Huvcou ouoaoom HocoapoNHcomno coosuom chocOHaoHomO 800m mHoo990o>= 80H ovHsoom oocoauos H0 mwm>Hoc¢ Ho >no883m .m oH9oa 156 mo.vc« ooo. oHuouim oo.~ AooucO ooHuuoz ANO oo.~ AoHuoO onch AHO usuoom HooHuoz mom.~ oHoouIm Ho.~ AAAuoO +~H AmO Ho.~ AmmucO HHIH AHO oocoHuomxm o>H9oHumMcmEo< H0 ouoow Ho Honscz moH. oHuouIm H>.N AmmucO ooud o>HuouuchH80ocoz ANO mo.N AooucO oouc o>HuouuoHcH8o< AHO coHuoHomomm HocoHuooccm «mo>.> oHuouIm m¢.N AheucO. ouos H0 moiov ANO ON.N AmmucO meimm con» mooH AHO omd omouum HocoHuoanomHO oHuoHuouoouonu o.u09oH9oHcH80< HHouo>O mHHouud 9co©cum HoH9U .oououm HouHuo: cco ooco IHuomxm o>HuouuoHcH80< m0 ouoo> mo Ho9scz .coHuoHoQoHn HocoHuooscm .omr mo moHu IoHuouoouozo .muououuoHcHscd ouHowwc ucoccum wowco o9» Oco onouum HocoHuouHcomuO HHoHo>O cooZuom QH9oc0HuoHom o9» 80w ouHcoom oocoHuo> uo nHo>Hoc< 08o ocoo: .m oH9o.H. 157 Hypothesis 5: The investigator predicted that there would be a lower overall level of organiza- tional stress associated with CSAAs over the age of 45. The null hypothesis stated that "there will be no significant differences in the overall level of organizational stress associated with CSAAs less than 45 years of age and those who are 46 years of age or older." The results of a one-way ANOVA did confirm the main effect of age on the overall level of organizational stress. Therefore, the significant F-ratio of (F=7.765*, p<.05) allowed the investigator to reject the null hypothesis (see Table 10). Hypothesis 6: The investigator predicted that there would be a lower overall level of organiza- tional stress associated with CSAAs who received a graduate degree in an administrative area of con- centration. The null hypothesis stated that "there will be no significant differences in the overall level of organizational stress associated with CSAAs who received a graduate degree in an adminis- trative area of concentration and those who received a graduate degree in a nonadministrative area of concentration.“ The results of a one-way ANOVA failed to confirm the main effect of educa- tional preparation on the overall level of organi- zational stress. Consequentlyu the investigator failed to reject the null hypothesis (see Table 11). 158 mO.AQe mmo. No HHo. Hm «mo>.> mv>.e H m m: we ooouum HocoHuoanomuo HHouo>o Houoe HoscHoom om< muoowum cHo: coHuoHHo> H0 ovusom .Aomr uo oHuoHuouooHono .ou09ouu IoHcAscc ouHowmc ucoccum onSU 93 cco ooouum HocoHuouHcomuo HHoHo>o coozuom QHSocoHuoHomO o>Hm nAoo990m>m HOH ouHcoom oocoHuo> mo oHo>Hoc< mo >Ho880m,_A:HoH9oe 159 mo.vc mew. Nmo. mOH. OOO. m m: ooouum HocoHuouHcommo HHoHo>O OO am no Hoooe HoccHoom coHuoHomoHn HocoHuooscm mooooom cHoz coHuoHHo> uo oousom AcoHuouomoun HocoHuoocom «0 oHuoHHouooHonu .ouououu IoHcHecc ouHouud 9cocsum uoHEU ocu oco omouum HocoHuooHcomuo HHouo>O coozuom QH9oc0HuoHomO me oAnocuom>m mom ouHcoom oocoHuo> Ho on>Hoc< «0 >Ho880m" .HH oHnfle 160 Hypothesis 7: The investigator predicted that there would be a lower overall level of organiza- tional stress associated with CSAAs who had over 11 years of administrative experience. The null hypothesis stated that “there will be no signifi- cant differences in the overall level of organiza- tional stress associated with CSAAs who have less than 11 years of administrative experience and those who have 12 or more years of administrative experience." The results of a one-way ANOVA failed to confirm the main effect of number of years of administrative experience cm) the overall level of organizational stress. Consequently, the investi- gator failed to reject the null hypothesis (see Table 12). Hypothesis 8:- The investigator predicted that there would be a lower overall level of organiza- tional stress associated with CSAAs who are single. The null hypothesis stated that "there will be no significant differences in the overall level of organizational stress associated with CSAAs who are single and those who are married.“ The results of a one-way ANOVA failed to confirm the main effect of marital status on the overall level of organiza— tional stress. Consequently, the investigator failed to reject the null hypothesis (see Table 13). 161 mo.vc Omo. mew. mmm.N hem.H m m2 onouum HocoHuouHcomuO HHoHo>O NO HO HO Hoooe HoccHoom oocowuomxm o>HuoHuchH80< m0 muoow mo Honscz moooooo :Hoz coHuoHuo> mo oousom AoocoHuomxm o>HuouuoHcH8c< no ammo» mo uo9ssz Ho oHuoHuouoouoLU .muOu IouuoHcA8c< ouflomu< acousum uoH9O o9» Uco ooouum HocoHuouHcomuO HHouo>O coozuom mHnocoHuoHomO co>om nHoo990m>m 80w ouHsoom oocowuo> mo oHo>Hoc¢ H0 >uo888m .NH oH9oH. 162 moJm mvo. Hmw. OOO. OOO. b m2 ooouum HocoHuowAcomHO HHouo>O HO OO HO Hoooe HoooHoom msooom HooHHoz mouoooo cHoz COwuflwHM> m0 OOHDOM Aocuoum HouHuo: «0 oHuoHuouoouo9O .oHOu IouuoHcHecr ouHoumd 9coosum uoH9U o99 0cm ooouum HocoHuooHcomHo HHouo>0 coozuom anocoHuoHomO 993m oHoo9u0Q>m HOH nuHcoom oocoHuo> no nHm>Hoc< «0 >Ho889m .mH oH9oe 163 In summary, eight null hypotheses were formulated and tested in this investigation. Five were retained while three hypotheses resulted in findings which were statisti- cally significant. Summary The CSAAs who participated in this study were asked to complete the CSAASQ which consisted of four major parts: (1) demographic informaticmn (2) personality' characteris- tics, (3) physical health measure and (4) organizational characteristics. An analysis (ME eight hypotheses derived from variables measured through this questionnaire resulted in some statistically significant findings. Of the eight null hypotheses in this investigation, three were rejected. Six of the hypotheses were tested using a one—way ANOVA and two were tested utilizing a two- way ANOVA. Each of the null hypotheses was rejected if the F-ratio for the ANOVA exceeded the value for the appropriate degrees of freedom (Tuckman, 1972). The level of signifi- cance was set at the .05 level for rejection of each of the null hypotheses. Chapter V contains a summary of the major findings and conclusions of the study, presentation of the implica- tions for the student affairs profession, speculation and recommendations for further research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The purpose of the investigator was to analyze the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among Chief Student Affairs Administrators (CSAAs) in selected four-year public and private colleges and univer- sities. To that end, the focus of the investigation was on those key individual and organizational stressors within the higher educational setting which emerged as prominent in the context of the performance of the CSAAs' duties and respon- sibilities. Secondary purposes of the investigator were: (1) to analyze the differences in the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in similarly sized four-year public and private colleges and universities, and (2) to examine the extent of the relation- ship between organizational stress and the CSAAs' character- istics of age, educational preparation, number of years of administrative experience and marital status among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and univer- sities. The population selected for examination was limited to CSAAs within the National Association of Student Person- nel Administrators (NASPA) four-year public and private 165 member institutions in the United States. From this popula- tion, a sample was selected for further study which included all CSAAs within the NASPA four-year public and private member institutions in Region IV-East. Of the 135 CSAAs sampled, responses were received from 112 or 83%. Four administrators indicated that they were CSAAs at two-year institutions, three CSAAs refused to respond and five CSAAs provided incomplete information on their questionnaires. Consequently, the total number of usable questionnaires was 100 or 74% of the total number of CSAAs sampled. The limited information on measures of stress in the higher education literature in general, and the student affairs area in particular, required the investigator to_ examine stress-related instruments used in other fields: namely, studies involving business and industrial executives and managers. After reviewing the instruments used in several related studies (Gurin, Veroff and Feld, 1960: Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963; Indik, Seashore and Slesinger, 1964; Cooper and Marshall, 1977, 1978: Kiev and K0hn, 1979; Marshall and C00per, 1979; Cooper and Marshall, 1980; Cooper and Melhusich, 1980; Tung and Koch, 1980; Corlett and Richardson, 1981), the investigator deve10ped the Chief Student Affairs Administrator Stress Questionnaire (CSAASQ) for use in the data collection process. 166 The instrument consisted of four major parts: (1) demographic information, (2) personality characteristics, (3) physical health measure and (4) organizational charac- teristics. Part one, Demographic Information, consisted of 10 items which served to gather pertinent demographic infor- mation concerning selected individual characteristics about the CSAAs and organizational characteristics about their respective institutions. The second part, Personality Characteristics, consisted of 40 items which comprised the Anxiety Scale Questionnaire (ASQ) (Krug, Scheier and Cat- tell, 1963). The ASQ was utilized to assess the relevant psychological aspects of the CSAAs. Part three, Physical Stress Measure, consisted of 20 items which comprised a slight adaptation of the Gurin Psychosomatic Symptom List (Gurin, Veroff and Feld, 1960). This symptom checklist relied (n1 subjective disease-based criteria measures. Finally, part four, Organizational Characteristics, con- sisted of 40 items designed to measure the CSAAs' perceived level of job-related stress in five major categories: factors instrinsic to the job, role in the organization, career development, relationships at work and factors associated with the organizational structure and climate. The 40 item questionnaire was adapted and deve10ped from items on both the 15 item index of Job-Related Strain (JRS) (Indik, Seashore and Slesinger, 1964) and the 35 item Admin- istrative Stress Index (ASI) (Tung and Koch, 1980). 167 Eight null hypotheses were formulated and tested in this investigation. Five were retained while three hypoth- eses resulted in findings which were statistically signifi- cant. The specific purposes of the investigator were to answer the following three major questions: (1) Are there certain individual and organizational factors which contri- bute to more stress at work than other factors for CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and univer- sities? (2) Are there differences in the key individual and organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs in similarly sized four-year public and private colleges and universities? (3) Is there a relationship between organiza— tional stress and the CSAAs' characteristics of age, educa— tional preparation, number of years of administrative exper- ience and marital status among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities? Each of these three questions is answered below through delineation of the results of the four-part ques- tionnaire and the tests of the hypotheses. Conclusions based on the major findings are presented, implications for the student affairs profession are identified, speculation and recommendations for further research are stated. Summary of Major Findings Demographic Information As a part of the investigation, the CSAAs who responded to the questionnaire were asked to provide infor- mation concerning selected individual characteristics about 168 themselves and organizational characteristics about their respective institutions. This information was grouped into the following 10 categories: (1) type of institution, (2) size of institution, (3) level of educational preparation, (4) area of concentration of graduate studies, (5) number of years of administrative experience, (6) number of years in present administrative position, (7) number of years in the college student affairs profession, (8) marital status, (9) sex and (10) age. A summary of the responses of the CSAAs who participated in this study follows. Sixty-two of the CSAAs (62%) in this study served in four-year privately supported colleges and universities. In addition, 54 of the CSAAs (54%) were from public and private institutions of less than 2,499 students. With respect to level of formal education, 47 of the CSAAs (47%) in this study held the doctorate, while 41 (41%) held the Master's degree. Only 11 (11%) of the respondents reported no degree beyond the bachelor's. In other studies concerned with CSAAs, similar findings of level of educational preparation have been reported (Grant and Foy, 1972; Brooks and Avila, 1974; Harway, 1977; Gross, 1978). However, in more recent studies involving CSAAs in large four-year public institutions, the percentage of CSAAs with doctoral degrees was higher. According to Paul and Hoover (1980), 83% of the CSAAs held doctorates, while Harder (1983) found 94% held doctorates. 169 Utilizing the two groups developed by Paul and Hoover (1980), the graduate school disciplines of the CSAAs were categorized into administrative and nonadministrative areas of preparation. Sixty of the CSAAs (60%) in this study had earned their highest degree in an administrative area of concentration, while 38 (38%) had earned their highest degree in a nonadministrative area of concentration. The percentage of CSAAs who were administratively trained was significantly higher in this investigation than was found in other studies involving CSAAs. More specifically, Brooks and Avila (1974) reported that 38% of the CSAAs in their study were trained in an administrative area, while Harway (1977) found 28% in this category; and Paul and Hoover (1980) found 42% of their CSAAs were administratively trained. Of the CSAAs in this study, 77 (77%) reported that they had 12 or more years of total administrative experi- ence, while 23 (23%) had less than 12 years of total admin- istrative experience. A mean of 17.30 years of total admin- istrative experience was calculated for the CSAAs in this study. Fifty—five of the CSAAs (55%) indicated that they had held their present administrative position for five years or less. A mean of 6.76 years in their present admin- istrative position was determined for the CSAAs in this study. In other studies concerned with length of service in the current administrative position, Brooks and Avila (1974) 170 found that CSAAs had held their present position for 4.25 mean years, while Paul and Hoover (1980) found a mean number of years of 8.70; and Harder (1983) reported that CSAAs in four-year institutions had served in their present adminis- trative position for 6.13 years. With respect to the number of years in the college student affairs profession, 75% of the CSAAs reported that they had been in the profession for between six and 23 years. A mean of 15.78 years in the college student affairs profession was calculated for the CSAAs in the present study. In other studies concerned with the number of years in the college student affairs profession, Brooks and Avila (1974) found that 46% had been in the profession for 10 years of more, with 33% in the profession less than five years: and Paul and Hoover (1980) found that 61% of the CSAAs had more than five years and 39% had less than five years of experience in the profession. In regard to the marital status of the CSAAs in this study, 80 were married (80%) and 19 were single (19%). Of the 80 married CSAAs, six were females and 74 were males. More specifically, these figures represented 32% of all the female CSAAs and 92% of all the male CSAAs in this study. In other studies not primarily concerned with CSAAs but with all levels of administrators within the profession, similar findings in the proportions of married men and women have been reported (Frantz, 1969,- Grant and Foy, 1972; Gross, 1978). 171 (Df the CSAAs in this study, there were 19 females (19%) and 81 males (81%). This proportion of women to men in the present study does not vary significantly from the 15% female and 85% male CSAAs reported by Brooks and Avila (1974); the 16% female and 84% male CSAAs reported by Harway (1977); and the 11% female and 89% male CSAAs reported by Paul and Hoover (1980). Seventy-two of the CSAAs (72%) in this study were between 36 and 55 years of age. More specifically, 40 CSAAs (40%) were from 36 to 45 and 32 CSAAs (32%) were 46 to 55 years of age. Only a small number of CSAAs were less than 35 (13%) or 55 or more (15%) years of age. The most fre- quently reported age category of from 36 to 45, contained the mean age of CSAAs in three other studies. From these studies, Reynolds (1961) reported that the mean age of his CSAAs was 41, while Grant and Foy (1972) found a mean age of 38 for their CSAAs; and Brooks and Avila (1974) reported a mean age of 42.1 for their CSAAs. In addition, Paul and Hoover (1980) reported a mean age of 46 for the CSAAs in their study. In summary, the CSAAs in this investigation appear to have characteristics similar to CSAAs in other studies (Frantz, 1969; Grant and Foy, 1972; Brooks and Avila, 1974; Harway, 1977: Gross, 1978; Paul and Hoover, 1980; Harder, 1983). These similarities were especially prevalent in the areas of level of educational preparation, number of years 172 in present administrative position, sex and age. A signifi- cant difference was, however, identified in the area of con- centration of highest graduate degree with this study's respondents. The percentage of CSAAs in this study who had earned their highest degree in an administrative area of concentration was 60%, while Brooks and Avila (1974) reported that 38% of the CSAAs in their study were trained in an administrative area; Harway (1977) found 28% in this category; and Paul and Hoover (1980) found 42% of their CSAAs were administratively trained. Personality Characteristics The second major part of the questionnaire con- sisted of 40 anxiety items which comprised the Anxiety Scale Questionnaire (ASQ) (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963). Since anxiety has been reported as the primary psychological symptom of stress (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963: Cattell, 1973: Marshall and Cooper, 1979), the ASQ was utilized to assess the relevant psychological aspects of the CSAAs in this study. A single total anxiety score based on all 40 items was compiled for each of the CSAAs. The authors of the A80 instrument consider a total raw score between 17 and 39 to indicate an average level of anxiety (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963). Of the CSAAs in this study, 96 (96%) had total raw scores between zero and 39. More specifically, 48 (48%) had raw scores from zero to 16 and 48 (48%) had raw scores from 17 to 39. Thus, 96 of the CSAAs (96%) reported low or average levels of anxiety. 173 In summary, the scores of the subjects in this investigation ranged from two to 43 with a raw score mean of 17.38 and a standard deviation of 8.27. This ‘average raw scone of the CSAAs was low when compared with the average raw score of 27.10 reported for the general adult population (Krug, Scheier and Cattell, 1963). However, the raw score means of both groups were between 17 and 39 which indicates an average level of anxiety. The extent of CSAA anxiety is, therefore, regarded as similar to the extent of anxiety among other populations. Physical Health Measure The third major part of the questionnaire consisted of 20 items which comprised a slight adaptation of the Gurin Psychosomatic Symptom List (Gurin, Veroff and Feld, 1960). This symptom checklist instrument was utilized as the physi- cal health measure for the CSAAs in this study. The responses to items one through 16 were compiled to determine a total physical health score for each CSAA. With a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 80 scores possible, the higher scores indicated a greater presence of physical ill-health (Gurin, Veroff and Feld, 1960). Of the CSAAs in this study, 76 (76%) had total physical health scores between 21 and 34. More specif- ically, 39 (39%) had total physical health scores from 21 to 27, and 37 (37%) had total physical health scores from 28 to 34. Therefore, 76 of the CSAAs (76%) reported that their overall physical health was average. 174 In summary, the scores of the subjects in this investigation ranged from 17 to 48 with a mean of 28.44 and a standard deviation of 6.35. These scores compare with an index range of 16 to 60 with a mean of 28.20 for a popula- tion of 8,234 industrial employees (Indik, Seashore and Slesinger, 1964). Therefore, the majority of the CSAAs in this study reported that their overall physical health was, for the most part, average when compared with other occupa- tional groups subjected to the Gurin Psychosomatic Symptom List (Indik, Seashore and Slesinger, 1964: Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Cooper and Marshall, 1980). Organizational Characteristics The final major part of the questionnaire consisted of 40 items adapted and developed from items on both the 15 item index of Job-Related Strain (JRS) (Indik, Seashore and Slesinger, 1964) and the 35 item Administrative Stress Index (ASI) (Tung and Koch, 1980). This part of the questionnaire was designed to measure the CSAAs perceived level of job- related stress in five major categories: factors intrinsic to the job, role in the organization, career development, relationships at work and factors associated with the organ- izational structure and climate. Each of these major cate- gories consisted of seven items. concerned with particular areas of the category as well as one item intended to assess the overall effect of the group of factors within the cate- gory. 175 Ten of the 35 items designed to measure the CSAAs' perceived level of job-related stress were reported more frequently than other items. These 10 items included: (1) frequent interruptions in their regular workday; (2) making decisions that affect the lives of individuals (e.g., col- leagues, staff members, students, etc.); (3) participating in college or university activities outside of the normal working hours; (4) supervising and coordinating the tasks of several people; (5) securing, preparing and allocating budget resources; (6) having too heavy a work load: (7) knowing that future promotional opportunities in the field of student affairs are limited,- (8) believing that their institution does not have a clear mission and well-developed goals and objectives; (9) feeling that the formal chain of command is not consistently followed; and (10) feeling that their institution does not readily adapt to change or new innovations. In addition, the final item within each of the five major categories of job-related stress asked the CSAAs to indicate overall, how often those factors relating to that area serve as a source of stress. When comparing these five major categories with each other, the following rank order was determined: (1) Factors Intrinsic to the Job; (2) Role in the Organization: (3) Organizational Structure and Climate; (4) Relationships at Work: and (5) Career Develop- ment. Finally, when asked to indicate how often “work as a 176 whole“ serves as a source of stress, 78 of the CSAAs (78%) reported work to be “seldom“ (39%) or "sometimes" (39%) a contributor to their stress. In summary, similar sources of organizational stress have been found among other more extensively researched p0pulations of workers (Kearns, 1973: Gowler and Legge, 1975: Cooper and Marshall, 1976; McGrath, 1976: Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Cooper and Payne, 1978; Kets de Vries, 1979; Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Yates, 1979; Cooper and Marshall, 1980; Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980; Moss, 1981). Therefore, the most frequently reported sources of organizational stress for the CSAAs in this study did not appear to vary significantly from those that have been reported across various other occupational settings. Results of Tests of the Hypotheses There were three general hypotheses formulated at the outset of this investigation. For the purpose of analy- sis, these hypotheses were later stated as eight research hypotheses. These null hypotheses and the results of their tests are presented below. Hypothesis 1: There will be no identifiable individual characteristics which contribute significantly to more individual stress at work than other characteristics for CSAAs in selected four:year public and private colleges and universities. The individual characteristic of number of years of administrative experience resulted in a statis- tically significant finding. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. 177 Hypothesis 2: There will be no identifiable organizational factors which contribute significantlLto more stress at work than other factors for CSAAs in selected four-yeargpub- lic and private colleges and universities. The organiza- tional factors of "Factors Instrinsic to the Job” and "Role in the Organization“ resulted in statistically significant findings. Accordingly, the null hypothesis was rejected. Hypothesis 3: There will be no significant interaction effect of type and size of institution on the CSAAs' levels of individual stress. No interaction effect of type and size of institution on the CSAAs' levels of individual stress was demonstrated. Consequently, the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis 4: There will be no significant interaction effect of type and size of institution on the organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs. No interaction effect of type and size of institution on the organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs was demonstrated. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis 5: There will be no significant differences in the overall level of organizational stress associated with CSAAs less than 45 years of age and those who are 46 years of age or older. The CSAAs' characteristic of age resulted in a statistically significant finding. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. Hypothesis 6: There will be no significant differences in the overall level of organizational stress associated with CSAAs who received a graduate degree in an administrative 178 area of concentration and those who received a graduate- degree in a nonadministrative area of concentration. No main effect of educational preparation on the overall level of organizational stress was confirmed. Consequently, the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis 7: There will be no significant differences in the overall level of organizational stress associated with CSAAs who have less than llgyears of administrative experi- ence and those who have 12 or moreyyears of administrative experience. 1m) main effect of number of years of adminis- trative experience on the overall level of organizational stress was confirmed. As a result, the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis 8: There will be no significant differences in the overall level of organizational stress associated with CSAAs who are single and those who are married. No main effect of marital status on the overall level of organiza- tional stress was confirmed. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. The following section contains the conclusions), drawn from these major findings. Conclusions 'Ihe major findings of this study supported various conclusions about the individual and organizational factors which contribute to stress among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities. However, these conclusions were considered tentative ‘because they 179 were based on reasoned judgments made by the investigator and, they should be substantiated through further research. This section of the chapter serves to present the conclu- sions of the study along with a statement of the major find- ings on which they were based: and, where possible, to relate the major findings of this study to previous research. Conclusion 1: The individual characteristic of number of years of administrative experience and the organizational factors of “Factors Intrinsic to the Job" and "Role in the Organization“ contribute to more stress at work than other factors for CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and universities. This conclusion is based on tests of hypotheses one and two which revealed that the individual characteristic of number of years of administrative experience and the organi- zational factors of "Factors Intrinsic to the Job“ and "Role in the Organization” resulted in statistically significant findings. It appears that these findings are consistent with much of the related stress literature in areas outside of higher education. With respect to number of years of administrative experience, previous research has demonstrated that famili- arity with the situation as a result of past experience is a major determinant in which situations are viewed as stress— ful by the individual (Farber and Spence, 1956; Pronko and Leith, 1956; Ulrich, 1957; Berkun, et a1., 1962; McGrath, 180 1970). In the area of organizational factors, other studies across a wide range of occupational settings have reported similar sources of organizational stress (Cooper and Mar- shall, 1976; McGrath, 1976: Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Cooper and Payne, 1978; Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Yates, 1979: Cooper and Marshall, 1980; Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980). Conclusion 2: Particular organizational factors which con- tribute to stress among CSAAs differ with size of insti- tution. Hypothesis four was concerned with the interaction effect of type and size of institution on the organizational factors contributing to stress among CSAAs. Although the null hypothesis was retained, the results of the two-way ANOVA did reveal that size of institution was statistically significant in its effect on the organizational factors of ”Factors Instrinsic to the Job“ and ”Role in the Organiza- tion.“ Therefore, this conclusion is supported by these findings. Conclusion 3: The CSAAs' overall level of organizational stress varies with age. This conclusion is based on the test of hypothesis five which revealed that the CSAAs' characteristic of age resulted in a statistically significant finding. It appears that this finding is consistent with related studies con- ducted outside of higher education. 181 Previous research has demonstrated that individuals who are older are more likely to experience lower levels of job-related pressures and strains (Stouffer, et a1., 1949: Gurin, Veroff and Feld, 1960: Langner, 1962: Indik, Seashore and Slesinger, 1964; McGrath, 1976). However, the relation- ship of stress to an individual's age may be a more complex matter for several reasons. A more recent study has demon- strated that although task-based stress or stress arising from the performance of an administrator's day-to-day activ- ities declines with age, no concurrent decline in role-based stress or conflict mediating stress was found (Tung and Koch, 1980). In addition, it was discovered that boundary spanning stress increases with age, a factor which probably reflects additional organizational responsibilities in later career stages (Tung and Koch, 1980). Furthermore, the probability of the presence of coronary heart disease risk factors and symptoms would be substantially higher in older individuals (C00per and Payne, 1978,- Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Brief, Schuler and VanSell, 1981). Therefore, the only conclusion of which the investigator is certain is that a relationship does exist between the CSAAs' characteristic of age and overall level of organizational stress. The following section contains the implications based on the major findings and conclusions of the investi- gation. 182 Implications The major findings and conclusions of the study were found to have possible implications for the student affairs profession. These implications are summarized for the following principal areas: £1) members of the profes- sion, (2) professional preparation programs and (3) profes- sional practice. Members of the Profession Characteristics of CSAAs have changed over the last several years in ways that may have an important impact upon persons interested in the profession, aspiring CSAAs and CSAAs themselves. These characteristics include: level and type of educational preparation, length of service in the present position, marital status, sex and age. An important implication of this study is that aspiring CSAAs as well as current CSAAs, to be competitive, may need to earn a doctorate. The findings of this and previous studies (Grant and Foy, 1972; Brooks and Avila, 1974; Harway, 1977; Gross, 1978; Paul and Hoover, 1980; Harder, 1983) indicate that the most common highest degree held by the CSAAs is the doctorate. In addition, it appears that it would be useful and valuable to complete the gradu- ate work in an administrative area of concentration. A clear implication of this study is that there may be increasingly fewer positions available within the next two decades for aspiring CSAAs as well as current CSAAs desiring to move to other institutions. The findings of 183 this and other studies of CSAAs have reported increases in the longevity ix: the present administrative position (Paul and Hoover, 1980; Rickard, 1982: Harder, 1983). Therefore, indications are that length of service in the present posi- tion of CSAAs is increasing. In addition, several studies have reported a mean age of between 36 and 46 for CSAAs (Reynolds, 1961; Grant and Foy, 1972; Brooks and Avila, 1974: Paul and Hoover, 1980; Harder, 1983). Consequently, because of the increase in length of service and the rela- tively young average age of CSAAs, aspiring CSAAs may have a more difficult time rising to the top position in student affairs due to fewer positions being vacated (Paul and Hoover, 1980). Student affairs work appears to be an occupation that, for the most part, enrolls married men and unmarried women (Gross, 1978). The findings of this and previous studies (Frantz, 1969; Grant and Foy, 1972,- Gross, 1978) have reported striking differences in the proportion of married men and women within the profession. Therefore, an implication of this study is that women who aspire to the CSAA position may find conditions within the profession that support the continuance of married men and unmarried women. The findings of this and previous studies (Brooks and Avila, 1974; Harway, 1977; Gross, 1978; Paul and Hoover, 1980) have revealed a preponderance of men in the CSAA posi- tion. When taking into account the ratio of men and women in the top position compared with the number of women in the / 184 profession as a whole, women seem to experience difficulty in becoming CSAAs (Paul and Hoover, 1980). Consequently, an implication of this study is that women who aspire to the CSAA position may need to follow different internal career paths and deve10p strategies different from those used by men. This matter needs the cooperative attention of student affairs professional organizations and the presidents and top-level administrative officers within higher educational institutions. As educators and employers, these individuals should actively support and encourage women to develop and apply new strategies to assist them to move upward into the central administrative structure of colleges and universi— ties. Professional Preparation Programs The student affairs profession is continually changing, growing and shifting its emphases to meet differ- ent needs and demands (Miller and Carpenter, 1980). Indi- viduals interested in the profession, aspiring CSAAs and CSAAs themselves will need to possess the knowledge, skills and abilities to respond to these new demands and situations in the future. The impact of change, then, on the organiza- tion and administration of student affairs programs and services may contribute to stressful work conditions for CSAAs. An important implication of this study is that those individuals responsible for the professional prepara- tion of student affairs administrators need to develop a 185 clear understanding of the individual and organizational factors which'contribute to stress among CSAAs in higher educational institutions. While advising and teaching students, this knowledge could assist them in providing a clearer picture of the potential sources of stress for those aspiring to the CSAA position. Professional Practice Stress has been widely investigated from many per- spectives. As a result, several common individual and organizational factors which contribute to top-level admini- strative stress have been identified across a number of occupational settings (McGrath, 1976; Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Cooper and Payne, 1978,- Marshall and Cooper, 1979; Yates, 1979: Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980). It is apparent from this investigation, that stress affects CSAAs in some of the same areas of their professional lives as it does top-level administrators, executives and managers from other professions. However, an important implication of this study is that certain areas within the major organizational category of “Factors Instrinsic to the Job" may cause more stress than others for CSAAs. The major findings of this study revealed that several characteristics of the job itself are frequent contributors to the CSAAs' level of stress. These characteristics include: (1) frequent interruptions in their regular work day; (2) making decisions affecting the lives of individuals (e.g., colleagues, staff members, 186 students, etc.); (3) participating in college or university activities outside of the normal working hours: and (4) having too heavy a work load. ~Stress management strategies related to the nature of the CSAAs' job itself should be aimed at quantitative overload, time pressures and dead- lines, decision making and specific job «characteristics. Possible strategies to deal with these areas include: implementation of time management skills, work analysis and redistribution, delegation, training and development, and job design (Brief, Schuler and VanSell, 1981). The overall effectiveness of an organization is dependent upon the mental and physical well-being of its chief administrative officers. Their individual effective- ness has a direct impact upon the organization's success in carrying out its mission, goals and objectives. Therefore, it is imperative to develop ways to minimize or reduce the individual and organizational costs and effects associated with excessive stress experienced by these chief adminis- trative officers. A clear implication of this study is that a thorough understanding of stress as it relates to the CSAA position could be useful in assisting CSAAs in the develop- ment of various strategies for minimizing and managing stress. This knowledge could, in turn, affect the way in which CSAAs approach and interpret their future roles within the profession. 187 The major findings, conclusions and implications discussed in this study suggest two areas which merit fur- ther investigation. These recommendations, following the section of speculation, are made in concluding this investi- gation. Speculation During the course of the study, several observa- tions and incidental findings resulted in the investigator speculating about various characteristics of CSAAs and stress in the workplace. It was considered appropriate by the investigator to report this conjectural material to individuals interested in the organization and administra- tion of student affairs programs and services for their consideration and possible investigation in future research studies. A major finding of this study was that the most common highest degree held by the CSAAs was the doctorate. In other studies involving CSAAs, similar findings of level of educational preparation have been reported (Grant and Foy, 1972; Brooks and Avila, 1974; Harway, 1977; Gross, 1978: Paul and Hoover, 1980; Harder, 1983). It is possible to speculate that the increased emphasis on the terminal degree as an employment criterion and a tighter labor market have resulted in the hiring of more individuals with some form of the doctorate for CSAA positions within all sizes of public and private institutions. 188 With respect to type of educational preparation, utilizing the two groups developed by Paul and Hoover (1980), the graduate school disciplines of the CSAAs were categorized into administrative and nonadministrative areas of concentration. The percentage of CSAAs who were adminis- tratively trained was significantly higher in this investi- gation than was found in other studies involving CSAAs (Brooks and Avila, 1974: Harway, 1977: Paul and Hoover, 1980). rt is possible to speculate that the emergence of additional professional preparation programs for ‘student affairs workers during the past few decades (Miller and- Carpenter, 1980) and increased efforts toward the profes- sionalization of student affairs work (Carpenter, Miller and Winston, 1980) have resulted in individuals with training in this area of administration being given more favorable con- sideration in the CSAA selection process. In regard to marital status, the findings of this and previous studies (Frantz, 1969; Grant and Foy, 1972: Gross, 1978) have reported vast differences in the propor- tion of married men and women within the student affairs profession. Recent studies of professional and managerial women have found that women continue to spend more time on child care responsibilities and home duties than their husbands (Brief, Schuler and VanSell, 1981: Davidson and Cooper, 1983). It is possible to speculate that due to the conflicting expectations of professional and family roles, 189 the overwhelming majority of women who marry avoid this conflict by not pursuing or continuing in professional careers (Broschart, 1979: Davidson and Cooper, 1983). Another finding of this study revealed that the great majority of CSAAs were men. In other studies involv- ing CSAAs, similar findings of the proportion of women to men have been reported (Brooks and Avila, 1974; Harway, 1977; Gross, 1978: Paul and Hoover, 1980). While it remains easy for women to gain employment at lower levels within the student affairs profession, it appears that they experience difficulty in becoming CSAAs. It is possible to speculate that the absence of women in CSAA positions is a result of discriminatory hiring practices, negative myths about females as top-level administrators, insufficient networking strategies for professional women and the lack of female role models. Several major studies involving CSAAs have revealed that there is a continuing pattern of change in the role and functions of individuals occupying the t0p-level positions (Reynolds, 1961; Rodgers, 1963; Ayers, Tripp and Russel, 1966; Upcraft, 1967: Dutton, Appleton and Birch, 1970; Brooks and Avila, 1974; Lilley, 1974). These changes in the role and functions of CSAAs over the past few decades have been determined largely by changing societal demands on institutions of higher education as well as increasing needs and interests of students. It is possible to speculate that along with these changes in the role and functions of CSAAs 190 there were concurrent variations in the major sources of job—related stress for CSAAs. Thus, future sources of stress for CSAAs may be determined by the impact of society and the changing climate within the American system of higher education. Stress in the workplace is a significant and timely problem. However, after several years of research in the field of stress, the nature of the stress phenomenon remains complex and difficult to comprehend. It is possible to speculate that two major obstacles to better understanding of stress include the lack of agreement by various researchers as to whether the process is established essen- tially in the nature of the stimulus, the way it is per- ceived, or the manner in which it is managed (Levine and Scotch, 1970) and the numerous methodological problems associated with stress research (Lazarus, 1966; Levine and Scotch, 1970; Cooper and Marshall, 1977; Marshall and Cooper, 1979). Recommendations for Further Research Student affairs research on stress is limited, at best, even though the importance and relevance of the topic has been articulated to the profession. Therefore, it is recommended that subsequent studies be completed in the area of identifying and analyzing the individual and organiza- tional factors which contribute to stress among student affairs administrators in general, and CSAAs in particular. Further research of these variables would be an essential move toward developing a more comprehensive and systematic 191 body of knowledge about those key individual and organiza- tional stressors within the higher educational setting which emerge as prominent in the context of the performance of the CSAAs' duties and responsibilities. Stress as a condition is a result of the inter- action of an individual with his or her environment over time (Marshall and Cooper, 1979). The research approach taken in this investigation involved the collection of data at one point in time rather than over a period of time. As a result, only tentative conclusions could be made about the chronological aspects of stress and CSAAs in selected four- year public and private colleges and universities. There- fore, it is recommended that a longitudinal study of CSAAs in higher educational institutions be undertaken in the future. A study of this nature could make a significant contribution to the understanding of the temporal aspects of stress. In addition, this information could be useful with respect to the recruitment, promotion, training and profes- sional development concerns related to Chief Student Affairs Administrators in higher educational institutions. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Albrecht, K.G. Stress and the Manager: Making it Work for You. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979. American Council on Education. The Student Personnel Point of View. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1949. Appley, M.H. and Trumbull, R. (Eds.) Psychological Stress: Issues in Research. New York, NY: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1967. Astmann, S.K. Faculty Perceptions of the Student Personnel Staff: Implications for Survival. Journal of National Association for Women Deans, Administrators and Counse- 'lors, Winter 1975, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 65570. Ayers, A.R., Tripp, P.A. and Russel, J.H. Student Services Administration in Higher Education. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1966. Bailey, S.K. Human Resource Development in a World of Decremental Budgets. Planning for Higher Education, June 1974, Vol. 3, No. 3: 176, pp. 1-5. Bakker, C.B. Psychological Factors in Angina Pectoris. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1967, Vol. 8, pp. 43-49. Bakker, C.B. and Levenson, R.M. Determinants of Angina Pectoris . Psychosomatic Medicine, November-December, 1967, Vol. XXIX, No. 6, pp. 621-633. Beech, H.R., Burns, L.E., and Sheffield, B.F. A Behavioural Approach to the Management of Stress: A Practical Guide to‘Techniques. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, ’Inc., 1982. Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T. and Taber, T.D. Relationship of Stress to Individually and Organizationally Valued States: Higher Order Needs as a Moderator. Journal of _Applied Psychology, February 1976, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 41-47. Bender, B.E. Job Satisfaction in Student Affairs. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Admin- 'istrators, Autumn 1980, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 2-9. Berkun, M.M., Bialek, H.M. Kern, R.P., and Yagi, K. Experi- mental Studies of Psychological Stress in Man. Ps cho- lggical Monographs, 1962, Vol. 76, No. 15, Who e o. ‘534, pp. 1-39. 192 193 Birch, E.E. "An Investigation of Selected Assumptions and Beliefs of Chief Student Personnel Administrators.“ Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University, 1969. Blau, P.M. The Organization of Academic Work. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1973. Brief, A.P., Schuler, R.S., and VanSell, M. Managing Job Stress. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1981. Brodzinski, F.R. ”The Changing Role of the Chief Student Personnel Administrator.” In Owens, H.F., Witten, C.H., and Bailey, W.R. (Eds.) College Student Personnel Administration: An Anthology. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1982, pp. 51-58. Brooks, G.D. and Avila, J.F. The Chief Student Personnel Administrator and His Staff: A Profile. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administra- tors, Spfing 1974, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 41-47. Broschart, K.R. The Avoidance Syndrome and Professional Careers for Women. Journal of National Association for Women Deans, Administrators and Counselors, Winter 1979, VOID 42' N00 2' ppe 34-36e Brozek, J., Keys, A. and Blackburn, H. Personality Differ- ences Between Potential Coronary and Non-coronary Pati- ents. Annals of New York Academy of Science, 1966, Vol. 134. PP. 1057;1064. Bruhn, J.G., Chandler, B. and Wolf, S. A Psychological Study of Survivors and Nonsurvivors of Myocardial Infarction. Psychosomatic Medicine, January-February, 1969, Vol. XXXI, No. 1. PP- 8419. Buck, V.E. Working Under Pressure. New York, NY: Crane, Russak and Co., Inc., 1972. Burns, G.P. (Ed.). Administrators in Higher Education: Their Functions and Coordination. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers, 1962. A Bursch, C.W., II. "The Vice-President or Dean of Students.“ In Burns, G.P. (Ed.) Administrators in Higher Educa- tion: Their Functions and‘COordination. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers, 1962. PP- 141-155} Caplan, G. and Killilea, M. Support Systems and Mutual Help. New York, NY: Grune and Stratton, 1976. Caplan, R.D. ”Person-Environment Fit: Past, Present, and Future.” In Cooper, C.L. (Edr) .Stress Research: Issues for the Eighties. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1983. PP. 35-78. 194 Caplan, R.D. and Jones, K.W. Effects of Work Load, Role Ambiguity, and Type A Personality on Anxiety, Depres- sion, and Heart Rate. Journal of Applied Psychology, December 1975, Vol. 60, No. 6, pp. 713-719. Carpenter, D.S., Miller, T.K. and Winston, R.B., Jr. Toward the Professionalization of Student Affairs. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnei Adminis- Cattell, R.B. Personality and Mood by Questionnaire. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1973. Cattell, R.B. Personality and Motivation Structure and Measurement. Yonkers-on—Hudson, NY: World Book Com- pany, 1957?? Cattell, R.B. The Scientific Analysis of Personality. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company, 1965. Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W. and Tatsuoka, M.M. Handbook for the 16 PF. Champaign, IL: IPAT, Institute for Person- ality and'Ability Testing, 1970. Cattell, R.B. and Warburton, F.W. Objective Personality and Motivation Tests. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1967. Cherniss, C. Professional Burnout in Human Service Organi- zations. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers, A Division of CBS, Inc., 1980. Cooper, C.L. Executive Families Under Stress: How Male and Female Managers Can Keep Their Pressures Out of Their Homes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981. Cooper, C.L. (Ed.) Stress Research: Issues for the Eighties. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Cooper, C.L. The Stress Check: Coping with the Stresses of Life and Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981. Cooper, C.L. and Davidson, M.J. The High Cost of Stress on Women Managers. Organizational Dynamics, Spring 1982, Vol. 10, pp. 44-53. Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J. Occupational Sources of Stress: A Review of the Literature Relating to Coronary Heart Disease and Mental 111 Health. Journal of Occu- pational Psychology, 1976, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 11-28. 195 Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J. ”Sources of Managerial and White Collar Stress.“ In Cooper, C.L. and Payne, R. (Eds.) Stress at Work. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1978, pp. 81-105. Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J. Understanding Exegptive Stress. New York, NY: PBI, A Petrocelli Book, 1977. Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J. (Eds.) White Collar and Professional Stress. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1980. Cooper, C.L. and Melhuish, A. Occupational Stress and Managers. Journal of Occupational Medicine, September 1980, V01. 22, No. 9, pp. 588-592. C00per, C.L. and Payne, R. Current Concerns in Occupa- tional Stress. New York, NY: John Wiley and’Sons, Inc., 1980. Cooper, C.L. and Payne, R. (Eds.) Stress at Work. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1978. Cooper, C.L. and Torrington, D.P. (Eds.) Aftgr Forty: The Time for Achievement? New York, NY: John Wfley and Sons, Inc., 1981. Corlett, E.N. and Richardson, J. (Eds.) Stress, Work Design, and Productivity. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1981. Corson, J.J. Governance of Colleges and Universities. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Crookston, B.B. The Nomenclature Dilemma: Titles of Prin- cipal Student Affairs Officers at NASPA Institutions. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Winter 1974, Vol. 11, No. 3. PP. 3-6. Cross, K.P. New Roles for Deans and Counselors. Journal of National Association for Women Deans, Administrators and Davidson, M.J. and Cooper, C.L. Stress and the Woman Mana- ge . New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1983. Davidson, M.J. and C00per, C.L. Type A Coronary-Prone Behavior in the Work Environment. Journal of Occupa- tional Medicine, June 1980, Vol. 22, No. 67 pp.*375- 383. Donaldson, J. and Gowler, D. “Prerogatives, Participation and Managerial Stress." In Gowler, D. and Legge, K. (Eds.) Managerial Stress. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1975, pp. 104-111: 196 Dutton, T.B., Appleton, J.R. and Birch, E.E. Assumptions and Beliefs of Selected Members of the Academic Commu- nity. A Special Report of the NASPA Division of Research and Program Development, Monograph No. 3, April 1970. Edelwich, J. and Brodsky, A. Burn—out: Stages of Disillu- sionment in the Helping Professions. New York, NY: ‘Hhman SciencesiPress,*I980. Elifson, K.W., Runyon, R.P., and Haber, A. Fundamentals of Social Statistics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub- ‘Iishing Company, 1982. Farber, I.E. and Spence, KPW. Effects of Anxiety, Stress, and Task Variables on Reaction Time. Journal of Person- ality, September 1956, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 1-18. Feder, D.D., Bishop, J.F., Dysinger, W.S., and Jones, L.W. The Administration of Student Personnel Programs in American CoIIeges anTUniversities. Washington, ETC-3 American Council on Education, Series VI-Student Person- nel Work-Number 19, Vol. XXI, February 1958. Fiedler, F.E., Potter, E.H., III., Zais, M.M. and Knowlton, W.A., Jr. Intelligence and Experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, December 1979, Vol. 64,‘N0. 6, pp. Foy, J.E. "Career Patterns of Student Personnel Administra- tors.“ Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University, 1969. Frantz, T.T. Backgrounds of Student Personnel Workers. Journal of College Student Personnel, May 1969, Vol. 10, NO. 30 pp. 193-1960 French, J.R.P. and Caplan, R.D. "Organizational Stress and Individual Strain.“ In Marrow, A.J. (Ed.) The Failure of Success. New York, NY: AMACOM, A Division of Amerie can Management Associations, 1972, pp. 30-66. Friedman, M. Pathogenesis of Coronary Artery Disease. New York, NY: ‘Mchaw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1969. Gay, L.R. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis _and Application. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1981. Gherman, E.M. Stress and the Bottom Line: A Guide to Personal Well—Being and Corporate Health. New York, NY: AMACOM, A DiVision of American Management Associations, 1981. 197 Giammatteo, M.C. and Giammatteo, D.M. Executive Well-Being: Stress and Administrators. Reston, VA: National Asso- ciation of’Secondary School Principals, 1980. Goldberg, P. Executive Health: How to Recognize Health Danger Signals and’Manage Stress Successfully: New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1978. Gowler, D. and Legge, K. (Eds.) Managerial Stress. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1975. Grant, W.H. and Foy, J.E. Career Patterns of Student Per- sonnel Administrators. Journal of the National Associa- tion of Student Personnel Administrators, October 1972, V01. 10; NO. 2: PP. 108-113. Greenwood, J.W., III, and Greenwood, J.W., Jr. Mana in Executive Stress: A Systems Approach. New YorE, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc, 1979. Gross, S.Jx Characteristics of Student Personnel W0rkers: A Review of the Research. Journal of College Student Personnel, May 1978, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 231-237. Gullahorn, J.R. Measuring Role Conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 1956, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 299-303. Gurin, G., Veroff, J. and Feld, S. Americans View Their Mental Health. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., Mono- graph Series/ No. 4, 1960. Hanson, E.E. ”A Study of the Structural Organization of Student Personnel Services in Certain State Colleges and Universities.“ Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University, 1952. Harder, M.B. Career Patterns of Chief Student Personnel Administrators. Journal of College Student Personnel, September 1983, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 443-448. Harrison, R.V. ”Person-Environment Fit and Job Stress." In Cooper, C.L. and Payne, R. (Eds.) Stress at Work. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,il978, pp. 175-205. Harter, C.C., Moden, 6.0. and Wilson, P.A. Women and Minor- ity Professional Staff in Student Personnel: A Census and Analysis. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Autumn 1982, Vol. 20, NO. 2' pp. 42-500 Harway, BL. Management Style and Philosophy of the Student Personnel Administrator-A Profile. Journal of Colle e Student Personnel, July 1977, V01. 18, No. 4, pp. 2 — ‘262. 198 Hershenson, D.B. 1k Functional Organization of College Student Personnel Services. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, July 1970, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 35-37. Hester, L.H. '“Differential Perceptions of Factors Important in the Selection of Student Personnel Administrators in Midwestern Universities.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University, 1971. Higher Education Directory 1983. Washington, D.C.: Higher Education Publications, Inc., 1983. Hodgkinson, H.L. How Deans of Students are Seen by Others and Why. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, July 1970, Vol. 8, No. 1. PP. 19-54 0 House, J.S. work Stress and Social Support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1981. Howard, J.H., Cunningham, D.A. and Rechnitzer, P.A. Work Patterns Associated with Type A Behavior: A Managerial Population. Human Relatiops, 1977, V01. 30, No. 9, pp. 825-836. Indik, D., Seashore, S.E. and Slesinger, J. Demographic Correlates of Psychological Strain. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 26-38. Ivancevich, J.M. and Matteson, M.T. Optimizing Human Resources: A Case for Preventative Health and Stress Management. Organizational Dynamics, .Autumn 1980(b), Vol. 9. PP. 5:25. Ivancevich, J.M. and Matteson, M.T. Stress and Work: A Managerial Perspective. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1980. Jenkins, C.D. Psychologic and Social Precursors of Coronary Disease. The New England Journal of Medicine, February 4, 1971, Vol.'284, No. 5, pp. 244-255. Johnson, W.F. “Student Personnel Work in Higher Education: Phi1030phy and Framework.“ In Fitzgerald, L.E., John- son, W.F. and Norris, W. (Eds.) College Student Person- nel: Readings and BibliograpHies. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970, pp. 6-11. Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., and Snoek, J.D. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and ’Ambiguity3. New York, NY: John Wiley and’Sons, Inc., 1964. 199 Kearns, J.L. Stress in Industry. London, England: Priory Press Limited, 1973. Kets de Vries, M.F.R. Organizational Stress: A Call for Management Action. Sloan Management Review, Fall 1979, V01. 21' N00 1’ pp. 3-140 Kiev A. and K0hn, V. Executive Stress. New York, NY: AMACOM, A Division of American Management Associations, 1979. Klopf, G.J. (Ed.) College Student Personnel Work in the Years Ahead. Washington, D.C.: The American College Personnel Association, A Division of the American Per- sonnel and Guidance Association, Student Personnel Series No. 7, 1966. Krug, S.E., Scheier, I.H. and Cattell, R.B. Handbook for the IPAT Anxiety Scale. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc., 1963. Kugelmass, S. and Lieblich, I. Effects of Realistic Stress and Procedural Interference in Experimental Lie Detec- tion. Journal of Applied ngchology, June 1966, Vol. 50, No.'3} PP.’2ll-216. Langner, T.S. A Twenty-Two Item Screening Score of Psychi- atric Symptoms Indicating Impairment. Journal of Health and Human Behavior, Winter 1962, Vol. III, No. 4, pp. 269-276. Lazarus, R.S. Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1966. Lebovits, B.Z., Shekelle, R.B., Ostfeld, A.M. and Paul, O. Prospective and Retrospective Psychological Studies of Coronary Heart Disease. Psychosomatic Medicine, May- June 1976, Vol. XXIX, No. 3, pp. 265-272. Leonard, E.A. Origins of Personnel Services in American Higher Education. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1956. Levine, S. and Scotch, N.A. Social Stress. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company, 1970. Lilley, G.W., Jr. Functions of Chief Student Personnel Officers in Selected Colleges. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Winter 1974; VOle 11' N00 3' pp. 7-100 Lloyd-Jones, E. Personnel Administration. Journal of Higher Education, March 1934, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 141-147. Lloyd-Jones, E. and Smith M.R. (Eds.) Student Personnel Work as Deeper Teaching. New York, NY: Harper and 'Brothers, 1954. 200 Marrow, A.J. (Ed.) The Failure of Success. New Y0rk, NY: AMACOM, A Division of American Management Associations, 1972. Marshall, J. and Cooper, C.L. Executives Under Pressure. iNew Y0rk, NY; Praeger Publishers, A DiVision of Holt, Rinehart and Winston, CBS, Inc., 1979. McGrath, J.E. (Ed.) Social and Psychological Factors in Stress. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970. McGrath, J.E. “Stress and Behavior in Organizations.“ In Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organi- zational Psychology: ChiCago, IL: Rand McNally, 1976, pp. 1351-1395. McLean, ALA. J0b Stress and the Psychosocial Pressures of Change. Personnel, January-February 1976, Vol. 53, No. 1: PP- 40-49. ‘ McLean, A.A. Work Stress. Reading, MA:W Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979. Miller, D.C. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement. New York, NY: Longman Inc., 1983. Miller, T.K. and Carpenter, D.S. ”Professional Preparation for Today and Tomorrow.“ In Creamer, D.G. (Ed.) Stu- dent Development in Higher Education: Theories, Prac- ‘tices, and Future Directions. Cincinnati, OH: American College Personnel Association, ACPA Media Publication Number 27, 1980, pp. 181-204. Miller, T.K. and Prince, J. The Future of Student Affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1976. Millett, J.D. The Academic Community: An Essay on Organi- zation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. Mitchell, A.A. The Effects of Stress on Individuals and Society. Menlo Park, CA: The Stanford Research Insti- Mordkoff, A.M. and Rand, M.A. Personality and Adaptation to Coronary Artery Disease. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, Vol. 32? No. 6, pp. 648-653. Moss, L. Management Stress. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1981. 201 Nelson, J. and Murphy, H. The Projected Effects of Enroll- ment and Budget Reductions on Student Personnel Ser- vices. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Spring 1980, Vol. 17} No. 4, pp. 2-10. Nie, N.H., Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K. and Bent, D.H. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,‘l975. Nygreen, G.T. Professional Status for Student Personnel Administrators? Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Admihistrators, January 1968, Vol. 5, No. 3. PP. 283-291. O'Banion, T. Purposes of College and University Student Personnel Work. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, January 1971, VoIL 8, N00 3' ppe 206-212e Ostfeld, A.M., Lebovits, 8.2. and Shekelle, R.B. A Prospec- tive Study of the Relationship Between Personality and Coronary Heart Disease. Journal of Chronic Diseases, Owens, H.F., Witten, C.H. and Bailey, W.R. (Eds.) Colle e Student Personnel Administration: An AntHoIogy. Springfield, IL: Chaers C. Thomas Puinsher, I982. Pahl, J.M. and Pahl, R.E. Managers and Their Wives. Lon- don, England: Allen Lane, 1971. Paul, W.L. and Hoover, R.E. Chief Student Personnel Admin- istrators: A Decade of Change. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Summer 1980, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 33-39. Penney, J.F. Perspective and Challenge infigollege Personnel Work. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1972. Pines, A.M., Aronson, E. and Kafry, D. Burnout: From _Iedium to Personal Growth. New York, NY: *The.Free Press, A Division of MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1981. Pronko, N.H. and Leith, W.R. Behavior Under Stress: A Study of Its Disintegration. Psychological Reports, 1956, 2, (Monograph Supplement 5), pp. 205-222. Quick, J.C. and Quick, J.D. Reducing Stress Through Preven- tive Management. Human Resource Management, Fall 1979, VOle 18’ N00 3' ppe 15-220 202 Rap0port, R. and Rapoport, R. Dual-Career Families Re- examined. London, England: Mariin Robertson, 1976. Reynolds, W.M. ”The Role of the Chief Student Personnel Officer in the Small Liberal Arts College." Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University, 1961. Rhatigan, J.J. Professional Preparation of Student Person- nel Administrators as Perceived by Practitioners and Faculty. Journal of College Student Personnel, January 1968, Vol. 9, No. 1. PP. 17-23. Rickard, S.T. The Role of the Chief Student Personnel Administrator Revisited. Journal of the National Asso- ciation of Student Personnel Administrators, January 1972, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 219-226. Rickard, S.T. Turnover at the Top: A Study of the Chief Student Affairs Officer. Journal of the National Asso- ciation of Student Personnel Administrators, Autumn 1982, Vol. 20, No. 2. PP. 36-41. Rodgers, A.W. “An Investigation of the Critical Aspects of the Function of the Student Personnel Dean as Seen by His Professional Peers Using the Critical Incident Technique.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State Univer- sity, 1963. Rosenman, R.H., Friedman, M. and Strauss, R. A Predictive Study of CHD. Journal of the American Medical Associa- tion, July 6, 1964, Vol. 189, No. 1, pp. 15-22. Rosenman, R.H., Friedman, M. and Strauss, R. CHD in the Western Collaborative Group Study. Journal of the American. Medical Association, January' 10, 1966, VoI. 195' N007, pp. 86-920 Rourke, F.E. and Brooks, S.E. The Managerial Revolution in Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins Press, 1966. Rudolph, F. The American College and University. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962. Sales, S.M. cuganizational Role as a Risk Factor in Coro- nary Diseaee. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, V01. 14' N00 3' pp. 325-3360 Sarason, 1.6. and Johnson, J.H. Life Stress, Organizational Stress, and Job Satisfaction. Psychological Reports, February 1979, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 75-79. Schuler, R.S. Stress Management for College Administrators. Educational Record, Summer 1981, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 14-180 203 Sells, S.B. ”On the Nature of Stress.” In McGrath, J.E. (Ed.) Social and Psychological Factors in Stress. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970, pp. 134-139. Selye, H. Stress in Health and Disease. Boston, MA: Butterworth Publishers Inc., 1976. Selye, H. Stress Without Distress. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1974. Shaffer, M. Life After Stress. New York, NY: Plenum Press, A Division of’Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1982. Shaffer, R.H. ”Issues and Problems in the Organization, Administration and Development of College Student Per- sonnel Programs in the Years Ahead.” In Klopf, G.J. (Ed.) Collage Student Personnel Work in the Years Ahead. Washington, D.C.: The AmericanCollege Person- nel Association, A Division of the American Personnel and Guidance Association, Student Personnel Series No. 7, 1966. PP. 1-9. Sherburne, P.R. Rates and Patterns of Professional Mobility in Student Personnel Work. Journal of the National Association of Student Personngl Administrators, Octo- ber 1970, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. ll9-I23. Stouffer, S.A., Lumsdaine, A.A., Lumsdaine, M.H., Williams, R.M., Jr., Smith, M.B., Janis, I.L., Starr, S.A. and Cottrell, L.S., Jr. The American Soldier: Combat and Its Aftermath. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University ‘Press, 1949. Student, K.R. Changing Values and Management Stress. Personnel, January-February 1977, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 4g-550 Svoren, D.S. ”Significant Areas of Behavior Resulting From the Interaction of Chief Student Personnel Officers and Chief Executive Officers on Three Tasks in Michigan Colleges and Universities." Ph.D. Dissertation. Michi-. gan State University, 1977. ‘ Tanner, O. and the Editors of Time-Life Books. Stress. New York, NY: Time-Life Books, 1976. Terenzini, P.T. The Goals of Student Personnel Work: Views From the Top. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, October 1973, Vol. 11, NO. 2' pp. 31-350 204 Tuckman, B.W. Conducting Educational Research. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1972. Tung, R.L. and Koch, J.L. ”School Administrators: Sources of Stress and Ways of Coping with It." In Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J. (Eds.) White Collar and Professional Stress. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 19807i pp. 63-87. Ulrich, C. Measurement of Stress Evidenced by College Women in Situations Involving Competition. Research Quarter- _ly, American Association of Health and PhysicalEduca- tion, 1957, Vol. 28, pp. 160-172. Upcraft, M.L. ”Role Expectations for Chief Personnel Admin- istrators in Large Universities." Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University, 1967. Vander Ven, M.D.F. "An Exploratory Study of the Presence, Degree and Nature of Burnout in Community College Fac- ulty.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University, 1982. Waldron, I., Zyzanski, S.J., Shekelle, R.B., et al. The Coronary-Prone Behavior Pattern in Employed Men and ‘Women. Journal of Human Stress, 1977, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 2-18. Williamson, E.G. Student Personnel Services in Collages and Universities. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, ‘Inc., 1961. Williamson, E.G. (Ed.) Trends in Student Personnel Work. Minneapolis, MN: Unversity of Minnesota Press, 1949. Wolf, S. and Goodell, H. (Eds.) Stress and Disease. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1968. Wrenn, C.G. Student Personnel Work in Collegg. New York, NY: The Ronald Press Company, 1951. Yates, J.E. Managing Stress. New York, NY: AMACOM, A Division of American Management Associations, 1979. APPENDICES APPENDIX A 205 APPENDIX A 9520 South Francis Road DeWitt, Michigan 48820 August 8, 1983 Dr. James H. Banning Vice President for Student Affairs Colorado State University 108 Administration Building Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Dear Dr. Banning: The intent of this letter is to request information relative to obtaining an address list and/0r address labels for a group of NASPA members for research purposes. Your assistance in this regard is most appreciated. Currently, I am a doctoral student in the College and University Admini- stration program at Michigan State University. The proposed title of my dis- sertation is "An Analysis of Key Individual and Organizational Factors Con- tributing to Stress Among Chief Student Affairs Administrators in Selected Four-Year Public and Private Colleges and Universities.’ The subjects to be surveyed will be all Chief Student Affairs Administrators within the NASPA four-year public and private member institutions in the eight states com- prising Region IV-East. If you have any questions or request additional information, please con- tact me at (517) 669-5442 or my doctoral committee chairperson and dissertation director, Dr. Louis C. Stamatakos at (517) 353-5220. Sincerely, SHIRLEY . ERICKSON SM£:se cc: Dr. Stamatakos APPENDIX B 206 APPENDIX B (EU Colorado Stale University 0"»! a! the we Pressesot for Student Aflaus ggftzglolhns Colorado 3 n I 30.} ~.-"53‘-: September 9. 1983 Shirley M. Erickson 9520 South Francis Road Dewitt, Michigan 48820 Dear Ms. Erickson: Let me apologize for the tardiness regarding your request for help from NASPA. Your project has been approved for support and you should receive the labels in about 10 days. Give my regards to Dr. Stamatkos. S ncerely Banni e President APPENDIX C 207 APPENDIX C CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATOR STRESS QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose of this questionnaire is to measure the extent to which Chief Student Affairs Administrators (CSAAs) perceive certain individual and organizational fac- tors as contributing to stress. For the purpose of this research, the subjects to be surveyed will be all CSAAs within the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) four-year public and private member institutions in the eight states comprising Region IV-East. Since stress is widely known as the outcome of the interaction of individuals and their environments, it is important to study stress from an interactive perspective. For this reason, the questionnaire consists of four major parts: (I) demographic information, (2) personality characteristics, (3) physical health measures and, (4) job (organizational) characteristics. In summary, it is expected that this instru- ment will provide for a comprehensive assessment of the major components of stress specific to CSAAs. Please be assured that_your responses will remain anonymous and confidential. Part 1: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Please circle the appropriate category and fill in a response when necessary. 1. Type of institution: a) public b) private 2. Size of institution: a) less than 2499 b) 2500-4999 c) 5000-9999 d) 10,000-19,999 e) 20,000 or more 3. Highest degree earned: a) BA or BS b) MA or MS c) Ed.D. or Ph.D. 4. Area of concentration of highest graduate degree: a) administrative area (e.g. Business Administration, Public Administration, Educational Administration, Student Personnel Administration or Higher Education Administration) b) nonadministrative area (e.g. Guidance and Counseling, general and other areas of Education, Social Sciences, Physical Science and the Humanities) 5. Total number of years of administrative experience: 6. Number of years in present administrative position: 7. Number of years in the college student affairs profession: 8. Marital status: a) single b) married c) divorced d) widowed 2(38 9. Sex: a) female b) male 10. Age group: a) less than 35 b) 36-45 c) 46-55 d) 56-65 e) 66 or more Part 2: PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS Please complete the separate "Self Analysis Form" included with this questionnaire. ......OOOOOOO.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.........OOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO0......0.00.00.00.00... Part 3: PHYSICAL STRESS MEASURE Listed below are a number of different troubles and complaints which individuals often have. For each item, please circle the appropriate response to indicate how often you have felt like this during the past six months. For the purpose of this questionnaire, the following scale is provided: l-never Z-seldom 3-sometimes 4-frequently S-always 1. Do you ever have trouble getting to sleep or staying 1 2 3 4 D asleep? 2. Have you ever been bothered by nervousness, feeling 1 2 3 4 5 fidgety or tense? 3. Are you ever troubled by headaches or pains in the l 2 3 4 5 head? 4. Do you have loss of appetite? l 2 3 4 5 5. How often are you bothered by having an upset stomach? I 2 3 4 5 6. Do you find it difficult to get up in the morning? 1 2 3 4 5 7. Does ill-health affect the amount of work you do? 1 2 3 4 5 8. Have you ever been bothered by shortness of breath I 2 3 4 5 when you were not exercising or working hard? 9. Have you ever been bothered by your heart beating hard? 1 2 3 4 5 10. Do you ever drink or smoke more than you should? 11. Have you ever had spells of dizziness? 12. Are you ever bothered by nightmares? -2- 209 13. Do your hands ever tremble enough to bother you? 1 2 3 4 5 14. Are you troubled by your hands sweating so that l 2 3 4 5 you feel damp and clammy? 15. Are there times when you become tired easily? 1 2 3 4 S 16. Have there ever been times when you couldn't 1 2 3 a 5 take care of things because you just couldn't get going? (For the last four items, please respond by circling either "yes" or "no") 17. Do you feel you are bothered by all sorts of yes no pains and ailments in different parts of your body? 18. For the most part, do you feel healthy enough to yes no carry out the things you would like to do? 19. Have you ever felt that you were going to yes no have a nervous breakdown? 20. Do you have any particular physical or health yes no problem? (This part of the questionnaire is a slight adaptation of the Gurin Psychosomatic Symptom List.) Part 4: ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS For each item, please circle the appropriate response to indicate how often the condition described serves as a source of stress. For the purpose of this part of the questionnaire, the following scale is provided: 1=never 2=seldom 3=sometimes 4=frequently 5=a1ways Factors Intrinsic to the Job 1. Feeling that my work is routine and no longer 1 2 3 4 5 challenging. 2. Having my regular work day frequently inter- l 2 3 4 S rupted by telephone calls, visits from staff members, unexpected requests for information and unanticipated meetings. 3. Feeling that I am responsible for completing l 2 3 4 5 a substantial number of projects or major assignments by unrealistic deadlines. -3- # # # # # 210 Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal work day. Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people that I know (colleagues, staff members, students, etc.). Feeling that I have to participate in college or university activities outside of the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time. Feeling that my institution expects more of me than my knowledge, skills and abilities provide. Overall, please indicate how often factors intrinsic to your job serve as a source of stress. Role in the Organization 1. Thinking that I will not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of those who have authority over me. Feeling staff members don't understand my goals and expectations. Feeling that I have too little authority to carry out responsibilities assigned to me. Being unclear on just what the scope and respon- sibilities of my job are. Feeling that I do not fully understand the role my position plays in achieving overall insti- tutional objectives. Supervising and coordinating the tasks of many people. Securing, preparing and allocating budget resources. Overall, please indicate how often factors related to your role in your organization serve as a source of stress. Career Development 1. 2. Knowing that I am overqualified for my job and am no longer finding my work challenging. Feeling not enough is expected of me by my superiors. 33‘ 211 Feeling that I am not fully qualified to handle my job. Thinking that either my job could be eliminated or the status significantly reduced through a shift in institutional priorities or reorganization. Feeling that I will be encouraged to retire early. Feeling that my career progress to date is not what it should or could be. Knowing that my future promotional opportunities in this field are limited and, I may need to change to a totally different type of work. Overall, please indicate how often factors related to your career development serve as a source of stress. Relationships at Work l. 2. Feeling that my colleagues are more competitive with each other than cooperative. Feeling that there is a lack of trust between my- self and my subordinates. Trying to resolve differences between/among staff members. Feeling that my supervisor is not supportive of my actions and decisions. Trying to resolve differences with my superiors. Trying to influence my immediate supervisor's actions and decisions that affect me. Feeling that my job is threatened by one or more of my subordinates. Overall, please indicate how often factors related to your relationships at work serve as a source of stress. Organizational Structure and Climate 1. Feeling that I have little say in policy making decisions even though I am expected to implement them. Feeling that the future of my institution is in a serious state of uncertainty. -5- 212 3. Feeling that the formal chain of command is not 1 2 3 4 S consistently followed. 4. Feeling that the formal structure of my institution 1 2 3 4 5 requires too much red tape for a number of basic decisions. 5. Thinking that the policies and regulations of my 1 2 3 4 S institution are unnecessarily restrictive and do not permit me to fully utilize my professional expertise. 6. Feeling that my institution does not readily l 2 3 4 5 adapt to change or new innovations. 7. Believing that my institution does not have a l 2 3 4 5 clear mission and well-developed goals and objectives. 8. Overall, please indicate how often factors related 1 2 3 4 5 to the organizational structure and climate of your institution serve as a source of stress. Finally, please indicate how often "work as a whole" 1 2 3 4 5 serves as a source of stress for you. [This part of the questionnaire consists of items from the Index of Job Related Strain (JRS) and the Administrative Stress Index (ASI). Items designated by an * are taken from the JRS and those designated by a # are taken from the ASI.] ...I.......OOOOOOOO0..........OOOOOOOO0.000.000...O..........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... COMMENTS: 2-3-84 APPENDIX D 213 APPENDIX D 9520 South Francis Road Dewitt, Michigan 48820 January 16, 1984 Dear Chief Student Affairs Administrator: As a doctoral candidate in the College and University Administration program, Department of Administration and Curriculum, College of Education, Michigan State University, I am currently at the dissertation stage of fulfilling the requirements for a Ph.D. with this in mind, I am writing to seek your co- operation in completing the enclosed pilot instrument for my study. The title of my dissertation is "An Analysis of Key Individual and Organiza- tional Factors Contributing to Stress Among Chief Student Affairs Administra- tors in Selected FOur—Year Public and Private Colleges and Universities." The subjects to be surveyed will be all Chief Student Affairs Administrators (CSAAs) within the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) four-year public and private member institutions in the eight states comprising Region IV-East. For the purpose of field testing the pilot instrument for content validity and clarity, I have identified a group of Udenty CSAAs who are not within Region IV-East of NASPA but are believed to be representative of the sub- jects of my study. The questionnaire consists of four major parts: (1) demographic information, (2) personality characteristics, (3) physical health measures and, (4) organizational characteristics. Your comments and suggestions relative to the questionnaire will be helpful to me in making the appropriate and necessary revisions in the final instrument. Please be assured that re- turned questionnaires will be regarded as confidential information. In summary, please complete and return the questionnaire as soon as possible in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope. Your cooperation in com— pleting the questionnaire will be helpful to me in my efforts to develop a comprehensive assessment of the major components of stress specific to CSAAs. Sincerely. M SME:se enclosures APPENDIX E 214 APPENDIX E The Anxiety Scale Questionnaire (ASQ) is published by the Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc., P.O. Box 188, Champaign, Illinois 61820. The publisher will not grant permission to reproduce this instrument. APPENDIX E 215 APPENDIX F MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COUIGE OP EDUCAflON EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48.24.1054 Dam Of ADMINISTRATION AND CURRICULUM mason HALL February 10, 1984 The Department of Administration and Curriculum, in conjunction with the graduate preparation of future leaders in college and university administration, emphasizes research in the various areas of higher education. with this in mind, Ms. Shirley M. Erickson, a doctoral candidate in our department, is under- taking a study which we believe to be of great importance to the student affairs profession. The Chief Student Affairs Administrator (CSAA) in colleges and universities has been the subject of numerous studies and articles over the past several years. Although the student affairs literature has addressed several aspects of both the CSAA and the higher educational setting in which he/she works, this particular study is a comprehensive effort to study stress as the outcome of the interaction of CSAAs and their environments. It is within this context that you are being asked to participate in this study, which utilizes a four-part questionnaire to measure your perception of the extent to which certain individual and organizational factors contribute to stress among CSAAs in selected four-year public and private colleges and univer- sities. To this end, the focus of Ms. Erickson's research will be on those key individual and organizational stressors within the higher educational setting which emerge as prominent in the context of the performance of the CSAA's duties and responsibilities. I would be pleased and most appreciative if you would take the time to complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to Ms. Erickson as soon as possible, but no later than February 27, 1984. If, by chance, you are not the CSAA at your institution, please forward the enclosed materials to the appro- priate individual. Please be assured that all information collected will be held in strict confidence. The questionnaires have been coded solely for follow-up purposes. In closing, thank you for your assistance in this important research endeavor. If you would like to receive a summary report of the major findings of this study, please inform Ms. Erickson on your completed questionnaire. Sincerely, lair? Louis C. Stamatakos Professor of Higher Education LCS:lf Enclosures MSU is all Allin-Ian": Action/Equal Opportunity [INOIUIIOR APPENDIX G 216 APPENDIX G 9520 South Francis Road DeWitt, Michigan 48820 March 9, 1984 Dear Thank you for promptly returning the questionnaire mailed to you recently as a part of my study on Chief Student Affairs Administrators within the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) four-year public and private member institutions in Region IV-East. I sincerely appreciate your cooperation and assistance in this regard. The primary purpose of this letter is, however, to follow up with you on Part Two of the total questionnaire packet. In the initial mailing, a separate "Self Analysis Form" was included to assess personality characteristics. At the time I received your completed materials, this portion of the comprehensive questionnaire was missing. I have enclosed another copy for you and would ap- preciate your taking the time to complete it at your earliest convenience. Again, thank you for your assistance with my study. I look forward to your early response to this inquiry. Sincerely, ‘ / r\ i \ VNV\V§1’\ _’ 1K >1,“ " SHIRLEY M. micxsox /sme enclosures (3)