IN F O R M A T IO N TO USERS

This material was produced from a m icrofilm copy of the original docum ent. W hile
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The follow ing explanation of techniques is provided to help you
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

understand

1. The sign or "ta rg e t" for pages apparently lacking from the docum ent
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page{s) or section, they are spliced into the film along w ith adjacent pages.
This m ay have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black m ark, it
is an indication th at the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. Y o u w ill find a
good image o f the page in the adjacent frame.
3 . When a m ap, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a d efin ite m ethod in
"sectioning" the m aterial. I t is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner o f a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. I f necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
CO m p S o t o .

4 . The m ajority o f users indicate th a t the textual content is o f greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints o f "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by w riting
the Order Departm ent, giving the catalog number, title , author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5 . PLEA SE
received.

NOTE:

Some

pages may

have indistinct print. Film ed as

Xerox University M icrofilm s
3 0 0 N o rth Z e e b R o ad
A nn A rb o r, M ic h ig a n 4 8 1 0 6

74-6143
STEWART, Jr., Bailey Thomas, 1939A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE DEGREE AND LEVEL OF
DECISION INFLUENCE ADMINISTRATORS AND FACULTY
MEMBERS EXERCISE AND HAVE EXERCISED IN SELECTED
BARGAINING AND NON-BARGAINING JUNIOR COLLEGES
IN MICHIGAN.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1973
Education, administration

U n iv e rs ity M icrofilm s, A XERQ \Com pany , A n n A rb o r, M ic h ig a n

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE DEGREE AND LEVEL OF DECISION
INFLUENCE ADMINISTRATORS AND FACULTY MEMBERS EXERCISE
AND HAVE EXERCISED IN SELECTED BARGAINING AND
NON-BARGAINING JUNIOR COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN
by
Bailey T. Stewart, Jr.

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
partial fulfillment of the r p q m ’remftnts
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1973

ABSTRACT
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE DEGREE AND LEVEL OF DECISION
INFLUENCE ADMINISTRATORS AND FACULTY MEMBERS EXERCISE
AND HAVE EXERCISED IN SELECTED BARGAINING AND
NON-BARGAINING JUNIOR COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN
by
Baxley T. Stewart, Jr.
This study sought to determine if significant
differences exist between administrators and faculty mem­
bers in four selected community junior colleges in Michigan
regarding the degree and level of influence they exercise
and have exercised over decisions in areas of institutional
concern such as financial affairs, academic affairs,
personnel policies, working conditions,
from the period 19 6 5 through 19 70.

and student affairs

The institutions in the

sample were selected so as to permit analysis of these
opinions on the basis of the presence or absence of
collective negotiations as an element in the colleges'
decision-making structure.
The degree and level of decision-making influence
were determined by a measuring device titled, DecisionMaking Influence Questionnaire.

The questionnaire was

developed specifically for use in the current study, has a
reliability coefficient of .79, and consists of statements

Bailey T. Stewart, Jr.
regarding five major categories of community college
institutional concern

(financial affairs, academic affairs,

personnel policies, working conditions, and student
affairs).
The sample for this study was drawn from a popu­
lation of four junior colleges in Michigan:

two with

formally negotiated contracts and two without formally
negotiated contracts.

Having identified the institutions

which met specified criteria, eight administrators and 129
full-time faculty members were identified and included as
participants of this study.
Analysis of the data was done by using the multi­
variate analysis of variance

(programmed by Jeremy Finn).

Results were deemed significant at the .05 level of
confidence.
The following conclusions pertain to and were made
as a result of this study:
1.

There is no significant difference between

the perceived degree of decision-making influence of those
junior colleges involved in collective bargaining and
those not involved in collective bargaining.
2.

There is a significant difference between

the perceived degree of decision-making influence of the
junior colleges within the categories of collective bar­
gaining and no collective bargaining.

Bailey T, Stewart, Jr.
3.

There is a significant difference between

the perceived degree of decision-making influence of
administrators and faculty members.
4.

There is a significant difference between

the perceived degree of decision-making influence of
administrators and faculty members when comparing indi­
vidual junior colleges.
5.

There is a significant difference between

the perceived degree of decision-making influence of
administrators and faculty members of junior colleges
involved in collective bargaining as compared with
administrators and faculty members of junior colleges not
involved in collective bargaining.
6.

There is no significant difference between

the presently perceived degree of decision-making
influence and the perceived degree of decision-making
influence prior to 1965.
7.

There is no significant difference between

the presently perceived degree of decision-making
influence and the perceived degree of decision-making
influence prior to 1965 when comparing bargaining and
non-bargaining junior colleges.
8.

There is no significant difference between

the presently perceived degree of decision-making
influence and the perceived degree of decision-making
influence prior to 196 5 when comparing administrators
and faculty members.

Bailey T, Stewartf Jr.
9.

There is no significant difference between

the perceived degree of decision-making influence of
individual junior colleges when comparing presently per­
ceived degree of decision-making influence with the
perceived degree of decision-making influence prior to
1965.
10.

There is no significant difference between

the presently perceived degree of decision-making influence
and the perceived degree of decision-making influence prior
to 1965 of administrators and faculty members in junior
colleges involved in collective bargaining as compared
with non-bargaining junior colleges.
11.

There is no dignificant difference between

the perceived degree of decision-making influence of
administrators and faculty members of individual junior
colleges when comparing presently perceived degrees of
decision-making influence with the perceived degree of
decision-making influence prior to 1965.
12.

Administrators employed i n j uniox. colleges

operating under a negotiated contract, perceive the
majority of their decision-making influence to be exerted
with deans and division chairmen.
13.

Administrators employed in junior colleges

operating under a negotiated contract, presently perceive
that a greater number of decision-making influences are

Bailey T. Stewart, Jr.
exerted with the faculty organization than with the
president, vice-president, and board of trustees.
14.

Administrators employed in junior colleges

operating under a negotiated contract, do not perceive
that their present decision-making influence is ever
exerted at the individual faculty member level with
regard to the five variables measured

(financial affairs,

academic affairs, personnel policies, working conditions,
and student affairs).
15.

Administrators employed in junior colleges,

not operating with a formally negotiated contract, do not
perceive changes in the level of influence or with the
number of people influenced.
16.

Administrators employed in bargaining and

non-bargaining junior

colleges perceive their decision­

making influence to be exerted

with deans and division

chairmen or presidents, vice-presidents and boards of
trsutees more often than with individual faculty members,
C n

1 4. • •

j.a o u x

M

^

« m

—■
»4- •! (K IM m

m

u j . ^ a 4 iX 6 a u j . u i i o u i.

J

M M

V* «
—»

u .c ;^ o x 0411041 l.

4— M W

<*

- «
“*

J

o n a x i . i L i c i x ^ u n '-t f

^

^^4.

.
»
"
>4

little change when comparing the present number of people
influenced with the number of people influenced prior
to 1965.
17.

Faculty members employed in bargaining and

non-bargaining junior colleges exert their decision­
making influence with co-workers, faculty organizations,
and department chairmen more often than with deans and

**

v

Bailey T. Stewart, Jr.
division chairmen or presidents, vice-presidents and boards
of trustees; and, presently exert decision-making influence
upon a greater number of people than they did prior to
1965.

DEDIC A T E D TO T H E LOVES OF M Y LIFE IN THE
O R D E R IN W H I C H T H E Y A P P E A R E D —
M Y MOTHER; MY WIFE,

BARBARA;

A N D M Y SON, GREG.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Appreciation is expressed to the administrators
and faculty members of the four junior colleges for time
and effort expended in completing the instrument.
Thanks go to Mary Kennedy for her statistical
advice and assistance.
The writer extends a special note of appreciation
to Dr. C. Keith Groty, committee chairman, for his counsel,
friendship, support, and critical analysis throughout this
study.

Thanks go to the other members of the committee,

Dr. John C. Howell, Dr. Vandell C. Johnson, Dr. Max R.
Raines, and Dr. Louis C. Stamatakos for their willingness
to serve in this capacity.
To my wife, Barbara, whose encouragement and faith
have been inspirational to me, I gratefully express my
appreciation.

To my son, Greg, who has been neglected by

his father during the past two years,

I love you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
D E D I C A T I O N ...........................................
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................

ii
iii

LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................... vii
P R E F A C E ..............................................

ix

Chapter
I.

TT.

THE P R O B L E M .................................

1

Introduction
.................................
Significance of the Study ....................
Objectives of the S t u d y ....................
Hypothesis
.................................
Definition of T e r m s ..........................
Collective Bargaining; Collective Nego­
tiations; Professional Negotiation
.
..........................
Decision-Making
N e g o t i a t i o n .................................
Public Employment Relations Act
. . . .
Scope of B a r g a i n i n g .......................
Delimitation of Research Conducted . . . .
Organization of Study
.......................

1
1
9
10
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
14

REVTEW OF L I T E R A T U R E .......................

16

Introduction
.................................
Background of the Problem
................
Concept of Collective Bargaining
. . . .
Labor Movement in the United States
. . .
Law and Collective Bargaining in the
Private Sector ..............................
Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector
.
Federal Level .................................
State and Local L e v e l .......................
Collective Negotiation in Public Education
.
Michigan's "Little Wagner Act" for
Public Employees
..........................
Collective Negotiation in Michigan
Communtiy Colleges .......................
iv

16
16
17
20
24
30
32
36
37
40
44

Chapter

Page
Decision-Making
. . . . . . . . . .
Related Studies
. . . 5
Studies of Faculty Involvement. . . . .
Related Studies of Decision-Making. . . .
S u m m a r y ........................................

III.

45
6
57
61
66

THE M E T H O D O L O G Y .................................. 69
Introduction ...................................
69
Definition of the P o p u l a t i o n .................. 69
Source of the D a t a ............................... 70
Data C o l l e c t i o n .................................. 74
Description of the I n s t r u m e n t .................. 74
Validity and Reliability of the Instrument . . 75
Scale and Index C o n s t r u c t i o n .................. 76
Questionnaire Item Development ................
77
The Statistical Model and Computational
P r o c e d u r e s ..................................... 80
S u m m a r y ........................................ 83

IV.

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ............................ 85
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis 6
Hypothesis 7
Hypothesis 8
Hypothesis 9
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1
Category I:
/■•

4-a

v>**

T T •
X

X *

..................
85
..................................... 87
. .................................. 90
..................................... 90
..................................... 94
..................................... 95
..................................... 97
.................................... 100
.................................... 102
0 ................................. 102
1 ................................. 105
Administrators— Bargaining . .
. 105
u1»
■
»
X

1

U U U X

c. j '

14

V

X.

____T5^

>3

i ^ u x

^ •
*
%■
?

^ jU X itx iA W )

•

w

•

TOO

x

✓

Category III: Administrators— No Bargaining
. Ill
Category IV: Faculty Members— No Bargaining
. 113
S u m m a r y ....................................... 115
V.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
IMPLICATIONS ................................... 120
S u m m a r y .......................................
C o n c l u s i o n s ....................................
Implications ...................................
Recommendations ................................

v

120
123
131
137

Page
BIBLIOGRAPHY

...........................................

141

A P P E N D I C E S ................................................ 152
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix

A
B
C
D
E

. . . . . . . . . . . .
153
................
. .155
..............................
157
................................. . . 1 5 9
...................................... 171

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1

Page
Identification of Michigan Community Colleges
by Founding Dates and Bargaining Agents .........

46

2.2

Trends in Organizational Theory .................

50

3.1

Sample Responses

73

4.1

Multivariate Analysis of Variance—
Bargaining vs Non-Bargaining........................ 86

4.2

Weighted Mean Scores of Bargaining vs
Non-Bargaining
...................................

87

Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Differences
Between Schools within Bargaining Categories. .

88

4.4

Weighted Mean Scores of Individual Schools

...

89

4.5

Multivariate Analysis of Variance—
Administration vs Faculty Members ...............

91

4.3

.................................

4.6

Weighted Mean Scores for Administrators and
F a c u l t y .............................................. 92

4.7

Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Schools
and Administration-Faculty Interaction
.........

93

4.8

Weighted Mean Scores of Schools for
Administratort>—Faculty of Variable 4
(Working Conditions)................................. 94

4.9

Multivariate Analysis of Variance— BargainingNo Bargaining and Administration-Faculty
I n t e r a c t i o n .......................................... 96

4.10 Weighted Mean Scores of Bargaining-No
Bargaining and Administration-Faculty
for Variable 1 (Financial Affairs)
.............

vii
I

97

Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Prior
to Legalized Bargaining (Pre) vs After
Legalized Bargaining (Post)................. ..

98

Multivariate Analysis of Variance— BargainingNo Bargaining when Compared by Prior to
Legalized Bargaining (Pre) and After
Legalized Bargaining (Post)...................

99

Weighted Mean Scores of Bargaining and No
Bargaining Junior Colleges when Comparing
Pre and Post Categories for Variable 4
(Working Conditions) ..........................

100

Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Prior
to Legalized Bargaining (Pre) and After
Legalized Bargaining (Post) when Comparing
Administrators and Faculty Members ...........

101

Multivariate Analysis of Variance—
Comparing Individual Schools by
Scores Prior to Legalized Bargaining
(Pre) and Scores After Legalized
Bargaining (Post)..............................

103

Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Three-Way
Interaction (Bargaining— No Bargaining,
Administrators— Faculty, and Pre— Post)
. . .

104

Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Three-Way
Interaction (Individual Schools [1, 2, 3,
and 4], Administrators - Faculty, and
Pre - Post).....................................

106

T_ of II T X O n t 3.^O of RCCpCHCCC
for Administrators— Bargaining ...............

107

Level of Influence— Percentage of Responses
for Faculty Members— Bargaining
.............

110

Level of Influence— Percentage of Responses
for Administrators— No Bargaining
...........

112

Level of Influence— Percentage of Responses
for Faculty Members— No Bargaining ...........

114

viii

PREFACE
"True history presents a facinating picture of
the conflicting races, interests, sections and classes;
it tells the interesting story of the struggle of the
masses upward toward equality of opportunity."*

*Frank Tracy Carlton, Organized Labor in American
History (New York:
D. Appleton and.Company, 1921).

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
This study examines the opinions of administrators
and faculty members in selected community junior colleges
in Michigan regarding the perceived degree and level of
influence they exercise and have exercised over decisions
in areas of institutional concern, such as financial
affairs, academic affairs, personnel policies, working con­
ditions, and student affairs from the period 1965 through
1971.

The institutions in the sample have been selected

to permit analysis of these opinions on the basis of the
presence or absence of collective negotiations as an
element in the colleges' decision-making structure.
Significance of the Study
Most literature related to educational negotiation
has been written by people identified with educational
organizations, but there is also a growing body of litera­
ture which represents independent investigation.
history of collective action by teachers, legal

1

The

2
developments and organizational positions, have been
extensively documented.*
However, the professional literature has had little
to say regarding the effects of collective bargaining upon
decision-making in higher education.

In the fall issue

of Educational Record, (1969), Logan Wilson indicated that:
"if anyone has ever made a thorough-going empirical study
of how decisions are now reached on a single American
college or university campus, I am unaware of it"
Since then a study conducted by Annette Ten Elshof

(76:389).
(77) was

designed to determine whether or not there was a single
overall decision-making process at the University of
Michigan at Flint and to determine who is making the
decisions.

This study and the results thereof will be dis­

cussed in Chapter II.
The expansion of teacher unionism into higher
education has developed very rapidly, for until the 1960*s
there was little known activity in this realm

(78:42).

Because of the ever increasing number of institutions
*

See bibliography:
Lieberman, Myron and Michael Moskow, Collective
Negotiations for Teachers:
An Approach to School Administration, New York: Rand McNally and Company, 196 6,
pp. 431-446.
And also:
"Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector:
A Biblio­
graphy," Upjohn Library, Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo,
Michigan, 1967.

3
involved in the collective negotiation process

(79:345)

the need to determine the influences of administrators and
faculty members upon decisions made within the institution
is of great concern to educators.

"In short, by virtually

any standard, collective negotiations have emerged as a
major educational concern"

(89:170).

Determining the degree of influence upon decision­
making within the collective negotiation and no collective
negotiation categories, as well as future research con­
cerned with collective negotiation and education, may
assist in developing and improving the process of collective
negotiation in education.

By this, the author is calling

attention to the borrowing of collective bargaining pro­
cesses and techniques from the private and public sectors
of employment and superimposing these identical techniques
and processes in the educational sector of employment.
Ralph Campbell, professor of industrial and labor
relations, Cornell University, indicated some common fea­
tures

between labor-management and faculty-administration

relationships.

These features were:

(1) The tendency to develop stereotyped thinking
about roles and to battle over the prerogatives
of role or function rather than to seek intelli­
gent solutions to the basic problems of the
organization and the individuals in the organiz­
ation; (2) The struggle for control of decision­
making in the area of wages, working conditions,
job security, and status; and (3) Problems of
developing attitudes and machenery in support of
effective communications (80:50).

4
H.

J. Heneman spoke on the topic of labor-

management and faculty-administration relationships,
saying:
Because there are some sound business prin­
ciples which can be applied in certain areas
of college and university management, that
does not mean that business practices can be
transferred to the educational field indis­
criminately.
There are basic differences
which govern those things which are transfer­
able and distinguish them from those which
are not. These include such things as
objectives and organization (81:45).
On the other side of the coin, Campbell indicated
fundamental differences between labor-management and
faculty-administration relationships in,

(1) The policy­

making role of faculty members as a group and

(2) the

academic freedom of the faculty member as an individual
. . . and

(3) the reluctance of faculty members to use

the strike as a bargaining weapon"

(80:53).

The process of collective negotiation needs to
adjust and develop within the field of education.
Since the collective negotiations movement is
spreading rapidly, its long-range effects are
matters ot legitimate concern.
Any ettort to
envisage them is inherently speculative to
some degree, but such efforts are needed before
undesirable policies and practices have become
established (79:345).
As stated by David Seldon,
. . . we are only in the beginning stages of
development of collective bargaining; the
thinking of most teachers, and even most AFT
leaders, has not gone much beyond protections
against abuses of administrative power (82:237).

5
Research is needed in the area of college and
university governance; the most important method seems
to be descriptive in nature.

Lundsford suggests,

The research that most needs to be done at this
time, in my view, is essentially descriptive
and analytical, rather than evaluate or experi­
mental; and research on broader problems even
with relatively crude methods of investigation,
is more important now than on narrower issues
susceptible to greater methodological control
(83:4).
Logan Wilson indicates more specific areas of
governance which need to be studied by listing some basic
questions asking:

"Who now decides what?

Which facets

of governance are sources of dissatisfaction, and for
whom?

What changes are being proposed, and, why?

How

can their feasibility and desirability be assessed?
are the implications for proposed changes?"

What

(76:3 88)

The

need to answer Wilson's first question of who decides what,
has been identified by Herbert Simon in developing his
decision-making model

(84) and by Chester Barnard

(85) in

giving increased emphasis to the central significance of
decision-making.

More recent considerations of this matter

are exhibited in the writings of Chris Argyris
Frederick Hertzberg
Heynes when he said,
making points"

(87), A. H. Maslow

(86),

(88), and by Roger

"We must identify the major decision

(89:170).

There are many other significant

articles in recent professional journals of education

6
and also professional journals in the field of public
administration and management.
Junior college administrators are becoming more
aware of the decision-making process "within their own
organization.

Benjamin Gold, in his study,

"Quantitative

Methods for Administrative Decision-Making in the Junior
College"

(90) states that the three major presses for

junior college administrators which require decision­
making techniques are the increasing enrollments, competi­
tion for the tax revenues, and the number of increasing
responsibilities of the junior college.
The past few years have shown tremendous growth
in terms of student enrollments for all of the Michigan
community colleges.

The 1966 Junior College Directory

indicates that in 1965 there were nineteen public community
junior colleges in Michigan with a combined enrollment of
59,495 students

(91:57).

A report prepared for the Michi­

gan Community College Association indicates the enrollment
for the twenty-nine Michigan community junior colleges in
1970 was 125,782

(92:5).

The Carnegie Commission on Higher

Education has projected community college enrollments in
the Nation to be as high as 4,430,000 by the year 1980 and
6,620,000 by the year 2000

(93:34).

Indications of dramatic growth in Michigan community
junior colleges suggest the importance of attaining educa­
tional objectives, for to fail so many people would be

7
unforgivable.

Never before in history has any segment

of education been called upon to educate large numbers
of students through such a broad curricula.

Offering this

broad curricula is evidenced by junior colleges assuming
a larger role within the community as noted by the rapid
growth and development of the community services programs
(90:4-5).
Institutions, regardless of their purposes, are
based upon and grow out of the needs of the people they
serve.

They are continually growing, contracting or

changing in reaction to shifts in the forces of society
and the evolving attitudes and needs of individuals and
groups.

Such is the nature of the community college.

This

comparatively young institution is a part of a significant
change reflecting, in part, the massive and rapid changes
which are taking place in the State of Michigan, in the
United States of America and in the world-at-large.
The change which the investigator wishes to focus
attention upon is the process of collective negotiation and
related components.

The increasing momentum of the collect­

ive negotiation movement among professional educators has
produced a demand for legislation establishing legal rules
and procedures through which such negotiations can take
place and disputes in the schools can be resolved (94:304).
There can be no doubt as to the importance of the effects
of collective negotiation upon education, for the image

8
of public education has suffered due to those severe
conflicts which have already taken place within the brief
history of collective negotiation in education.
The Michigan Legislature passed the Public Employ­
ment Relations Act,

(P.A. 379), in 1965, which gave public

employees in Michigan the right to negotiate with their
employers.

Although the right to negotiate has been

legally granted, the scope of negotiation varies among the
Michigan community colleges.

Reasons for these differences

in the scope of negotiation are many

(i.e., the institution

is newly founded, there is a strong academic senate, and
the desire of the community, administration, and faculty
is such as to avoid educational contractural relation­
ships) .

The development of the scope of bargaining has

expanded and there is no evidence that it will not continue
beyond its present boundaries.
As the scope and process of collective negotiation
develops and as researchers document evidence, impacts upon
the roles of educators will become more e v i d e n t .

educators

have "assumed-roles," as well as "actual or official-roles"
described by the board of trustees in most institutions,
which are directly and/or indirectly influenced by col­
lective negotiation.

Collective negotiation according to

Redfern,
. . . is introducing new and significant elements
in educational decision-making.
What is new is
that teachers are insisting on the right (1) to

9
negotiate many of the matters which affect the
dally operation of local schools; (2) to nego­
tiate directly with top school officials; and
(3) to negotiate through their freely chosen
representatives.
. . . In insisting upon
bringing more and more topics to the negotia­
ting table, to be settled on a systemwide
basis, teachers are no longer content to leave
administrative discretion decisions regarding
class size, teaching assignments, auxiliary
duties, . . . and similar matters (95:52).
This study will also serve to increase the
data-base concerning collective negotiations and educa­
tion.

This supply of data can then be utilized as a

basis for further study of the development of collective
negotiation within the community college movement.
Objectives of the Study
This study is concerned with two junior colleges
involved in formal collective negotiations and two junior
colleges not involved in formal collective negotiations
which are drawn from a universe to be found in Michigan.
The objective of this study is threefold.

First,

the investigator will seek to determine and examine the
degree and level of influence administrators and faculty
members perceive they have exercised over decisions in
areas of institutional concern prior to the year 1965.
Second, the investigator will seek to determine and examine
the degree and level of influence administrators and
faculty members perceive they presently exercise over deci­
sions in areas of institutional concern.

Finally, the

10
investigator will seek to determine if there are common­
alities and differences among questionnaire responses
related to those institutions and individuals involved
in collective negotiation and those institutions and indi­
viduals not involved in collective negotiations.
Hypotheses
Hypotheses were tested for acceptance or rejection
at the .05 level of significance using multivariate
analysis of variance.

All of the hypotheses were stated

as null hypotheses for the purpose of statistical
measurement.
1.

There is no significant difference between
the perceived degree of decision-making
influence of those junior colleges involved
in collective bargaining and those not involved
in collective bargaining.

2.

There is no significant difference betweer. the
perceived degree of decision-making influence
of the junior colleges within the categories
of collective bargaining and no collective
bargaining.

3.

There is no significant difference between the
perceived degree c£ dscisioii-ruakiny influence
of administrators and faculty members.

4.

There is no significant difference between the
perceived degree of decision-making influence
of administrators and faculty members when
comparing individual junior colleges.

5.

There is no significant difference between the
perceived degree of decision-making influence
of administrators and faculty members of junior
colleges involved in collective bargaining as
compared with administrators and faculty members
of junior colleges not involved in collective
bargaining.

11
6.

There is no significant- difference between
the presently perceived degree of decision­
making influence and the perceived degree
of decision-making influence prior to 1965.

7.

There is no significant difference between
the presently perceived degree of decision­
making influence and the perceived degree
of decision-making influence prior to 1965
when comparing bargaining and non-bargaining
junior colleges.

8.

There is no significant difference between
the presently perceived degree of decision­
making influence and the perceived degree
of decision-making influence prior to 1965
when comparing administrators and faculty
members.

9.

There is no significant difference between
the perceived degree of decision-making
influence of individual junior colleges when
comparing presently perceived degrees of
decision-making influence with the perceived
degree of decision-making influence prior
to 1965.

10.

There is no significant difference between
the presently perceived degree of decision­
making influence and the perceived degree
of decision-making influence prior to 1965
of administrators and faculty members in
junior colleges involved in collective bar­
gaining as compared with non-bargaining
junior colleges.

11-

There is nc significant difference between
the perceived degree of decision-making
influence of administrators and faculty mem­
bers of individual junior colleges when
comparing presently perceived degrees of
decision-making influence with the perceived
degree of decision-making influence prior
to 1965.

12
Definition of Terms
The meaning of a word is often rather vague,
nebulous and non-definitive.

Frequently in the literature

the word is used without any attempt on the part of the
writer to define or delimit the word, the assumption
being that both the writer and reader will achieve an
immediate and compatible consensus.

Concomitantly, the

word is found frequently in popular usage which adds
further confusion.

For the purpose of this research, the

following terms will be used as defined below.
Collective Bargaining; Collective
Negotiation;
Professional
Negotiation
Three terms which are used interchangeably in
the literature.

Basically, two parties sitting down and

reducing their mutual concerns to a written contract by
which their relationship is governed for a given period of
time.

Harold Roberts expands this concept stating,

Until recently collective bargaining was described
as the process of negolxdcxiig u m mxiub anu con­
ditions of employment.
It was used almost synony­
mously with the term negotiation.
Within recent years the term has been used more
broadly and encompasses not only the negotiating
process, but the actual interpretation and
administration of the employer and the union to
meet the problems that arise in the operation of
the plant (96:58).

13
Decision-Making
The systematic series of actions of an individual
or group utilized to reach a decision.

John Dorsey helps

to clarify this by saying that a decision occurs on,
"the receipt of some kind of communication, it consists of
a complicated process of combining communications from
various sources and it results in the transmission of
further communication"

(97:309).

Negotiation
"The process whereby the representatives of
employees and the employer meet for the purpose of reaching
agreement on wages, hours, and conditions of employment
for those in the appropriate bargaining unit, and the
methods for administering the agreement"

(96:280).

Public Employment Relations Act
(PERA - Act 3 3 6 of Public Acts of 1 9 4 7 , as amended
by Act 3 7 9 of Public Acts of 1 9 6 5 . )

A Michigan legislative

act passed in 1 9 6 5 which y a v e public employees the right
to negotiate with their employers.

The responsibility for

administering the act is in the hands of the Employment
Relations Commision (Formerly the Labor Mediation Board)
(111:5).

14
Scope of Bargaining
"The actual scope or subject matter which manage­
ment and unions bring within the area of the collective
bargaining contract.

An examination of the subjects which

labor and management have discussed at the bargaining
table and which have been incorporated into contracts indi­
cates that the scope of bargaining depends in large part
on the kind of problems the economic and social conditions
create"

(96:384).
Delimitations of the Research Conducted
Although the strength of the study is that it

is a basal study, this is also a weakness.

This study is

limited by those variables which are a part of a design
which uses a questionnaire as the method of collecting
data.

Problems related to the use of a questionnaire

include the possible bias of the questionnaire.

This study

was conducted at selected Michigan community junior col­
leges.

Thus, the implications from the results of the

study are limited to these institutions.
Organization of the Study
The general plan of the study has been organized
into five chapters:
Chapter I :

The introduction presents the problem,

the significance of the study, the objectives of the

15
study, hypotheses, the definitions of terms, and the
delimitations of the study.
Chapter II;

The survey of the literature includes

the background of the problem, the labor movement in the
United States, law and collective bargaining in the private
sector, collective bargaining in the public sector, col­
lective negotiation in public education, and the decision­
making process in administrative theory.
Chapter III:

The methodology presents a definition

of the sample, the design of the study, the method of data
collection, a description of the instrument used, and the
statistical techniques used to analyze the data.
Chapter IV:

The analysis of the data includes

a general description of the data obtained, the results of
the statistical analysis of the data, the findings and the
interpretations of the results.
Chapter V :

The final chapter presents a summary

of the findings of the study, the conclusions based upon
these findings, and the implications for further study
based on these findings and conclusions.

CHAPTER IX
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter will proceed from the "concept"
of collective bargaining to collective negotiation
education today.

in

Throughout this section an effort has

been made to keep in mind Frank Carlton’s concept of
true history:
True history presents a fascinating picture
of the conflicting races, interests, sections
and classes; it tells the interesting story
of the struggle of the masses upward toward
equality of opportunity (10:1).
Background of the Problem
To glean an understanding of collective nego­
tiation, it is necessary to discuss the model from which
educational bargaining emerged, namely the private sector
labor movement.

Becoming familiar with the concept of

collective bargaining, the basis upon which American law
is established, and the history of the United States labor
movement should be helpful in understanding the development
of collective negotiation in higher education.
*"Collective negotiation" will mean "collective
negotiation in education" unless a different meaning is
obvious or indicated.
16

17
Concept of Collective
Bargaining
What Hutt calls, "the very useful term Collective
Bargaining* was coined by Mrs. Sidney Weeb in her work on
the cooperative movement in 1891"

(11:21).

There are

inumerable instances in which workers have formed coopera­
tive movements against their social superiors.

These

movements or "strikes" are as old as history itself.

The

ingenious seeker of historical parallels might find the
revolt of the Hebrew brickmaker in Egypt, 1490 B.C., against
being required to make bricks without straw a precedent for
the strike of the Stolybridge cotton-spinners, 1892 A.D.,
against the supply of bad materials for their work (41:2).
The idea of cooperative movement suggests a system
of agreement or control leading toward a common goal.

Man

has always been slow to recognize any other authority than
"the voices" of all concerned.

Therefore, early unions,

guilds, trade clubs, and associations appear to be mani­
festations of these early desires.
democracies in the simplest form.

However, they were
The Weebs

(12:3-13)

referred to them as a form of "primative democracy."
These early organizations were not so much concerned with
the growth of the organization as the immediate needs of
their warfare with the employers.
If democracy means that everything which "concerns
all should be decided by all" and that each citizen should

18
enjoy an equal and identical share in the government, then
unions functioned under the old theory of democracy.

A

more recent and familiar example of "primative democracy"
would be the New England town meetings.

However, resorting

to the aggregate meeting diminishes as the size and pur­
poses of the organization change.

Finally, the typically

modern form of democracy, the executive committee under
whose direction the permanent official staff performs its
work, the elected representative who every year finds him­
self exercising the larger freedom of a representative,
and the mass membership, emerges.
Union development or cooperative efforts against
employers always started as uphill battles.

Frederic

Harrison described one of the reasons for the protest

(the

trade union movement) of the working class as arising,
. . . from the fact that typical ignorant
upper-class opinion during the nineteenth
century was quite unable to appreciate the
complexity of the social and economic ten­
dencies operating among the "lower orders"
(11:31).
Foner

(13:14-15) indicates another, in that as

early as 1360, London Parliament declared all alliances and
associations of masons null and void.

Later, in 1584,

punishments such as the example that follows, were estab­
lished for workmen who joined forces to establish wages
and hours of work:
For the first offence ten pounds . . . or
twenty days imprisonment and (he) shall have

19
only bread and water? and for the second offence
Che) shall forfeit twenty pounds. . . or suffer
punishment at the pillory, and for the third
offence shall forfeit thirty pounds. . . or
shall sit on the pillory and lose one of his
ears, and shall at all times gfter that be taken
as a man infamous. (13:15-16)
It is "that" person who organized in spite of the
severity of the punishment to whom union members of today
owe their organizational existence.
Economists had discussed collective bargaining
from the concept that labor was at the disadvantage because;
(1) individual efforts were futile against employers;
(2) employees were not looked upon as intellectual, finan­
cial, or social equals of the aristocracy;

(3) employees

were subsistently dependent upon the employer;
was a perishable commodity;

(4) labor

(5) labor's own exclusion factor

prevented solidarity among the masses;

(6) the "wage-

fund" theory enabled employers to keep wages down and pro­
fits up

(11:21-75).
Hutt indicates that the overthrow of the "wage-

■T..

J It

X U i 4 «a

4.I
««
—> »v***
jr

» » ^

wuo

X.l
«
»m
Ui i

c

uux

w

•
»

*
4
—
u

*
•m

x ii

%
«
*
■^

—%*
v
*

4>rs

mists' attitude toward trade unionism (11:22).

X*

,
■
>

^

^ —

ww * aw

The "wage-

fund" theory held that wages depended upon the proportion
of the wage-fund (capital) in relation to the number of
*

As cited from Arthur H. Thomas, ed., Calendar of
Plea and Memoranda Rolls, A .D ., 1323-1364, Cambridge, 1926,
p. 225; Edward III, 9-11, Statutes of the Realm, Vol. I,
p. 367, Vol. IV, Pt. I, p. 59.

20
workers.

Economists renounced the wage.-fund theory

during the 1870's and gave support to the view that there
was some way in which unions could gain, not at the expense
of other workers but at the expense of the capitalistic
employer.

This new idea brought into the discussion

of collective bargaining,

"a

theory that the price of

labor was indeterminate, and

that within the range of

its

indeterminateness trade unionism had a legitimate field
of action"

(11:79).

Man had

haggled thebuying price of

an article with merchants ever since trading began.

Now,

he would bargain for the price of his labor.
Labor Movement in the
United States
This section does not pretend to be a compre­
hensive history of the American labor movement;
studies are readily available elsewhere.

such

Instead, it

is directed toward setting the backdrop for collective
negotiation today.
Captain John Smith gave advice to the English
merchant capitalists, who looked to America as a source
of great profits, that nothing was to be expected there but
by labor (14:360).

William Sylvis, a labor leader of the

Civil War years, said that the foundation of America was
based upon labor (15:98).
However, it is important to call attention to the
kind of labor existing in America during this era.

First

21
would be the Indentured servants, who were trying to
escape from the misery of Europe.

The escape was no easy

job in that it was expensive and the voyage was so fright­
ful that many people died

(13:17).

A second labor style was that of enslavement.
Slavery did not develop in America until the 1660's.

It

was then that the indentured system was viewed as less pro­
fitable than slavery; for to have a worker for life, whose
children became the property of the masters, made slavery
a desirable labor system.
Free workers, the third category, were the least
numerous during the Colonial period

(13:19).

However, as

America began to change its economic life from that of the
farmer to the craftsman, the free laboring class came into
being.

As the demand for commodities grew, the shopkeeper

found that he could not supply the market by himself and
thus "wage-earners11 emerged.

Initially, wages and con­

ditions of employment were good, but all was not milk and
honey.

Periods of unemployment often befell the worker,

not to mention the well documented,
conditions

inhumane working

(16:16).

Faced with degrading conditions, the American worker
could do one of three things;

(1) remain on the job and

accept wages and conditions of employment as they were;
quit and seek employment elsewhere;

(2)

(3) band together for

22
improvement of the situation.

Needless to say, there were

people who followed each of these alternatives.

The

"following" which is of interest in this study is the group
that united with his fellow workers to force the employers
to grant the improvements required.
In 1786 the journeymen printers formed a temporary
association in New York to obtain a dollar a day.

The

employers turned them down and the printers "turned out,"
as it was called, and won their demands (13:70).

They had

conducted the first strike in the United States.
These temporary associations were formed at special
times to get specific demands.

After they won their demands

and disbanded their organization, however,
employers restored the old conditions.

they found that

To keep the gains

they had made and continually to improve their conditions,
the journeymen formed more permanent unions.
Philadelphia shoemakers took the lead.

The

In 1792 the Phila­

delphia shoemakers organized the first permanent union in
the United States,

with a constitution, dues, a

and provisions for

regular meetings.

treasury,

In the year 1806, eight shoemakers found them­
selves standing in a Philadelphia courtroom awaiting the
verdict of the jury in the now famous Cordwainer's Case.
Their employer had brought them to court as lawbreakers.
The crime they had committed was in forming a union and
striking for higher wages (17:38).

23
The court upheld the position of the employer
and found the shoemakers guilty of "'criminal conspiracy'
in joining together in a union and forming a combination
and conspiracy to raise wages"

(8:1-15).

Strikes and

court decisions such as the Cordwainer's decision were
numerous around the early 1820's

(16:43, 1:503).

Lieberman indicates that there were nineteen
instances between 1800 and 1820 where conspiracy charges
were upheld against workers' organizations

(8:15).

The

"conspiracy doctrine" was the underlying policy guiding
the judicial dicta of this era.

Likewise, the "restraint-

of-trade doctrine" which has the underlying premises:
(1) each individual and the public in general has a right
of trade to be free from unreasonable obstruction,

(2)

that employer and employee have the right to employ their
services for money or exchange their money for services
of others free from the dictation of others, and

(3) that

the volume of trade should not suffer unreasonable

dimi­

nution due to agreements, was applied to create an unlawful
end to a lawful union by declaring it an illegal conspiracy
(1:506-7) .
As mentioned earlier,

legal decisions or severe

punishments did not deter the formation of workers uniting
for a common cause in England.
in America.

Likewise, this holds true

Had the suppressive tactics of management;

legislation, thugs, spies, and strikebreakers been

24
totally successful, unions and associations could possibly
have had a less successful history than is indicated.

Blau

suggests that,
. . . workers participate in unions not only to
improve their employment conditions but also b e ­
cause they intrinsically enjoy the fellowship in
the union and derive satisfaction from helping
to realize its objectives (70:37).
A study of the history of labor unions or associa­
tions in America warrants notice that during periods of
prosperity, union membership, the number of unions, and
the strength of the union tend to increase.

Whereas, in

periods of depression these organizations suffer losses
and little or no activity occurs

(1:46, 16:45).

ized labor, being a social institution,

Organ­

(10:3) appears to

be affected by social phenomenon, again, as opposed to
management suppression.
Law and Collective Bargaining
in the Private Sector
The specific dangers which one may encounter in
discussing

the legal aspects of labor are clear.

One may

become lost in the esoteric technicalities of the law or
go wrong on the facts and/or one may lead into a discussion
off the main track and of no particular value to the study.
Therefore,

there is a special need to focus upon signifi­

cant events which will guide the development of this
section toward collective negotiation and its legality
today.

The investigator seeks to throw light upon the

25
changing attitudes of society and the judiciary toward
labor unions.
The English and American law in its fundamental
concepts of free contract, individual liberty and property
rights, was the crystallization of the social philosophy
of the rising bourgeois or employing class

(1:499).

Where­

as, the Constitution of the United States is based upon
the notions of natural and inalienable rights

(13:33, 1:25).

The natural rights which it especially guarantees are the
right to property and the equal protection under the law.
These rights of the individual employer and employee
became the basis for American law, as it fundamentally was
conceived for an individualistic society, in an era when
the competitive ideal was uppermost.

Among its main pur­

poses, as related to labor, were the protection of freedom
of individual contract, freedom of trade, free industrial
action of individual, and property rights.
Whereas, unions aim to protect their members against
the effect of this i n d i v i a u a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y ,

one might tend

to question whether the legality of the union "in fact" had
a real meaning.

As such, they were legal, but depending

upon their method of function, they could easily be judici­
ally ruled lawless

(18:685-717, 1:506).

This can occur

because precedents are the basis of the American judicial
system; such as, a law may exist in the statutes but it is

26

up to the courts to interpret that law.

Their inter­

pretation is based upon preceding cases and judicial
foresight.
Parker indicates that legislative bodies are more
responsive to popular trends and opinions than the courts
(6:5). Thus, it should be noted that laws are enacted by
the legislative bodies and if judicial dicta is other than
that intended by the legislative body, a new law will
be passed and evolutionary law occurs.
The evolutionary theory of American law, hopefully,
is in concert with the times and moving toward "justice for
all."

As described in the following cases on labor law,

one can clearly see evolutionary justice occur.
America, as well as its legal system, developed
partly as a reaction against a previously restrictive
system which had outlived its workability and partly in
response to a new social philosophy.

The legal systems of

England and America were pragmatically true for the time
of their development, i.e., they harmonized with the
general thought of the period and they fitted the condi­
tions and needs of the economic situation.

However,

America had hardly written its Constitution when the indus­
trial revolution, occurring between the Civil War and World
War I, caused a new economic situation and social philosophy
which created a need for changes in its laws (1:44) .

27
The industrial revolution had many significant
consequences for workers.

However, Chief Justice Taft

clearly indicated a major consequence when he said,
A single employee was helpless in dealing with
an employer.
He was dependent ordinarily on
his daily wage for the maintenance of himself
and family.
If the employer refused to pay him
the wages that he thought fair, he was neverthe­
less unable to leave the employ and to resist
arbitrary and unfair treatment.
Union was
essential to give laborers an opportunity to
deal equally with their employer (2:372).
During the early years of the 1800fs, especially
marked by the Philadelphia Cordwainers Case of 1806, the
courts ruled in favor of the employer.

Later employees

were not prosecuted because public opinion was siding
with labor
courts,

(3:23).

Despite the hostile attitude of the

1809-1914, and the suppressive tactics of employers,

a strong public opinion held that workers should be granted
the right to organize unions and employers should be
required to recognize and deal with their employees'
union.
Duaiiiebstib wei« big and getting bigger when in
1890 the small businessman,

farmers, and workers succeeded

in passing the Sherman Anti-Trust Law aimed at controlling
the growth of monopolies

(4:10) .

in the course of time,

however, the Sherman Anti—Trust Act had been used as a
strike-breaking weapon by the issuance of injunctions
(3:103, 1:568)- To counter this interpretation of the

28
Sherman Act by the courts, the Clayton Act was passed in
1914.

The Clayton Act was designed to limit and control

the granting of temporary restraining orders by the federal
courts, to clarify and improve the practice in issuing
injunctions, to limit penalties imposed for contempt, and
to provide the right of jury trial in cases of criminal
contempt

(5:79-81 & 112-113, 8:97-98)There were some defects in the injunction sections

of the Clayton Act allowing what pro-union followers con­
sidered adverse decisions from the courts.

Therefore, the

Norris-LaGuardia Anti-Injunction Act was proposed and passed
in 1932.

Like the Clayton Act, the Norris-LaGuardia Act

was designed to change the law as it was being enforced in
the federal courts, to limit and regulate the granting of
temporary restraining orders and labor injunctions, to
provide for jury trial and possible change of trial judge
in contempt cases, and to make the "yellow-dog" contract
unenforceable

(5:124-134,

3:102-112).

The Wagner Act was passed by Congress on June 27,
1935

(7:449).

The official name for this act is the National

Labor Relations Act, but in this study it shall be refer­
red to by its popular name.
With the passage of the Wagner Act, government
approval of collective bargaining reached the high-water
mark

(6:9).

This law was passed to protect and encourage

the growth of the union movement

(3:915).

it also

29
established the National Labor Relations Board which
was designed to implement the purpose of the law.
Public policy had come a long way since the Phila­
delphia Cordwainer's Case of 1806, for now collective
bargaining was socially acceptable

(9:230).

For the first

time, employees had the legal right to self-organize and
engage in collective bargaining with their employers while
under a legal shield which also provided for penalties
to employers who violated it.

Needless to say, the growth

of unions and of collective bargaining under the Wagner
Act was rapid

(6.9).

Until the passage of the Wagner Act,

unions had been the "under-dog. "
However, by the end of World War II, charges of
irresponsibility and racketeering were mounting against
unions.

This attitude gained enough momentum in 1947 to

have Congress pass the Taft-Hartley Act, officially known
as the Labor Management Relations Act.

Especially note­

worthy is that the Taft-Hartley Act introduced the concept
of unfair labor practices on behalf of the unions

(9:417).

Further control over unions was evidenced when Congress
enacted the Landrum-Griffin Labor-Management Reporting
Disclosure Act of 1959

(3:916-918).

In this act the area

of unfair labor practices was broadened and all levels,
international to local, were required to reveal internal
procedures.

30

Such legislation, as has been indicated thus far,
is often questioned as to whether it is progressive or
seeking vengeance.

The answer would depend upon the

position of the respondent.

Being neutral in this study,

the investigator looks upon it as the evolutionary process
of labor law.
Collective Bargaining
in the Public Sector
Public employees now share many of the same rights
extended to the private employee by the enactment of the
Wagner Act of 19 35.

This is evidenced by the proliferation

of associations and unions which represent public employees
and their ever-increasing memberships.
Prior to the 1960's, the thrust of union organiza­
tion had been aimed at the blue-collar worker.

During this

era, America was involved mainly in goods-producing indus­
tries as opposed to service-producing industries.
has, however, been a reversal of these trends.

There

Growth in

white-collar employment has been under way for many decades.
In discussing conditions of the American worker of the
1920's, Bernstein indicated that there was a marked movement
from blue-collar work, stating that,

"during the twenties,

that is, the American worker on an increasing scale took
off his overalls and put on a white shirt and necktie
(20:55) .

31
The greatest manpower increase has been in local,
state, and federal government.

And so, government has

become one of the nation's largest employers (21:3).
Between the years of 1946 and 1966, public employment
grew from 5.6 to 11.5 million employees which is slightly
better than a one hundred percent increase (21:4).

Kruger

suggests this expansion of public employment is a result
of population growth, war and national defense, urbaniza­
tion, increased technology, and public demand for more and
better services (21:3-4).
It can clearly be seen that public employment has
increased, but what factors have influenced the unioniza­
tion of these public employees?

In defense of the tradi­

tional policies of unilateral public employer-employee
relations, it is usually maintained that government, in
its role as employer, is surrounded by special social,
economic, political, legal, and ideological considerations
(19:6-12).
state

Under such conditions, public employers claiming

sovereignty nave rendered collective bargaining

unfeasible and undesirable.
Even though such attitudes toward unionism and
collective bargaining existed, early cases of unionization
and collective bargaining, such as the postal union of the
letter carriers of New York City, 1863, and the Tennessee
Valley Authority,

1933, are in evidence

(21:25, 19:42).

32
In a society which was promoting unionization and
collective bargaining among private employees, it became
difficult to sustain differential normative and legal
standards for governmental and non-governmental employeremployee relations.
Federal Level
The Magna Carta of federal collective bargaining
was Executive Order 10988, entitled Employee-Management
Cooperation in the Federal Service, issued by John F.
Kennedy on January 17, 1962 (28:551-556).

Executive Order

10988 encouraged unionism in federal employment by such
statements a s ,
. . . the efficient administration of the
Government and well-being of employees
require that orderly and constructive rela­
tionships be maintained between employee
organizations and management officials
(19:128).
Basically Executive Order 10988 grants:
1. The right to organize and present views
collectively to executive officials, Congress
or other appropriate authority;
2. The right of an employee organization to
informal, formal, or exclusive recognition;
3. The right to formally and exclusively recognized
organizations to be consulted and to raise for
joint discussion matters of concern to their
members; and

33
4. The right of exclusive representatives to
negotiate written agreements applying to all
employees within a unit (19:126).
It is astonishing that 11.5 million

(21:4) federal,

state, and local government employees are employed today
on terms which are traceable directly to the medieval doc­
trine of the divine rights of Kings and that public employeremployee relationships are so far behind employment
relations in the private sector.
Following the pattern evidenced in the private
sector, the Executive Order 10988 was not interpreted in
the most liberal sense as intended by the Presidential Task
Force but rather in conformity with the traditional atti­
tude that employee organizations must be resisted and
government can best serve the public interest if unhampered
by employee organizations

(19:103).

The rights retained by management upon issuance of
Executive Order 10988 were:
(1) to direct employees of the agency# (2) Lo
hire, promote, transfer, assign, and retain
employees in positions within the agency, and
to suspend, demote, discharge, or take other
disciplinary action against employees; (3) to
relieve employees from duties for lack of work
or other legitimate reasons; (4) to maintain
the efficiency of the government operations
entrusted to them; (5) to determine the methods,
means, and personnel for conducting such opera­
tions; and (6) to take whatever actions may be
necessary to carry out the mission of the agency
in emergency situations (22:144).

34
The traditional attitude toward unionism and col­
lective bargaining in the public sector was instrumental in
fostering the problems influencing the success of collective
bargaining.

Thompson and Weinstock have concluded that,

Managerial attitudes toward employee organizations
may prove to be the most important factor influen­
cing collective bargaining in the public service.
There can be little doubt that the attitudes of
white-collar TVA employees toward and the obvious
success of collective bargaining have mainly been
the product of TVA management's affirmative willing­
ness to share its decision-making powers with unions
in matters affecting the employees (23:21).
Despite the general agreement that Executive Order
10988 has had a positive effect upon public employeremployee relations in federal government, it was stated in
1969 that collective bargaining was still a partially
attained objective in federal government labor relations
(24:168).
Major criticism of Executive Order 10988 were aimed
at the facts that no provisions for the settlement of impas­
ses had been established and that is was one-sided, favoring
management.

Late in 1967, President Johnson established a

commission to examine Executive Order 10988 because it estab­
lished the form and not the meaningful substance dealing with
collective bargaining

(25).

However, President Johnson never

got around to initiating any action concerning Executive
Order 10988.
In 1969, President Nixon also established a committee
to deal with Executive Order 10988 and as a result Executive

35
Order 11491, entitled Labor-Management Relations in the Fed­
eral Service, emerged

(27:1501).

Here again, one can wit­

ness an evolutionary process in the development of labor law.
A comparative analysis

(26) of Executive Order

10988 and Executive Order 11941 by the School of Labor and
Industrial Relations at Michigan State University, revealed
changes in the more recent executive order.

Major changes

could be categorized into administrative procedural changes
and process

(new pieces of machinery) changes.

The administrative procedural changes noted were the
broadening of the determination of the bargaining unit, clari­
fication of the scope of negotiation, elimination of formal
and informal recognition, and the granting of exclusive
recognition on a majority basis by secret ballot and determi­
ning unfair labor practices.
The new pieces of machinery established for dealing
with negotiation impasses were the establishment of a central
authority, Federal Labor-Relations Council, to administer the
program, the transfer of authority from agency heads to the
Assistant Secretary of Labor to decide administrative disputes,
and the creation of the Federal Service Impasse Panel within
the Labor Relations Council to settle impasses on substantive
issues in negotiations
Professor Repas

(27:1508).

In a summarizing statement,

(25) concluded that there have been substan­

tial improvements in Executive Order 11941 over Executive
Order 10988.

36
State and Local Level
Collective bargaining in state and local government
developed in much the same manner as collective bargaining in
the private sector prior to and after
Act of 1935.

(31:138-139) the Wagner

The Wagner Act provided the machinery for the

enforcement of union rights in the private sector.

Only

recently, following the lead of the federal government, have
states adopted legislation establishing collective bargaining
for state and local employees.
Prior to 1962, some state legislation had been
enacted which had guaranteed the right of public employees to
join labor unions and spelled out the right of the employer
to enter into collective bargaining contracts with unions

(29).

Generally, legislation remained permissive and did not require
the employer to negotiate with the employee organization.
However, the impetus from Executive Order 10988 led
to enactment of laws in 1965 in Michigan
setts

(30:12), and Connecticut

(30:18), Massachu­

(3 0:1) which made it compulsory

for public employers to bargain with representatives chosen by
the workers.

Failure to comply with these statutes resulted

in an unfair labor practice.
Public reaction, success of the unions, the attitude
of public officials, and an increase in liberal legislation
favoring collective bargaining are all creating an atmos­
phere of union acceptance which has heretofore barely
tolerated the existance of unions in public employment.

37
Collective Negotiation
in Public Education
As indicated previously, there has been a tremen­
dous growth in public employment, especially in the various
levels of government.

At the state and local levels,

education is the largest user of government employees
(21:5-7).

Since public education is the primary respon­

sibility of each state, those states that have passed
legislation providing for public employees to negotiate
with public agencies have, in a sense, provided a "Little
Wagner Act" for those involved in public education.

Thus,

changing the relationship between public employer-employee
from one of "sovereign-slave" to a "partner in democracy."
John Horvat indicates that,
Negotiation is a rapidly growing force in American
education because it is a method by which teachers
can gain some real control over decision-making in
the schools.
No longer can administrators and
board members choose to, or afford to, reject out
of hand or ignore the requests and demands of
teacher groups.
Collective negotiation processes
create political, psychological, and in some cases
legal pressures which force boards and administra­
tors tc listen to and respond Lu the demands of
teachers of their districts (72:53-54).
Apparently the first formal collective negotiation
agreement in education was between the Norwalk Teachers'
Association and the Norwalk Board of Education in 1946.
This contract resulted from a bitter teacher's strike

(42:7).

Between 1946 and 1962 many agreements, most of which were
in Connecticut, were entered into by boards of education
and faculty.

38
Since the Norwalk Teachers' Association and the
Norwalk Board of Education agreement, much has happened
in educational employer-employee relations.

Whether one

picks up a scholarly journal, popular magazine, or daily
newspaper, articles dealing with collective negotiation,
teacher power, new collective bargaining legislation,
strikes, impasse procedures, and dispute settlements are
ever present.

These articles indicate the characteristics

of employer-employee relationships in education today.
If one were to attempt to locate the single event
that stimulated teacher organizations around the country
to greater collective activity, it would have to be the
collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the United
Federation of Teachers and the New York City Board of
Education in 1962.

Charles Schmidt of the School of Labor

and Industrial Relations, Michigan State University, wrote,
Although there are probably thousands of examples
of some type of consultations between teachers
and boards of education over the past fifty years
or more, the acknowledged breakthrough that served
as a fore-runner for contemporary bargaining acti
vity in Michigan and elsewhere was the December,
1961, recognition of the United Federation of
Teachers as the exclusive bargaining agent for
public school teachers in New York City.
Their
negotiated settlement has been followed by similar
settlements in Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, and
hundreds of other districts throughout the
nation (32:3-4).
Whereas, collective negotiation in education began
in the public elementary and secondary schools, this has
been the area which has experienced the greatest expansion

39
of negotiation.

However, collective negotiation at the

two and four-year college level is becoming more wide­
spread.

At the present time, Central Michigan University,

Rutgers, Southeastern Massachusetts University, St. Johns
University, Lawrence Tech, and City University of New York
(CUNY) are four-year institutions operating under negotiated
contracts

(43.5).

Other four-year institutions are in

various stages of development such as signing of authori­
zation cards and carrying out representational elections
(44:1).
An article in the Educators Negotiating Service
entitled "Teachers Unions Proliferate on Junior College
Campuses" calls attention to junior colleges involved in
collective negotiations.
As evidence of the increase in collective negotia­
tions on junior college campuses, the Cook County College
Teachers Union in Chicago presently is the bargaining
agent for twelve junior colleges, an increase of eight
from the 1969 school year.

Another indication is that the

AFT membership in California junior colleges rose ten
per cent in 1969.
Union organizers find it easier to organize junior
college campuses than four-year institutions.

Norman

Sevenson, president of the Cook County AFT affiliate,
observes,

"Junior colleges are particularly fertile ground

for organizing because the

. . . teachers have too long

40
been receiving second-class treatment."

The article

goes on to indicate two key factors, in their opinion,
which spur junior college organization, that being:
(1) lower pay and (2) heavier teaching loads than the
*

four-year schools.

(71:54)

Organizational activity at the two-year college
level has been much greater than at the four-year college
level, resulting in a substantially greater number of nego­
tiated contracts.

Frankie and Howe discussed faculty

participation in the two-year college in an article titled,
"Faculty Power in the Community College," saying,
At no other formal level of education are faculty
members' militant efforts greater than they are
in the two-year college where their pressures to
participate more directly have forced changes in
its nature and administration (109:83).
Michigan's "Little Wagner Act"
for Public Employees
The Public Employment Relations Act (Act 336 of
Public Acts of 1947, as amended by Act 379 of Public Acts
of 1965), hereafter referred to as PERA, was signed into
law on July 23, 1965, by Governor Romney.

Upon signing

PERA into law, Romney issued the following statement that
said, in part:
The bill is the most basic revision of the act
(Hutchinson Act) since its adoption in 1947. The
major provision of the bill gave public employees
*

The proceeding two paragraphs mainly paraphrase
this article.

41
primarily at the local level, the rights of
organization and collective bargaining.
It also eliminates the automatic penalties
for striking employees but permits employers
to discipline striking employees, to the
extend of discharge, with the employees hav­
ing the right of appeal to circuit court.
It is apparent that public employees in our
state and throughout the nation are demand­
ing and deserve a greater voice in their
own working conditions than we have histori­
cally given them (33:5-6).
The Michigan PERA encompasses all public employees
in any branch of public service in Michigan except state
employees within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service
Commission.

Major provisions of the Michigan PERA are

as follows:
Sections 1, 3, 6, and 7 are amendments to existing
sections of Act Number 336 of the Public Acts of 1947
(Hutchinson Act).

Eight new sections were added to stand

as cited:
1.

Right to organize (Section 9) - Public employees
may lawfully organize, form, join or assist
in labor organizations for the purpose of
collective bargaining.

2.

Unfair labor practices of employer (Section 10)(a) to interfere with, restrain or coerce pub­
lic employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in section 9.
(b) To initiate,
create, dominate, contribute to or interfere
with the formation or administration of any
labor organization: Provided, that a public
employer shall not be prohibited from permit­
ting employees to confer with it during
working hours without loss of time or pay.
(c) To discriminate in regard to hire, terms
or other conditions of employment in order to
encourage or discourage membership in a labor

42
organization.
(d) To discriminate against
the public employee because he has given
testimony or instituted proceedings under
this act.
(e) To refuse to bargain col­
lectively with the representatives of its
public employees, subject to the provisions
of section 11.
3. Voluntary designation of bargaining represen­
tatives (Section 11) - Representatives
designated or selected for purposes of col­
lective bargaining by the majority of the
public employees in a unit appropriate for
such purposes, shall be the exclusive represen­
tatives of all the public employees in such
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment or other conditions of employment,
and shall be so recognized by the public
employer.
4. Non-voluntary recognition (Section 12) Whenever a petition shall have been filed in
accordance with such regulations as may be
prescribed by the board: (a) By a public
employee or group of public employees, or
an individual or labor organization acting in
their behalf, alleging that 30% or more of the
public employees within a unit claimed to be
appropriate for such purpose wish to be
represented for collective bargaining and that
their public employer declines to recognize
their representative.
(b) By a public employer
or his representative alleging that one or more
individuals or labor organizations have pre­
sented to him a claim to be recognized as the
representative described in section 11.
5. Determining the bargaining unit (Section 13) The board shall decide m each case, or in
order to insure public employees the full bene­
fit of their right to self organization, to
collective bargaining and otherwise to effect­
uate the policies of this act, the unit
appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining.
6. Elections (Section 14) - An election shall not
be directed in any bargaining unit or any sub­
division within which, in the preceding 12-month

43
period, a, valid election has been held.
The board shall determine who is eligible
to vote in the election and shall estab­
lish rules governing the election.
7.

Duties of employer and employees (Section 15) ~ .- . to bargain collectively is the per­
formance of the mutual obligation of the
employer and the representative of the employees
to meet at reasonable times and confer in good
faith with respect to wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment, or the
negotiation of an agreement, or any question
arising thereunder, and the execution of a
written contract, ordinance or resolution
incorporating any agreement reached if requested
by either party but such obligation does not
compel either party to agree to a proposal or
to require the making of a concession.

8.

Remedies and procedures for unfair labor
practices (Section 16) - Violations o f the
provisions of section 10 shall be deemed to
be unfair labor practices remediable by the
Labor Mediation Board (35:745-750).

The PERA of Michigan is similar to the National
Labor Relations Act (36:29) in that it (1) is administered
by a specific body, the Employment Relations Commission,
formerly the Labor Mediation Board, and (2) its provisions
are similar.
The Employment Relations Commission's respon­
sibilities are

(1) labor relations division which conducts

representation and decertification elections and is con­
cerned with unfair labor practices, and (2) the mediation
division which helps the parties reach mutually agree­
able settlements of disputes

(34:5).

In summary, keeping in mind the Presidential Execu­
tive Orders and the Michigan PERA, the major distinctions

44
between various aspects of collective bargaining in indus­
try and collective negotiation in education as indicated
by Shils and Whittier are:
1. There appears to be a body of legislative
documents providing ground rules for labormanagement relations in industry. Whereas,
educators find the field of information
and precedent somewhat barren.
2. Industry has bargaining specialists.
Where­
as, education is without experienced personnel
in this area.
3. Industry has a sound body of tradition in
regard to scope of bargaining. Whereas,
education has not yet determined what is
negotiable.
4. Industrial strikes arouse little public inter­
est. Whereas, education strikes become well
publicized (59:151-157).
Collective Negotiation in Michigan
Community Colleges
Legislatively lawful bargaining began in the
Michigan community colleges shortly after the enactment
of the Michigan PERA.

By January 26, 1971, twenty-six

of the twenty-nine community college faculties in Michigan
had elected bargaining agents to represent them.
A total of sixteen of these institutions are
represented by the Michigan Education Association, four
are represented by the Michigan Federation of Teachers,
six are independently represented

(not affiliated with a

national parent organization), and three have not elected
bargaining representatives and are not involved in formal
collective negotiation.

45
In looking at the founding dates of the community
colleges and their involvement in collective negotiation,
it is interesting to note that all community colleges in
Michigan with a founding date of 1965 or after, of which
there are eight, have elected bargaining agents and are
engaged in collective negotiation.

Table 2.1 summarizes

this information for the Michigan community colleges as of
January 26, 1971.
John Helper summarizes the unionization of higher
education in Michigan when he said:
Since unions, in Michigan, are virtually habi­
tual in industry, in the public schools, and
in community and junior colleges, it was clear
that sooner or later unionization would come
to a four-year institution in the Wolverine
State (110:104).
Decision-Making
The decision-making process has undergone changes
through time.

Apparently,

in the early days, managers made

decisions based to a large extent on hunch,
and guess.

intuition,

F. W. Taylor recognized this and preached the

word of "scientific analysis" instead of the rule of thumb.
Gradually through the years managers have turned to the
"scientific" rather than the intuitive approach to problem
solving,

as did Taylor.

Once they recognized the value

of the scientific approach to making decisions, managers
have continued to develop their skills in the use of

TABLE 2.1.—

Bargaining
Agent

Founding
Date Prior
to 1965

Founding
Date 1965
or After

Identification of Michigan Community Colleges by Founding Dates and
Bargaining Agent.
MEA

MFT

Alpena
Genesee
Gogebic
Jackson
Kellogg
Lansing
Monroe
Muskegon
St. Clair
Schoolcraft
Southwestern

1952
1923
1932
1928
1956
1957
1964
1926
1923
1961
1964

Highland Park
Henry Ford
Lake Michigan

Glen Oaks
Kalamazoo
Mid Michigan
Montcalm
Washtenaw

1965
1966
1965
1965
1965

Wayne County

INDEPENDENT

1918
1938
1946

Bay De Noc
Grand Rapids
Macomb
Oakland

1962
1914
1962
1964

No
Agent

Delta
North Central
Northwestern

1957
1958
1951

i
(

1968

Kirtland
West Shore

1966
1967

j

*The table style found in this dissertation is that recommended by William W. Farquhar,
"Directions for Thesis Preparation," Michigan State University, Spring, 1969.

47
scientific rather than haphazard decision-making
models.
The development of the computer, of course, has
done much to change management's approach to decision­
making, inasmuch as it has made it possible for a manager
to have vast quantities of information about both inter­
nal and external facts about the organization at his call.
He is, as a result, learning to scientifically synthesize,
interrelate, and use knowledge from diverse sources in the
form of quantitative models.
Community colleges, as well as other educational
institutions and businesses, have evolved organizational
structures that exhibit many of the characteristics of
bureaucracy

(as defined by Weber and elaborated by other

students of formal organization).

Max Weber, a German

sociologist, is considered by many to be the father of
the modern conept of "bureaucracy," which one may think
of as synonymous with "massive organization."
opted for an "ideal type" of bureaucracy.

Weber

The name, ideal

type, was not to be construed as a value judgment, rather
it stood for a model of bureaucratic operation. Basically
the "ideal type" included:
Emphasis on form. Its first, most cited, and most
general feature has to do with its emphasis on
form of organization.
In a sense the rest are
examples of this.
The concept of hierarchy. The organization follows
the principle of hierarchy, with each lower

48
office under the control and supervision of
a higher one.
Specialization of t a s k . Incumbents are chosen
on the basis of m e r i t a n d ability to perform
specialized aspects of a total operation.
A specified sphere of competence. This flows
from the previous point.
It suggests that
the relationships between the various special­
izations should be clearly known and observed
in practice.
In a sense the use of job des­
criptions in many American organizations is a
practical application of this requirement.
Establish norms of conduct. There should be as
little as possible in theor g a n i z a t i o n that is
unpredictable.
Policies should be enunciated
and the individual actors within the organiza­
tion should see that these policies are
implemented.
Records. Administrative acts, decisions, and
rules should be recorded as a means of insur­
ing predictability of performance within the
bureaucracy (37:56-57).
Weber's theories about formal hierarchy contain a
command and authority structure which flows from the top
of the organization down through the ranks.
The challenge to this traditional concept of
top-down authority came in the mid-nineteen thirties by
Chester I. Barnard

(38).

The essence of the Barnard thesis

is that people differ in their degree of effort exhibited
to achieve the organizational goals and that the organi­
zation must in some way secure their willingness to pursue
these goals.

Barnard also postulated that the degree of

effective authority is measured by the willingness of his

49
subordinates to accept it.

In this sense, Barnard viewed

authority as deligated upward

(38:92-94).

A metamorphosis of organizational theory was
developed by Emery E. Olson on the basis of materials
prepared by John M. Pfiffner.

Table 2.2 is a reproduction

of this data.
As indicated in Table 2.2, there has been a change
in decision-making theory from decisions as an individual,
highly centralized act to decisions as collegial, situa­
tional; thus, a review of that process is in order.
Roger Jones generated the following model from
various plans on how (step by step)

to arrive at a decision.

The decision maker cannot avoid choosing when,
how, whether, and in what order his problem
requires him t o :
1.

analyze the situation to be sure there
is a problem.

2.

collect facts.

3.

analyze the relationship between facts and
the problem.

4.

consider new ideas and new ways to tackle
the problem.

5.

weigh alternative courses of action.

6.

choose a course of action.

7.

rejudge that course in the light of four questions;
a. will it achieve the purpose?
b. will it actually solve the problem?
c. is it feasible?
d. are there undesirable results to offset
the advantages?

50
Table 2.2.— Trends in Organizational Theory.
FROM

TO

Traditionalism

Social Dynamics

Job-Task Hierarchy

Social Process

Efficiency as a Mechanical
Process

Efficiency as a Human
Process

Organization as a
Bureaucratic Structure

Organization as a Social
Institution

Control through Command

Control through Communi­
cation

Authority from the Top Down

Authority from the Group

Leadership by Authority

Leadership by Consent

Decisions as an Individual,
Centralized Act

Decisions as Collegial,
Situational

Regimented Work Environment

Democratic Work Environment

Technological Change
by Fiat

Technological Change by
Consultation

Social or Financial
Incentive

Social and Financial
Incentives

Job as Subsistence

Job as Satisfying Experience

Planning an Crisis
Technique

Pl a n n i n g as For mal riitid
Pr oces s

Incomplete and Delayed
Information

Complete and Current
Information

Policy and Administration
Dichotomy

Policy and Administration
Continuum

Profit with Buccaneering

P r o f i t w i t h Social
Responsibility

51
8.

make and issue a decision.

9.

follow it up

(39:160).

The new concepts of authority and the group dyna­
mics movement, coupled with the advent of collective
negotiation, have sired a new approach to decision-making.
The investigator sees this new approach as a continuance
of the established process of arriving at a decision as
indicated by Jones, but changing the "who" will be
involved in making the decision and to "what degree" they
will be involved.
The old authoritarian style of management permit­
ted little or no employee involvement in administrative
matters.

The "boss" was rewarded and evaluated in terms

of his success at making decisions, while the employee
was subject to these decisions but had no say about them.
Today the group-centered concept of organization calls for
a type of leadership which will stimulate group as well
as individual response.
Emphasis upon new decision theory came into being
about forty years ago.

It was then that Herbert Simon dis­

cussed the features of organizational structure and function
as being derived from the characteristics of human problem­
solving processes and rational choice

(40:169).

Through

Simon's writings there is a common thread reflecting his
bias in favor of group involvement in decision-making.

52
Simon feels it is impossible for one person to
determine all consequences and alternative strategies
stating:
The number of alternatives he must explore is
so great, the information he would need to
evaluate them so vast that even an approxima­
tion to objective reality is hard to conceive
(45:79).
Continued development of group structure, situa­
tions and involvement gave rise to the concern of human
needs.

Taxonomies of such needs were generated by Maslow,

Hertzberg, and McGregor.

They generally followed a pattern

which progressed from basic physiological and safety needs
to needs for realizing one's own potentialities, con­
tinued self-development and creativity (56:18).
Arguments have been forwarded in justification of
faculty involvement in community college decision-making.
In a recent Junior College Journal article, Atwell and
Watkins discuss a rational approach toward faculty, stu­
dent, and administrative involvement in the organizational
processes of their institutions, indicating:
It is readily apparent that our society has come
to depend to an increasing degree on work which
is performed by groups and teams rather than by
individuals working alone (56:17).
Eugene Fram suggests that faculty involvement is
essential because "they represent the scholarship in
American life, the important basis of higher education"
(46:390).

The implication here is that the quality of

53
education will improve as a result of faculty partici­
pation.

Roger Garrison also supports the concept of

enriched educational quality through faculty participa­
tion (47:517-525).
A second justification for faculty participation
was noted in a Phi Delta Kappan article describing the
consequences of teacher negotiations in Michigan.

Here,

Richard Dashiell indicates that the realization of a
more significant teacher role in policy formulation has
facilitated an increase in faculty morale.

He concludes:

. . . not only has improvement been achieved
in many areas of welfare and instruction, but
the morale of the teacher in the classroom
moved forward several light years (4R:20-21).
Peter Blomerly, in an assessment of the role of
the junior college faculty on decision-making, also found
morale to be positively correlated with the influence
attributed to faculty members in departmental decision­
making (51:39).
Burton Clark adds a third justification.

He pro­

poses that the inclusion of faculty members in matters of
institutional governance tends to enhance the psychological
identification of the faculty with the college.

He states:

In a sense, a faculty that captures control is
also captured in return, committed to the col­
lege by involvement in policy making (49:300).
The fact that the faculty and administrators
should be a group decision-making body as opposed to one

54
person commanding all decision-making power is best
summarized in a quotation by John Galbraith:
When power is exercised by a group, not only
does it pass into the organization but it
passes irrevocably.
If an individual has
taken a decision he can be called before an­
other individual who is his superior in the
hierarchy, his information can be examined
and his decision reversed by the greater
wisdom or experience of his superior.
But
if the decision required the combined infor­
mation of a group, it cannot be safely
reversed by an individual.
He will have to
get the judgment of other specialists.
This
turns the power once more to the organiza­
tion (50:18).
Blomerley indicates that there has been a trend
toward increasing the participation of junior college
faculties in institutional governance.

However, junior

college faculty members are more concerned about being
involved in decisions relating to personnel matters and
working conditions than other areas of departmental
concern (51:38-39).
How did the junior college faculty member upset
the traditional administrative structure of their institu­
tions?

With the administrative pyramid, superior-

subordinate relationships existed which permitted trustees
to control the institution, administrators to control
faculty, and faculty to control students.

Faculties have

challenged and changed, in some cases, the authority
relationships through:

55

1.

collective bargaining legislation.

2.

the withholding of services.

3.

the promotion of tenure l a w s , and

4.

other efforts aimed at establishing the
independence of the teaching profession
from undesired domination of either
administration or the board (57:21, 58:3).
In spite of arguments favoring faculty involve­

ment in decision-making, such factors as the changing
nature of the community college, enrollment increases, the
broadened curriculum, and the old, established concepts
concerning who should "run" the college have created
problems and situations which tend to prevent or at least
deter the fruition of the new faculty role in decision­
making .
The centralization of the decision-making process
tends to emerge with the increasing complexity of institu­
tions.

A wide assortment or organizational structures has

come into being, all of which seem to reflect highly
specialized divisions of labor and management.

This pat­

tern implies that extensive faculty involvement in matters
of "administrative concern" is undesirable.

John Corson

mentions four characteristics of higher education systems
which tend to inhibit faculty effectiveness in the area
of policy formulation:
1.

increasing lack of necessary information
related to policy formation and/or
recommendation.

56

2.

most faculty members are subject-matter
specialists, and few are educators in a
comprehensive sense.

3.

most policy is formulated by bits and
pieces without comprehensive considera­
tion of the educational program or
prevailing practice.

4.

as subject-matter specialists, faculty
members tend to resist proposals that
might encroach upon the established
preserves of each subject-matter
discipline (52:104).
Educators throughout the nation and at all levels

have arduously debated these two positions concerning
faculty involvement.
Priest

(53) and Garrison

(54) both indicate that

the lack of faculty involvement in policy formulation is
a major source of animosity between community college
administrators and faculty members.
In the final course of action, whether the faculty
is included or excluded from the decision-making process,
it is important to keep in mind George Odiorne's statement:
It is far better never to have asked subordinates
to participate in decisions that affect them, than
to ask them— , and then ignore what they have to
say (55:26).
Related Studies
Collective negotiation, as an area of educational
research, is relatively new.
area is recent.

Most of the writing in this

A comprehensive survey of the literature

revealed several studies of a pertinent nature.

57
Studies of Faculty Involvement
Studies of faculty involvement have, for the most
part, indicated a desire on behalf of the faculty to have a
greater role in the making of decisions.

This can come

about only by readjustment of authority roles in the operation
of the educational institution.
The investigator reviewed the 1970-1971 negotiated
contracts of the Michigan community colleges, noting the
breadth of scope of issues bargained.

The scope of bar­

gaining included such items as:
Curriculum
Class Size
Discharge and Disci—
pline of Teachers
Grievance Procedures
In-Service Education
Leaves of Absence

Personnel Policies
Provisions for Physical Facilities for Instructors
Salaries and Wages
Teaching Assignments
Transfers and Promosions*

Looking at this list, one can see that the faculty
by means of their representative organization have become
involved in areas which have heretofore been administrative
spheres of control.

This faculty involvement has brought

about a change in the Lictditional role of the administrator
bringing about conflict and readjustment.
The process of conflict was investigated by Cave
(60:15) when he visited school districts in which the
school administrator was involved in conflict with the
teachers' union.

Cave looked at the impact of leadership

*This list is not intended to be comprehensive but
shows broad areas of faculty involvement.

58
behavior of school administrators on teacher-negotiation
strife.

A Leadership Behavior Questionnaire was used to

develop an ideal administrative behavior.

A sample of

administrators, teachers' union representatives, and
school board members involved in a conflict situation were
given the questionnaire asking them to record the behavior
of administrators in this conflict situation.

Cave con­

cluded that administrators contribute to the conflict by
their lack of arbitration and group skills and pointed
out a need for administrator training programs.
Potts examined the possible change in the adminis­
trative task performance of principals.

In the study,

Potts looked at the effect of negotiations in one state and
the lack of negotiations in another state upon the task
performance of principals, concluding, in part:
1.

Change has taken place in the task performance
of Michigan and Indiana high school principals
over the past five years.

2.

These task performance changes have been greater
in Michigan than those in Indiana, a state not
having compulsory professional negotiations.

3.

These changes of task performance cannot be
directly attributed to the passage of a profes­
sional negotiation statute.

4.

The organizational patterns of high schools
have no relation to the task performance of
principals (61:113).
Olsen

(62) did a survey which pointed up the fact

that most principals felt they should be involved in pro­
fessional negotiations as members of a total teachers'

59
organization.

It was felt this membership was needed

to retain the principal's authority.

It is pointed out,

however, that where the future of the child is at stake,
there should be no teacher-principal conflict and they
should be avoided at all costs.
Garver in his study of the attitudes of principals
toward negotiations revealed that principals who partici­
pated on the board of education bargaining team had a
better attitude toward the total process of negotiation
than did those who did not

(63:206).

This is carried one step further by M u n g e r 's study
of the attitudes of Michigan principals toward negotiating
their own school board contract.

Munger concluded that a

majority of Michigan principals should have the right and
should negotiate a contract with their local board of
education

(64:110).

Involvement studies at the community college level
were conducted by Campbell

(65) and Nicholson

(6 6) to

analyze faculty positions within the influence structure
of the community college.

The findings of these studies

indicate that faculty involvement is minimal and that it
tends to be subordinated to the direction of administrators.
Garrison

(54) supports these findings in a study

aimed at identifying issues and problems of community col­
lege faculties.

He concluded that community college

60

faculties perceive themselves as having little or no
voice in the policy affairs of the institution.
Murphy, in a study examining attitudinal factors
which influence faculty morale and perceptions of involve­
ment, concluded:
1.

Faculty involvement in the formulation of
community college policy is limited.

2.

Faculty members deserve a high level of
involvement in the formulation of community
college policy.

3.

Current levels of faculty involvement in
community college policy formulation are
considered inadequate to the extent that
they fall below the desired levels (68:137).
While investigating the Chicago junior college

teachers' strike in 1967, Swenson and Novar

(107) found

that the deterioration of administration-facuity relation­
ships was due, in large part, to a total exclusion of the
faculty in the policy making process.
In another study Dunn, et a l .,

(108) surveyed the

faculty and administrators at Peralta Junior College,
located in California, in an effort to determine reactions
to a plan implemented for faculty involvement in policy
formulation.

They found that most respondents felt that

the plan had fostered better communications and working
relations between administrators and faculty.
The findings of studies related to community college
faculty involvement in policy formulation have been
mal.

mini­

One area of exception seems to be in the area of

€1
curricular policy.

It is also evident that the formal

role of the community college faculty member is not that
of a policy formulator.
However, Whittier suggests:
Decision-making in educational institutions is
shifting away from the tradition of unilateral
action taken by one group or individual in the
system and accepted by most other members. More
and more the process is involving the partici­
pation of representatives of many of those who
will be influenced by a decision C69:44).
He goes on to say that institutions will be stronger if
the knowledge and expertise of all members of the organi­
zation can be effectually utilized (69:45).

Harnak supports

and extends this idea, saying cooperative and individual
teacher decision-making in today's schools is a necessary
staff activity (104:12).
Related Studies of
Decision-Making
In the area of decision-making, studies tend to
point out a need for emerging administrators to be pre­
pared and meet the challenge of collective negotiation
in education.
Capper and Gaddy suggest:
Faculty participation in institutional gover­
nance is one of the most controversial issues
facing the contemporary community junior college.
According to the American Association of Higher
Education Task Force on Faculty Representation
and Academic Negotiations, the future pattern
of governance in institutions of higher educa­
tion depends on the manner in which administrators
deal with faculty aspirations (105:1).

62

Capper and Gaddy feel that if an institution does not have
a faculty senate which provides faculty members with means
of policy-formation and policy-implementation, it can
expect external pressure from organizations whose interests
may not be consistent with those of the institution.
The challenge is for administrators to adjust and
cope with greater decision-making involvement of faculty
and non-instructional personnel in decisions which affect
them; for the purpose of collective negotiation is to
secure an active role in determining institutional
decisions.
It is not uncommon for administrators, board
members and others to claim that all of the
aspects of school planning, decision-making, and
operations were shared with teachers long before
collective negotiation procedures became preval­
ent. However, the difference today is that the
sharing is no longer a matter of permitting
teachers to participate in decision-making and
planning.
Sharing is seen by a large number of
today's teachers as a matter of formal and often
legislated right, rather than privilege (72:55-56).
Ann Mitchel states the teachers' position in
education, saying:
. . . In the educational hierarchy, he is the
low man. . . In the power structure, he is the
one without power.
In the line of order, he
is the one who takes orders from everyone else.
He has little chance to exercise creativity,
to show intelligence, or to use democratic
procedures.
He has no say in the important deci­
sions affecting the schools.
The educational
system in America today is a vertical hierarchy
and the teacher is at the bottom (100:66).

63

University decision-making is discussed by Charles
Neff in a recent Journal of Higher Education article,
stating:
The ways virtually all universities make deci­
sions— particularly crucial decisions about
resource allocations— are still geared more to
the traditional conceptions of the university's
social role than to the new demands to which
higher education is being asked to respond.
Decision making based on unexamined assumptions
about purpose, process, and organization are not
likely to work effectively much longer (106:116-117).
Teachers are determined to change the present
level of involvement and are winning a voice for themselves
in the decision-making process.

If this educational change

is occurring, how are administrators preparing for this
adjustment?

Scott surveyed the nature of the prepara­

tion program for school administrators in its relation to
collective negotiation (101:1).

The sample for this study

included eleven deans of the colleges of education from big
ten schools plus Wayne State University and ninety-eight
school superintendents randomly selected from midwestern
school districts which were involved in collective negotia­
tion.

Scott concluded that he found no appropriate

programs or agreement on what plan to utilize in providing
administrators with the information or teaching the skills
needed in the area of collective negotiation.
In the area of instructional decision making,

Steele

(102) investigated the impact of collective bargaining on

64

the improvement of instruction.

She found that there

were significantly more instructional provisions in Michi­
gan master contracts in the second year of negotiating
than were present in the first year of negotiating.

This

tends to point out teacher interest in taking an active
part in instructional decisions.

Harnack concurs by saying:

.
.. that the needs of the decision-making teacher
.
.. are outgrowths of a deep concern professional
teachers have for the improvement of an instruction­
al program. Also, there are need which were not
described (salary, economic security, status, and
the like) because they are not directly related to
the improvement of instruction.
However, all these
items are inextricably tangled, one to another, in
such a way that few would dare to separate them —
even academically (104:101).
The area of institutional response in urban school
systems

was investigated by Gittell and Hollander in 1968

(103).The authors selected

six large city school systems,

assuming that innovation was a valid measure by which big
school systems could be evaluated.

Some of the pertinent

conclusions were:
1.

Public school systems have removed decision­
making from the agents closest to the school­
child — the teachers and parents, violating
traditionally established goals of public
education.

2.

Parents have been sidelined in educational
policy-making constantly reminded by pro­
fessionals of their lack of expertise.

3.

Because participants in the policy process
are so limited, alternatives are also
limited, and school policy choices are nar­
rowly conceived.
Innovation is rare, and
creativity, competition and experimentation
are discouraged.

65

4.

School systems are very much a product
of the political culture of the city. On
the other hand, school systems seem to
have little influence on the political
culture of the city.

Love

(98), in 1968, looked at the impact of

teacher negotiations on school system decision-making.

He

found that although administrative and school board dis­
cretion is narrowed by collective negotiations, administra­
tors quickly learn to use the negotiation process to
preserve areas of discretion and school boards retain their
right to represent the public interest and make all final
decisions.

Love also concluded that:

1.

Evidence suggested that the establishment
of collective negotiation does enlarge
teacher participation in decision making.

2.

Collective negotiation creates a new struc­
ture of decision making and a need for the
readjustment of teacher, administrator, and
school board roles within it.

3.

The process of negotiation is primarily
concerned with the determination of person­
nel policies, and

4.

Educational policies are being negotiated
but, in addition, non-negotiating decisionprocesses are being created for the
involvement of teachers in complex educa­
tional decisions.

Thus far, involvement and decision-making studies
have been discussed, but what is and can one identify the
decision-making process at a specific educational institu­
tion?

Annette TenElshof

(77) designed a study to determine

if there is a single overall process for decision-making

66
in the small college and to discover who is making the
decisions.

The sample for this study included the

administration, faculty, and students at the University
of Michigan at Flint.

From the findings of the study,

she concluded that:
1.

There is a single overall decision­
making process which can be measured.

2.

There is a perceived power structure
at the University of Michigan at
Flint.

3.

In most areas related to the faculty
the students have not contributed in
the decision making.

4.

In the decisions involving students
the results suggest that the students
are told about the decision rather
than participating in them.
Summary

Chapter II proceeds from the concept of collec­
tive bargaining to collective negotiation in education
today.

This was accomplished by discussing the labor

movement in the United States, public and private sector
bargaining, decision-making theory, and trends and
related studies.
Labor in the United States has moved from
indentured servants to enslavement to free workers.
early as 178 6, workers attempted to organize but were

As

67

restricted by a system which had outlived its work­
ability.

Restrictive laws had been in concert with the

general thought of this early period but such notable
legislation as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Clayton
Act, the Wagner Act, and Executive Orders 10988 and
11491 are examples of the evolutionary process of law
enabling collective bargaining to become socially
acceptable.
Decision-making theory was also experiencing
a metamorphosis during the mid-nineteen-thirties.

This

change was from decisions as an individual, highly
centralized act to decisions which are collegial and
situational.

The new concepts of authority and the group

dynamics movement, coupled with the advent of collective
negotiation, have sired a new approach to decision­
making .
Studies of faculty involvement have, for the
most part, indicated a desire on behalf of the faculty
to have a greater role in the m a k i n g of decisions.
In the area of decision-making, studies tend
to point out a need for emerging administrators to be
prepared and meet the challenge of collective negotiation
in education.
It should be noted that no emperical investi­
gations concerned with the degree and level of

68
decision-making influence in community colleges have
been conducted.

CHAPTER III
THE METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The literature reported in Chapter II provides a
background for an investigation of the relationship between
collective negotiation and the task of decision-making. The
complexity of the task of arriving at a decision, due to a
vast number of variables affecting a final choice, points
up a need for an investigation of the present state of
involvement in decision-making.

To better understand the

present situation, the study also looks at the prenego­
tiating period of involvement in decision-making.
In this chapter, the population of the study will
be identified, the source and collection of the data
described, a description* of the instrument given, and the
*
statistical treatment of the data discussed.
Definition of the Population
There are four community colleges involved in this
study, two with formally negotiated contracts, two without
*★
formally negotiated contracts.
*
The statistical treatment of the data was para­
metric analysis of possibly nonparametric data.
**
See Appendix E.
69

70
The population of this study consists of 129
full-time faculty members and eight administrators under
contract with their specific community college from 1965
or prior and through the 1970/71 academic year.

The

reason there are so few administrators included in this
study is that there are so few administrators meeting the
criteria of having been administrators of their institu­
tions from 1964 to 1970.
Administrator and faculty listings published in
Michigan community college catalogues from the year 1964
through 1971, the Directory of Institutions of Higher
Education, Pattersons American Education, and the Michigan
Education Directory and Buyer's Guide were the references
for identifying the population of this study.

In June,

1971, the four participating community colleges provided
the names and addresses of all full-time faculty members
who had been employed at their respective institutions
since 1965 or prior to that date and who are still employed
within the institution.
Source of the Data
The total population, consisting of 137 partici­
pants, is the source of the data for this study.
Identification of the participants was based upon
the following criteria:
1.

The basis for the selection of Michigan

community colleges involved in collective negotiation was

71
(1) the founding date of the institution roust have been
prior to 1964;

C2J the institution must be presently

functioning under a negotiated written agreement;

C3J the

president and one other administrator must have been
employed as administrators of their respective institu­
tions from 1964 to 1970

(minimum) and;

(4) the faculty must

be represented in the negotiation process by their desig­
nated representative.
Based upon the above criteria, two Michigan commun­
ity colleges were identified.

Their names have been kept

anonymous to protect their rights and privacy.
2.

The basis for the selection of Michigan

community colleges not involved in collective negotiation
was

(1) the founding date must have been prior to 1964;

(2) the institution must never have been and not now be
functioning under a negotiated written agreement;

(3) the

president and one other administrator must have been
employed as administrators of their respective institua. 4
O A U U b

1 n /T A
-i-

W *

4-~

1 o n
J, •> /

A
U

J ____________ >
\iLlJLll J - i U l l i U / /

--------- d l H U j

t

\

a

\

J

• IL.1 ItS

r t ■
i a t ' U i L y

must not be represented by a bargaining agent.
Based upon the above criteria, two Michigan commun­
ity colleges were identified.

Their names have been kept

anonymous to protect their rights and privacy.
Having identified the institutions which met the
specified criteria, the administrators and full-time

72
faculty members to participate in the study were also
determined.
The administrative participants were contacted by
telephone, prior to the mailing of the questionnaire, to
secure their expressed willingness to participate in this
study.

Following this, letters of introduction and
•jg

questionnaires

were sent to 145 possible participants

(all faculty and administrators who met the defined
criteria).
The first returns revealed eight faculty members
were not eligible due to recent promotions to administra­
tive positions, identification errors on behalf of the
first year of employment and self disqualification.

On the

basis of this information, the original population was
thereby reduced to 137.
The first correspondence with the sample produced
50 useable returns.

Follow up letters

* *

and a second copy

of the questionnaire was mailed to all non-respondents
cn

JnT^y 15/*

15*71*

A total of 85 useable questionnaires were returned
from both sets of correspondence.

This response repre­

sents 62.94 percent of the revised sample, two individuals
expressed a preference not to participate in the study,
•k

See Appendices B and D.
★*
See Appendix C.

73
and 50 failed to respond,

(.See Table 3.1.)

Of the eight

administrators who met the criteria to be included in this
study, six returned questionnaires.

Of the 129 faculty

members who met the criteria to be included in this study,
79 returned questionnaires.

TABLE 3.1.— Sample Responses*
Response Category

Frequency by Institution
1
2
3
4

Percent

Useable Returns

42

18

18

7

62. 04

Refuse to Participate

1

1

0

0

1.46

No Response

27

10

10

3

36.50

Totals

70

29

28

10

100.00

Schools one and two throughout the study will be
bargaining institutions and schools three and four will be
non-bargaining institutions.

A relatively high percentage of useable returns
together with the distribution of responses from partici­
pating institutions suggest the following conclusions:
1.

That a sufficiently large number of returns were
obtained to permit a statistical analysis of
the data, and;

2.

That the distribution of responses from parti­
cipating institutions indicates a high proba­
bility that the sample is representative of the
population from which it was drawn.

74
Data Collection
Time span utilized in collecting the data for this
study was June 16, 1971 to February 2, 1972.

The data were

collected by mail correspondence with the sample.

This

method of collecting data was selected for use in this
study for the following reasons, some of which were more
influential than others:
1.

It is less expensive.

2.

Skills to administer the instrument are
negligible (self-administering).

3.

Can be given to large groups simultaneously.

4.

It can be sent through the mail.

5.

The questionnaire allows standardized wording,
order, instructions, and responses.

6.

Ensures uniformity from one measurement
situation to the next (73:156).
Description of the Instrument

The measuring device used in this study is titled,
Decision-Making Influence Questionnaire.

The development

and orocednreR assnniat'?'? with this instrument as used, in
this study are as follows.
This instrument was developed specifically for use
in the current study, and designed to obtain estimates con­
cerning two dimensions:

(1) the degree of influence

exercised in decision-making and (2) the level at which
this influence is exerted.

75
The questionnaire consists of statements regarding
five major categories of community college institutional
concern

(financial affairs, academic affairs, personnel

policies, staffing and working conditions, and student
affairs).

Categories were established on the basis of a

statement by Jahoda:
. . . ideas for categorization should always come
from two sources, an intimate acquaintance with
the evidence in hand and general knowledge and
general anticipatory analysis of the possible
types of responses, based on theoretical, logical
or practical considerations (73:263).
Validity and Reliability
of the Instrument
Validity is defined as the degree to which a measure­
ment achieves a particular objective

(7 3:108-117).

Since

questionnaires and scales are used for a variety of pur­
poses, somewhat different types of validation are involved
depending upon the purposes of the questionnaire or scales.
There are five basic aspects of validity, namely, content
validity, concurrent validity, construct validity, preX C

u X V G

V Q x Xv*iX

f

a i iC i

x a o c

v c t x

•

Validity of the instrument in this study is assumed
*
(face validity ) on the premise that all items included in
the questionnaire were derived from decisions which commonly

Face validity means the degree to which a test
or scale appears to measure what it is intended to
measure.

76

characterize higher education and that experts and practi­
tioners in the field concur.
The Decision-Making Influence Questionnaire was
administered

(test and retest)

to graduate students

majoring in educational administration at Michigan State
University to determine the coefficient of stability,
sometimes called test—retest reliability.
Reliability is the consistency with which a measure
yields stable values for individuals and is free from
*
random error when a series of measurements are made.

In

order to evaluate reliability, a determination must be made
of the consistency of repeated measures for the same
individuals.

However, in practice only two measures of

the characteristics to be studied are usually used.

The

degree of agreement between these two measures indicates
the reliability of the measuring device.
An estimate of reliability, using the abovementioned population, was computed on the 3 6 00 computer at
Michigan State University with a resulting coefficient
of .79.
Scale and Index Construction
Before one is able to examine the degree and level
of decision-making influence, one must form concepts of the
★

For a good discussion of reliability see
(73:100-107).

77

variables related to the model.

Next, these concepts must

be translated into observable, quantitative indices so that
individual persons or groups can be ranked in terms of
each variable.
The questionnaire in this study contains a fivepoint rating scale to provide estimates of the degree of
influence.

These influence ratings in each category are

transformed into quantitative terms by assigning numerical
values from one to five.
involvement.

A score of one represents minimal

A score of five represents maximum

involvement.
Since part "B" of each item is divided into dis­
crete categories, tallies will be generated.

This data

will be used to indicate the level at which decision­
making influence was and is exerted.
Questionnaire Item Development
The questionnaire items were generated by the author
*
compiling a list of decisions which are common to most
*

The following indicates a partial list of readings
guiding the author:
1. "Statements on Government of Colleges and Universi­
ties," AAUP Bulletin, LII, No. 4, December, 1966.
2. John J. Corson, Governance of Colleges and Universi­
ties , New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960.
3. Gerald Burns, Administration in Higher Education,
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962.

78
institutions of higher education,

These items were modi-

fied for the present study by a final synthesis with the
items of the questionnaire utilized by Committee "T" of
the AAUP

(74:182).
From such groups of items, a draft questionnaire

was developed and pretested on a sample of graduate stu­
dents majoring in higher education administration at
Michigan State University.

Adjustments were made and a

second pretest was conducted in June, 1971, at one of
the community colleges in Michigan which was not included
in the study.

Reasons for the pretest were:

. . . a try-out of the questionnaire to see how
it works— whether changes are necessary before
the start of the full-scale study.
The pretest
provides a means of catching and solving unforseen problems in the use of the questionnaire,
the phrasing and sequence of questions, the
length of the questionnaire (75:429).
Discussing the instrument with the pretest parti­
cipants after they had answered it was also a valuable
aspect of pretesting (75:430).
From the results obtained from the pretesting,
the questions were edited and rewritten to eliminate
ambiguity and to increase specificity.

The entire question­

naire was then rewritten, resulting in the instrument
titled, Decision-Making Influence Questionnaire.
The final questionnaire was composed of thirty
questions, each containing two parts.

Part "A," the first

79
part was concerned with the degree of influence that was
and is exerted by the participants upon various aspects of
institutional concern.

The era associated with "was" in

this study was indicated as prior to the year 1965.

The

era associated with "is" in this study was indicated as
the present time.
Part "B," the second part, seeks the organizational
level at which this influence was and is exerted.

The

possible responses included in this section were <1) Indi­
vidual faculty members,
(3) Department chairman,

(2) Faculty organization,
(4) Dean or division chairman,

(5) President, vice-president, or board of trustees, and
(6) Other, please specify.
The scales to be used were constructed by coding
the items on the questionnaire, using the summated ratings
technique developed by Rensis Likert.

Scales constructed

using this method generally consist of a series of items
to which a person responds with some degree of agreement.
An individual or group is given a score which is either the
sum or the average of his responses to all of the items.
In this study, theoretically, the likelihood that a person
will respond to each item in a certain manner is dependent
upon his degree of influence.

A participant who has a sub­

stantial degree of influence will respond to the item in
this manner.

A participant who has little or no influence

will respond at the opposite end of the scale.

80
This method identifies persons at both the high
and low ends of the influence continuum.

A difficulty

arises, however, in interpreting scale scores that fall
between the extremes.

Because many different patterns of

response are possible, several persons may receive the same
composite score, yet may differ in their responses to par­
ticular items.

Nevertheless, the Likert technique does

permit an ordering of individuals on the basis of the
degree of influence that is measured.

The scale thus

formed is ordinal and not interval and does not impart
meaning to the distance between scale scores

(i.e., the

difference between scores of 1 and 3 is not necessarily
the same as the difference between the scores of 3 and 5).
The final instrument was mailed to participants
in the study in June, 1971.

Enclosed in each packet was:
•fa

(1) A letter of introduction,
(2) Directions for com—
**
pleting the questionnaire,
and (3) One copy of the
questionnaire.
The Statistical Model and
Computational ProceduresAfter a review of several possible statistical
models, multivariate analysis of variance was selected
*

See Appendix A for a copy of the administrative
introductory letter..
**
_.
See Appendix D.

81
a s the most appropriate technique to analyze part

"A"

of the questionnaire.
A computer program was used to analyze the data.
The program, entitled, Multivariance - Version 4 , was
written at the State University of New York at Buffalo by
Jeremy D. Finn, Department of Educational Psychology,
June of 1968.

in

Finn's program was then modified for the

Michigan State University CDC 3600 and 6500 computer sys­
tems by David J. Wright, Office of Research Consultation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan

(112).

The following paragraphs paraphrase David Wright's
description of A Generalized Univariate and Multivariate
Analysis of Variance, Covariance, and Regression Program
indicating the treatment of the data in this study.
The program performs an exact least-squares analy­
sis by the method described by Bock

(1963).

It also

provides a solution for the model of deficient rank by
having the user determine linear combinations of the group
membership effects which are of interest in the study.
Five sets of between-group contrasts are available,

includ­

ing non-orthogonal polynomials which is of concern as
indicated in the design of this study.
The program is divided into three phases:

input,

estimation, and analysis.
The input phase of this program allows for six
possible forms of data.

The data input for this study was

82
punched as raw data, with no header cards and in order
by cells.
The estimation and analysis phases are based
entirely on the specification of single - degree - of freedom planned contrasts.
In this study the estimation phase of the program
will:
1.

Estimate the magnitude of the effects and

their standard errors.
2.

Observed and estimated subclass means will

be combined across subclasses as desired.
3.

The error sum of squares and cross products

are estimated, and are adjusted to yield the variances and
correlations of the variates.

These may be either the

within-group term, the residual sum-of-products after fit­
ting a given model to the data, or special effects which
are user-determined.

This feature allows for the analysis

of any fixed, random, or mixed effects design.
r>^ +■v>•?pi

io o

The design

f i 2-Cc5 o f f c c t c •

The analysis phase of the program used for this
study is able to:
1.

Allow the selection of subsets of variables

from the original input set and perform the appropriate
analysis.
2.

If more than one variable is designated as a

criterion measure,

it will cause the program to consider

83
them simultaneously and to apply appropriate multivariate
test criteria.
3.

Partial correlations among the dependent

measures, the adjusted variances and standard deviations
are calculated and displayed.
4.

The program will proceed with the exact non-

orthogonal analysis of variance because subjects have been
grouped in the sampling design.

The contrasts established

are grouped according to the user's desires.
5.

A discriminant analysis will be performed for

each contrast or set of contrasts, as desired.

The variance

of the discriminant function and the percentage of betweengroup variation attributable to it are computed by the
program.

In addition, raw and standardized discriminant

function weights are calculated.
The main program and all of its subroutines are
coded in Fortran IV.
Summary
The population of this study consists of eight
selected Michigan community college administrators and 12 9
faculty members who were employed at their respective insti­
tutions from 1965 or prior and through the 1970 academic
year.

The four institutions selected were identified with

two being involved in collective negotiation and two not
involved in collective negotiation.

84
The instrument used in the study was the Decision^
Making Influence Questionnaire which was mailed to the
participants.

The validity of this instrument is assumed

(face validity) on the premise that all items included in
the questionnaire were derived from decisions which
commonly characterize higher education and that experts
and practitioners in the field concur.

The estimate of

reliability was computed with a resulting coefficient of
.79.
Multivariate analysis of variance was used to
analyze the data.

The data were analyzed on Michigan State

University's 3600 computer using David J. Wright's m odi­
fied version of Jeremy Finn's Multivariance - Version 4 .
This program is divided into three phases: input, estima­
tion, and "analysis."

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

of the

This

chapter presents the results of the analysis

data.

Each hypothesis has been stated as the null

or test hypothesis.

All hypotheses were tested using the

"Finn" program which is a multivariate analysis of variance
test.

An alpha level of .05 was selected for determination

of significance

of difference.

Secondly, the perceived

level at which decision-making influence is exerted will
be discussed.
Hypothesis 1
There is no significant difference between the per­
ceived degree of decision-making influence of
those junior colleges involved in collective bar­
gaining and those not involved in collective
bargaining.
The overall F-ratio for the multivariate test of
this hypothesis shows that the significance level is 0.7641,
which suggests that the null hypothesis is tenable.
Results of the multivariate analysis test for hypothesis 1
are presented in Table 4.1.

The mean scores of the bar­

gaining and non-bargaining junior colleges on the five
variables are in Table 4.2.
85

TABLE 4.1.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Bargaining vs Non-Bargaining.
F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors— 0.5158
d.f. = 5 and 148.0000
P less than 0.7641
Variable

Eetween Mean Sq

Financial Affairs

0.0811

0.1365

0.7123

Academic Affairs

0.4433

0.7211

0.3972

Personnel Policies

0.0486

0.0685

0.7939

Working Conditions

0.0108

0.0202

0.8872

Student Affairs

0.0315

0.0589

0.8086

Univariate F

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 1
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 152

P less than

87
TABLE 4,2.— Weighted Mean Scores of Bargaining vs.
Non-Bargaining.
g...^

Financial Academic
Affairs
Affairs

Personnel Wbrking
Student
Policies
Conditions Affairs

Bargaining

2.104899

2.894117

1.971991

2.120883

1.714554

NonBargaining

2.211224

2.903061

2.402041

2.210368

2.077551

Therefore, it is concluded that there is no differ­
ence between the perceived degree of decision-making
influence of those junior colleges involved in collective
bargaining and those not involved in collective bargaining.
Consequently, the null hypothesis is not rejected.
Hypothesis 2
There is no significant difference between the per­
ceived degree of decision-making influence of the
junior colleges within the categories of collective
bargaining and no collective bargaining.
The F-ratio for the multivariate test of this
hypothesis shows that the significance level for the overall
test is 0.0009 and the null hypothesis is rejected.

The

evidence for this hypothesis is found in Table 4.3.

It

can be concluded that there is a significant difference
between the perceived degree of decision-making influence
of the junior colleges within the categories of collective
bargaining and no collective bargaining.

TABLE 4.3.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Differences Between Schools within
Bargaining Categories.
F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors- -3.1226
d.f. = 10 and 296.0000
P less than 0.0009
Variable

Between Mean Sq

Financial Affairs

1.2512

2.1050

0.1254

Academic Affairs

0.1036

0.1686

0.8451

Personnel Policies

0.7671

1.0809

0.3419

Working Conditions

0.3133

0.5836

0.5592

Student Affairs

2.9257

5.4767

0.0051

Univariate F

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 2
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 152

P less than

89
By examining the univariate F data and their asso­
ciated significance levels (Table 4.3), one observes that
the last variable

(student activities) contributes more

toward the rejection of the hypothesis than do the remain­
ing variables (financial affairs, academic affairs,
personnel policies, and working conditions).

Even though

there is a significant difference between the perceived
degree of decision-making influence of the junior colleges
within the categories of collective bargaining and no
collective bargaining, it may not be meaningful in this
study.
Observing the cell mean scores presented in Table
4.4, it is noted that the last variable

(student activities)

has the lowest cell mean for each school except for the
personnel policies variable mean in school 4.

It can also

be noted that the differences between cell means is
greatest in the student activities variable.

TABLE 4.4.— Weighted Mean Scores of Individual Schools.
Group

Financial
Affairs

Academic
Affairs

Personnel
Policies

Working
Conditions

School 1

1.944643

2.920238

1.829369

2.012692

1.506357

School 2

2.489457

2.831429

2.314286

2.374829

2.214286

School 3

2.232857

3.018571

2.517143

2.164772

2.057142

School 4

2.157143

2.757143

2.114286

2.324357

2.142857

Student
Affairs

90
Hypothesis 3
There is no dignificant difference between the
perceived degree of decision-making influence
of administrators and faculty members.
The analysis of the data shows that there is a over­
all difference (P less than 0.0001) between the perceived
degree of decision-making influence of administrators and
faculty members.
in Table 4.5.

The evidence for this hypothesis is found

The univariate F data suggest that all vari­

ables make a strong relative contribution toward the
rejection of the null hypothesis.
An inspection of the cell means which are found in
Table 4.6 shows that the administrators have a higher mean
score on all variables than do faculty members.

This sug­

gests that administrators have a higher perceived degree of
decision-making influence over all variables than do
faculty members.
Hypothesis 4
There is no significant difference between the
perceived degree of decision-making influence
of administrators and faculty members when comp a l

J
-L ily

J .. Jl _•
.t____1
x i i a x v i . u u d ±

-i_____*
j u n x u i .

«

•

The results of the multivariate test for this hypo­
thesis show the significance level for the overall test is
0.0280 (Table 4.7).

There is indeed a significant differ­

ence in the perceived degree of decision-making influence
between administrators and faculty when comparing schools.
Viewing the univariate F data and their signifi­
cance levels (Table 4.7), it is found that a variable 4

TABLE 4.5.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Administration vs Faculty Members.
F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors— 9.7616
d.f. = 5 and 148.0000
P less than 0.0001
Variable

Between Mean Sq

Univariate F

P less than

Financial Affairs

14.3610

24.1608

0.0001

Academic Affairs

7.1767

11.6737

0.0009

Personnel Policies

26.5007

37.3413

0.0001

Working Conditions

23.9325

44.5759

0.0001

8.1561

15.2579

0.0002

Student Affairs

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 1
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 152

TABLE 4.6.— Weighted Mean Scores for Administrators and Faculty.
Administrators

Faculty

Financial Affairs

3.316667

2.045083

Academic Affairs

3.566667

2.858013

Personnel Policies

3.658333

1.976968

Working Conditions

3.609333

2.034495

Student Affairs

2.750000

1.750218

Variable

TABLE 4.7.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Schools and Administration-Faculty
Interaction.
F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors- -2.0552
d.f. = 10 and 296.0000
P less than 0.0280
Variable

Between Mean Sq

Univariate F

P less than

Financial Affairs

0.8917

1.5001

0.2264

Academic Affairs

0.0692

0.1126

0.8936

Personnel Policies

1.5600

2.1982

0.1146

Working Conditions

2.3935

4.4580

0.0132

Student Affairs

1.1002

2.0594

0.1311

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 2
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 152

94
Cworking conditions) seems to contribute most toward the
rejecting of the hypothesis.
The cell mean scores presented in Table 4.8 show
that administrators have a higher mean on variable 4 (work­
ing conditions) than do faculty members.

This suggests

that administrators perceive themselves as having greater
decision-making influence over variable 4 (working condi­
tions) than do faculty members.

TABLE 4.8.— Weighted Mean Scores of Schools for
Administrators-Faculty of Variable 4
(Working Conditions).
School

Administrators

Faculty

1

3.550000

1.977636

2

3.300000

2.318758

3

3.128000

2.040484

4

4.275000

1.544100

Hypothesis 5
There is no significant difference between the
perceived degree of decision-making influence
of administrators and faculty members of
junior colleges involved in collective bargain­
ing as compared with administrators and faculty
members of junior colleges not involved in col­
lective bargaining.
The F-ratio for the multivariate test of this
hypothesis shows that the significance level for the

95

oyerall test is 0,0349 and the null hypothesis is rejected.
The evidence for this hypothesis is found in Table 4.9.
It can be concluded, then, that there is a significant dif­
ference between the perceived degree of decision-making
influence of administrators and faculty members of junior
colleges involved in collective bargaining as compared
with administrators and faculty members of junior colleges
not involved in collective bargaining.
By examining the univariate 3* data and their
associated significance levels (Table 4.9), one observes
that the first variable

(financial affairs) contributes

more toward the rejection of the hypothesis than do the
remaining four variables.
Observing the cell means presented in Table 4.10,
it is noted that non-bargaining administrators have a
higher mean score on variable 1 (financial affairs) than
do bargaining administrators.

This suggests that non­

bargaining administrators have a higher perceived degree
of decision-making influence with regard to financial
affairs than do bargaining administrators.
Hypothesis 6
There is no significant difference between the
presently perceived degree of decision-making
influence and the perceived degree of decision­
making influence prior to 1965.
The overall F-ratio for the multivariate test of
this hypothesis shows that the significance level for the

TABLE 4.9.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Bargaining-No Bargaining
and Administration-Faculty Interaction.
F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors— 2.4736
d.f. = 5 and 148.0000
P less than 0.0349
Variable

Between Mean Sq

Univariate F

P less than

Financial Affairs

2.0106

3.3826

0.0679

Academic Affairs

0.4173

0.6789

0.4113

Personnel Policies

0.3960

0.5579

0.4563

Working Conditions

0.9217

1.7167

0.1921

Student Affairs

0.2681

0.5018

0.4798

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 1
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 152

97

overall test is 0,8566,
is not rejected.

Consequently, the null hypothesis

The evidence for this hypothesis is

presented in Table 4.11.

TABLE 4.10.— Weighted Mean Scores of BargainingNo Bargaining and Administration-Faculty
for Variable 1 (Financial Affairs).
Category

Administration

Faculty

Bargaining

2.950000

2.075504

No Bargaining

3.500000

1.959732

Hypothesis 7
There is no significant difference between the
presently perceived degree of decision-making
influence and the perceived degree of decision­
making influence prior to 1965 when comparing
bargaining and non-bargaining junior colleges.
The overall F-ratio for the multivariate test of
this hypothesis shows that the significance level is
0.2668, which suggests that the null hypothesis is tenable.
Results of the multivariate analysis test for hypothesis
7 are presented in Table 4.12.

Of the five variables, the

mean scores of variable 4 (working conditions)
most difference

show the

(Table 4.13).

Consequently, it is concluded that there is no
significant difference between the presently perceived
degree of decision-making influence and the perceived

Table 4.11.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Prior to Legalized Bargaining (Pre)
vs After Legalized Bargaining (Post).
F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors— 0.3878
d.f. = 5 and 148.0000
P less than 0.8566
Variable

Eetween Mean Sq

Univariate F

P less than

Financial Affairs

0.0627

0.1055

0.7458

Academic Affairs

0.0931

0,1515

0.6977

Personnel Policies

0.2909

0.4099

0.5230

Working Conditions

0.5692

1.0602

0.3049

Student Affairs

0.7015

1.3131

0.2537

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 1
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 152

TABLE 4.12.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Bargaining - No Bargaining
When Compared by Prior to Legalized Bargaining (Pre)
and After Legalized Bargaining (Post).
F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors— 1.3006
d.f. = 5 and 148.0000
P less than 0.2668
Variable

Between Mean Sq

Univariate F

P less than

Financial Affairs

0.2781

0.4678

0.4951

Academic Affairs

0.1624

0.2642

0.6080

Personnel Policies

0.1652

0.2328

0.6302

Working Conditions

2.1379

3.9820

0.0478

Student Affairs

0.9290

1.7391

0.1893

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 1
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 152

J.00

degree of decision-making influence prior to 1965 when
comparing bargaining and non-bargaining junior colleges.

TABLE 4.13.— Weighted Mean Scores of Bargaining and
No Bargaining Junior Colleges When Com­
paring Pre and Post Categories for
Variable 4 (Working Conditions).
Post

Pre
Bargaining

2.009752

2.233898

No Bargaining

2.141667

2.278000

Hypothesis 8
There is no significant difference between the
presently perceived degree of decision-making
influence and the perceived degree of decision­
making influence prior to 1965 when comparing
administrators and faculty members.
The overall F-ratio for the multivariate test for
this hypothesis shows that the significance level for the
overall test is 0.58 93.

For the purpose of this study it

is not significant and, therefore, the null hypothesis is
not rejected.

It is concluded that there is no significant

difference between the presently perceived degree of
decision-making influence and the perceived degree of
decision-making influence prior to 1965 when comparing
administrators and faculty members.

The results of the

analysis of the data for this hypothesis are presented
in Table 4.14.

TABLE 4.14.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Prior to Legalized Bargaining
(Pre) and After Legalized Bargaining (Post) When Comparing
Administrators and Faculty Members.
F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors- -0.7474
d.f. = 5 and 148.0000
P less than 0.5893
Variable

Between Mean Sq

Univariate F

P less than

Financial Affairs

0.8551

1.4386

0.2323

Academic Affairs

0.5678

0.9235

0.3381

Personnel Policies

1.0614

1.4955

0.2233

Working Conditions

1.9936

3.7132

0.0559

Student Affairs

0.5133

0.9609

0.3286

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 1
Degree of Freedom for Error = 152

102

Hypothesis 9
There is no significant difference between the
perceived degree of decision-making influence
of individual junior colleges when comparing
presently perceived degree of decision-making
influence with the perceived degree of decision­
making influence prior to 1965.
The overall F-ratio for the multivariate test of
this hypothesis shows that the significance level for the
overall test is 0.9493.
is not rejected.

Consequently, the null hypothesis

The evidence for the acceptance of this

hypothesis is presented in Table 4.15.
Hypothesis 10
There is no significant difference between the
presently perceived degree of decision-making
influence and the perceived degree of decision­
making influence prior to 1965 of administrators
and faculty members in junior colleges involved
in collective bargaining as compared with non­
bargaining junior colleges.
The overall F-ratio for the multivariate test of
this hypothesis shows that the significance level is
0.6338, which suggests that the null hypothesis is tenable.
Results of the multivariate analysis test for hypothesis
10 are presented in Table 4.16.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is no signi­
ficant difference between bargaining and non-bargaining
junior colleges when considering pre and post scores of
administrators and faculty members.
hypothesis is not rejected.

Consequently, the null

TABLE 4.15.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Comparing Individual Schools by
Scores Prior to Legalized Bargaining (Pre) and Scores After
Legalized Bargaining (Post).
F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors— 0.3932
d.f. = 10 and 296.0000
P less than 0.9493
Variable

Between Mean Sq

Univariate F

P less than

Financial Affairs

0.4170

0.7016

0.4975

Academic Affairs

0.1807

0.2940

0.7458

Personnel Policies

0.0448

0.0631

0.9389

Working Conditions

0.0884

0.1646

0.8485

Student Affairs

0.1083

0.2028

0.8167

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 2
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 152

TABLE 4.16.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Three-Way Interaction
(Bargaining-No Bargaining, Administrators-Faculty,
and Pre-Post).
F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors— 0.6874
d.f. = 5 and 148.0000
P less than 0.6338
Variable

Between Mean Sq

Univariate F

P less than

Financial Affairs

0.2768

0.4657

0.4960

Academic Affairs

0.0016

0.0026

0.9596

Personnel Policies

0.1836

0.2587

0.6118

Working Conditions

1.1350

2.1141

0.1481

Student Affairs

0.3512

0.6574

0.4188

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 1
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 152

J.05

Hypothesis 11
There is no significant difference between the
perceived degree of decision-making influence
of administrators and faculty members of indi­
vidual junior colleges when comparing presently
perceived degrees of decision-making influence
with the perceived degree of decision-making
influence prior to 1965.
The overall F-ratio for the multivariate test of
this hypothesis shows that the significance level for the
overall test is 0.814 0.
is not rejected.

Consequently, the null hypothesis

The evidence for the acceptance of this

hypothesis is found in Table 4.17.
This part of Chapter IV presents the results of the
data concerning perceived levels of decision-making influ­
ence.

The five levels of decision making influence used in

this study were:

(1) Individual Faculty Members,

ulty Organization,

(3) Department Chairmen,

Division Chairmen, and
Board of Trustees.

(2) Fac­

(4) Dean or

(5) President, Vice-President, or

The perceived levels of influence were

tallied for all five variables

(financial affairs, academic

affairs, personnel policies, working conditions, and
student affairs) then totaled and evidenced in Tables 4.18,
4.19, 4.20, and 4.21.
Category I:

Administrators— Bargaining

An inspection of the cell percentages found in Table
4.18 shows the level of influence percentage to be highest
for dean or division chairmen in both pre

(prior to 1965)

TABLE 4.17.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance— Three-Way Interaction
(Individual Schools 1/2,3 & 4 , Administrators-Faculty,
and Pre-Pcst).
F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors— 0.5995
d.f. = 10 and 296.0000
P less than 0.8140
Variable

Between Mean Sq

Univariate F

F less than

Financial Affairs

0.0150

0.0252

0.9752

Academic Affairs

0.0101

0.0165

0.9837

Personnel Policies

0.2833

0.3992

0.6716

Working Conditions

0.6675

1.2432

0.2914

Student Affairs

0.4661

0.8725

0.4200

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 2
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 152

TABLE 4.18.— Level of Influence— Percentage of Response*
Administrators— Bargaining.
Individual
Faculty
Members

Faculty
Organization

Department
Chairman

Dean or
Division
Chairman

President, VicePresident or
Board of Trustees

Responses
No.
%

Responses
No.
%

Responses
No.
%

Responses
No.
%

Responses
No.
%

Total
Responses

School I
Pre**

2

5.4

3

8.1

2

5.4

28

75.7

2

5.4

37

Post***

0

0.0

1

3.2

2

6.5

28

90.3

0

0.0

31

Pre

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

3.2

5

16.1

25

80.7

31

Post

0

0.0

13 40.6

1

3.1

9

28.1

9

28.1

32

Pre

2

2.9

4.4

3

4.4

33

48.5

27

39.7

68

Post

0

0.0

14 22.2

3

4.8

37

58.7

9

14.3

63

School II

Total
3

*Rounding to the nearest 1/10 of 1 percent accounts for sane total percentages not
equalling 100 percent.
**Prior to 1965
***Presently (1971)

1.08
post (present, 19711 categories.

This suggests that those

administrators employed in junior colleges operating under
a negotiated contract, perceive the majority of their
decision-making influence to be exerted with deans and
division chairmen.
Further observation indicates a 17.8 percent
increase at the faculty organization level and a 25.4 per­
cent decrease at the president, vice-president, and board
of trustee level.

This may indicate that those adminis­

trators employed by institutions operating under a nego­
tiated contract, presently perceive that a greater number
of decision-making influences are exerted with the faculty
organization than with the president, vice-president, and
board of trustees.
It is also noted that in this classification of
bargaining administrators there were no responses recorded
at the post

(meaning 1971) individual faculty member level.

Thus, indicating that presently bargaining administrators
do not perceive that their decision-making influence is
ever exerted at the individual faculty member level with
regard to the five variables measured

(financial affairs,

academic affairs, personnel policies, working conditions,
and student affairs).

109

Category II:

Faculty Hembers~~Bargaining

Observing the cell percentages presented in Table
4.19,

it is noted that in the total percentages, 74.9 per­

cent of the responses in the pre section and 80.2 percent
of the responses in the post section fall within the indi­
vidual faculty member, faculty organization and department
chairman levels of influence.

This is the converse of

bargaining administrators where the total percentages
reveal 88.2 percent of the responses in the pre section
and 73.0 percent of the responses in the post section fall
within the dean and division chairman or president, vicepresident, and board of trustee level.

This suggests that

bargaining faculty exert their decision-making influence
with co-workers, faculty organizations, and department
chairmen more often than with deans and division chairmen
or presidents, vice-presidents, and boards of trustees.
While within the bargaining administrator category, their
decision-making influence is perceived to be exerted
with deans and division chairmen or presidents, vicepresidents, and boards of trustees more often than with
individual faculty members, faculty organizations, and
department chairmen.
Comparing the total number of responses in the post
cells

(1631) with the total of the pre cells

(1530) indi­

cates the bargaining faculty presently perceives their
influence to be exerted upon a greater number of people than

TABLE 4.19.— Level of Influence— Percentage of Responses*
Faculty Members— Bargaining.
Individual
Faculty
Members

Faculty
Organi­
zation

Depart­
ment
Chairman

Dean or
Division
Chairman

President, VicePresident or
Board of Trustees

Responses
No.
%

Responses
No.
%

Responses
No.
%

Responses
No.
%

Responses
No.
%

Pre

362 34.7

182 17.4

279 26.7

179 17.1

44

4.2

1046

Post

351 31.8

287 26.0

251 22.7

191 17.3

25

2.3

1105

Pre

57 11.8

116 24.0

150 31.0

75 15.5

86 17.8

484

Post

145 27.6

188 35.7

83 15.8

82 15.6

28

5.3

526

Pre

419 27.4

298 19.5

429 28.0

254 16.6

130

8.5

1530

Post

496 30.4

475 29.1

334 20.7

273 16.7

53

3.2

1631

Total
Responses

School I

School II

Total

♦Rounding to the nearest 1/10 of 1 percent accounts for seme total percentages
not equalling 100 percent.

Ill
they did prior to 1965,

This suggests that the recommenda-

tions and wishes of bargaining faculty members are presently
heard and may be taken into consideration by more people
than

they were prior to 1965.
Category III:

Administrators--No Bargaining

The percentages of Table 4.2 0 show little change
between the pre and post levels of influence responses.

It

is noted that the percentages of school IV show no change
either between pre and post scores or the levels of influ­
ence.

This suggests that administrators employed in

junior colleges not operating with a formally negotiated
contract do not perceive changes in the level of influence
or with the number of people influenced.

In addition,

this implies that the Legislative Act of 1965

(PERA) had

little if any effect upon the number of people influenced
or the levels of influence as perceived by administrators
of these non-bargaining institutions.
A difference of four responses exists when sub­
tracting the total post from pre number of responses in
Category III

[(Table 4.20) Administrators— No Bargaining],

An examination of Category I [(Table 4.18) Administrators—
Bargaining]

exhibits a difference of five responses when

subtracting the total post from pre number of responses.
This suggests little change in the number of people

TABLE 4.20.— Level of Influence— Percentage of Responses*
Administrators— No Bargaining.
Individual
Faculty
Members

Faculty
Organi­
zation

Depart­
ment
Chairman

Dean or
Division
Chairman

President, VicePresident or
Board of Trustees

Responses
No.
%

Responses
No.
%

Responses
NO.
%

Responses
No.’
%

Responses
No.
%

Total
Responses

School III
4

3.7

12

11.2

19

17.8

42

39.3

30

28.0

107

Post

4

3.9

12

11.7

16

15.5

39

37.9

32

31.1

103

Pre

14

19.7

1

1.4

0

0.0

31

43.7

25

35.2

71

Post

14

19.7

1

1.4

0

0.0

31

43.7

25

35.2

71

Pre

18

10.1

13

7.3

19

10.7

73

41.0

55

30.9

178

Post

18

10.3

13

7.5

16

9.2

70

40.2

57

32.8

174

112

Pre

School IV

Total

*Rounding to the nearest 1/10 of 1 percent accounts for some total
percentages not equalling 100 percent.

213

influenced by the administrators included in this study
when comparing total pre and post responses.
Category IV;

Faculty Members-— No Bargaining

An inspection of the cell percentages found in
Table 4.21 shows that in the total percentages 80.2 percent
of the responses in the pre section and 62.1 percent of the
responses in the post section are found within the indivi­
dual faculty member, faculty organization, and department
chairmen levels of influence.

This is directly opposite

non-bargaining administrators where the total percentages
reveal 71.9 percent of the responses in the pre section and
73.0 percent of the responses in the post section fall
within the dean and division chairmen or president, vicepresident, and board of trustee level.

This suggests

that faculty members of non-bargaining junior colleges
exert their decision-making influence with co-workers,
faculty organizations, and department chairmen more often
than they do with deans and division chairmen or presidents,
vice-presidents, and boards of trustees.
in the non-bargaining administrator category (Table
4.20), it is perceived that decision-making influence is
exerted with deans and division chairmen or presidents,
vice-presidents, and boards of trustees more often than
with individual faculty members, faculty organizations, and
department chairmen.

TABLE 4.21.— Level of Influence— Percentage of Responses*
Faculty Members— No Bargaining
Individual
Faculty
Maribers

Faculty
Organi­
zation

Depart­
ment
Chairman

Dean or
Division
Chairman

President, VicePresident or
Board of Trustees

Responses
No.
%

Responses
No.
%

Responses
No.
%

Responses
NO.
%

Responses
No.
%

Pre

144 36.7

39

9.9

152 38.8

43 11.0

14

3.6

392

Post

118 27.6

60

14.0

89 20.8

152 35.5

9

2.1

428

Pre

66 60.0

2

1.8

0.0

18 16.4

24

21.8

110

Post

29 22.8

19

15.0

30 23.6

24 18.9

25

19.7

127

Pre

210 41.8

41

8.2

152 30.3

61 12.3

38

7.6

502

Post

147 26.5

79

14.2

119 21.4

176 31.7

34

6.1

555

Total
Responses

School III

School IV
0

Total

*Rounding to the nearest 1/10 of 1 percent accounts for some total
percentages not equalling 100 percent.

Comparing the total number of responses in the post
cells

(555) with the total of the pre cells

(502) indicates

the non-bargaining faculty presently perceives their
influence to be exerted upon a greater number of people than
they did prior to 1965.

This suggests that the recommenda­

tions and wishes of non-bargaining faculty members are pre­
sently heard and may be taken into consideration by more
people than there were prior to 1965.
Table 4.21 also reveals a 15.3 percent decrease in
the individual faculty member level while showing a 19.5
percent increase in the number of responses at the dean and
division chairmen level.

This suggests that non­

bargaining faculty members presently exert their decision­
making influence on fewer occasions with co-workers while
increased occasions exist for exerting their decision­
making influence with deans and division chairmen.
Summary
The following statements resulted from an analysis
<
»■>^
W

U A

*

*■>n

1.

n

W

r"wi^^ 1 1

4*

^

^

v»

4- V* 4

n

M

tt
y

•

H ’V*

.fc A

^v

JT

**•»<*•W*■> ••

There is no significant difference between the

perceived degree of decision-making influence of adminis­
trators and faculty members in those junior colleges
involved in collective bargaining when compared with adminis­
trators and faculty members of junior colleges not involved
in collective bargaining.

116
2.

There is a significant difference between the

perceived degree of decision-making influence of the junior
colleges within the categories of collective bargaining
and no collective bargaining.
3.

There is a significant difference between the

perceived degree of decision-making influence of adminis­
trators and faculty members.
4.

There is a significant difference between the

perceived degree of decision-making influence of adminis­
trators and faculty members when comparing individual
junior colleges.
5.

There is a significant difference between the

perceived degree of decision-making influence of adminis­
trators and faculty members of junior colleges involved in
collective bargaining as compared with the administrators
and faculty members of junior colleges not involved in
collective bargaining.
6.

There is no significant difference between the

presently perceived degree of decision-making influence and
the perceived degree of decision-making influence prior to
1965.
7.

There is no significant difference between the

presently perceived degree of decision-making influence and
the perceived degree of decision-making influence prior to
1965 when comparing bargaining and non-bargaining junior
colleges.

117
8.

When comparing administrators and faculty mem­

bers, there is no significant difference between the pre­
sently perceived degree of decision-making influence and
the perceived degree of decision-making influence prior
to 1965.
9.

There is no significant difference between the

presently perceived degree of decision-making influence when
compared with the perceived degree of decision-making
influence prior to 1965 of individual junior colleges.
10.

There is no significant difference between the

presently perceived degree of decision-making influence and
the perceived degree prior to 1965 of administrators and
faculty members in junior colleges involved in collective
bargaining as compared with non-bargaining junior colleges.
11.

There is no significant difference between the

perceived degree of decision-making influence of administra­
tors and faculty members of individual junior colleges when
comparing presently perceived degrees of decision-making
influence with the degree perceived prior to 1965.
12.

Administrators employed in junior colleges opera­

ting under a negotiated contract, perceive the majority of
their decision-making influence to be exerted with deans and
division chairmen.
13.

Administrators employed in junior colleges opera­

ting under a negotiated contract, presently perceive that
a greater number of decision-making influences are exerted

118
with the faculty organization than with the president,
vice-president, and board of trustees.
14.

Administrators employed in junior colleges

operating under a negotiated contract, do not perceive that
their present decision-making influence is ever exerted at
the individual faculty member level with regard to the five
variables measured

(financial affairs, academic affairs,

personnel policies, working conditions, and student affairs).
15.

Faculty members employed in junior colleges

operating under a negotiated contract, exert their decision­
making influence with co-workers, faculty organizations, and
department chairmen more often than with deans and division
chairmen or presidents, vice-presidents, and boards of
trustees.
16.

Administrators employed in junior colleges

operating under a negotiated contract, perceive their
decision-making influence to be exerted with deans and
division chairmen or presidents, vice-presidents, and boards
of trustees more often than with individual faculty members,
faculty organizations, and department chairmen.
17.

Faculty members employed in junior colleges

operating under a negotiated contract, presently perceive
their influence to be exerted upon a greater number of
people than they did prior to 1965.
18.

Administrators employed in junior colleges

not operating with a formally negotiated contract, do not

JJ.9

perceive changes in the leyel of influence or with the
number of people influenced.
19. Bargaining and non-bargaining administrators
perceive little change when comparing the present number
of people influenced with the number of people influenced
prior to 1965.
20. Faculty members employed in junior colleges not
operating with a formally negotiated contract, exert their
decision-making influence with co-workers, faculty organi­
zations, and department chairmen more often than with
deans and division chairmen or presidents, vice-presidents,
and boards of trustees.
21. Administrators employed in junior colleges not opera­
ting with a formally negotiated contract, perceive their
decision-making influence to be exerted with deans and
division chairmen and presidents, vice-presidents, and
boards of trustees more often than with individual faculty
members, faculty organizations, and department chairmen.
22.

Faculty members employed in junior colleges not

operating under a formally negotiated contract, presently
perceive their influence to be exerted upon a greater
number of people than they did prior to 1965.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary
This study sought to determine if significant
differences exist between administrators and faculty mem­
bers in four selected community junior colleges in Michigan
regarding the degree and level of influence they exercise
and have exercised over decisions in areas of institutional
concern such as financial affairs, academic affairs,
personnel policies, working conditions, and student affairs
from the period 1965 through 1971.

The institutions in

the sample were selected so as to permit analysis of these
opinions on the basis of the presence or absence of col­
lective negotiations as an element in the colleges'
decision-making structure.

The degree and level of

decision-making influence were determined by a measuring
device titled, Decision-Making Influence Questionnaire.
The questionnaire was developed specifically for use in the
current study:

it has a reliability coefficient of .79

and consists of statements regarding five major categories
of community college institutional concern

(financial

affairs, academic affairs, personnel policies, working con­
ditions, and student affairs).
120

121

Tlie sample for this study was drawn from a popu­
lation of four junior colleges in Michigan:

two with

formally negotiated contracts and two without formally
negotiated contracts.

The identification of the parti­

cipants was based upon the following criteria:
1.

Bargaining category
A. The founding date of the institution must
have been prior to 196 5.
B. The institution must be presently function­
ing under a negotiated written agreement.

C. The president and one other administrator
must have been employed as administrators
of their respective institutions from 1964
to 1970 (minimum).
D. The faculty must be represented in the
negotiation process by their designated
representative.
II.

Non-bargaining category

A. The founding date of the institution must
have been prior to 1965.
B. The institution must never have been ancj not
now be functioning under a negotiated
written agreement.
C. The president and one other administrator
must have been employed as administrators of
their respective institutions from 1964 to
1970 (minimum).
D. The faculty must not be represented by a
bargaining agent.

Having identified the institutions which met the
specified criteria, eight administrators and 129 full-time
faculty members were identified and included as partici­
pants of this study.

122

Analysis of the data was done by using the multi*r
variate analysis of variance

(programmed By Jeremy FinnI.

Results were deemed significant at the .05 level of
confidence.
Relevant literature was discussed in Chapter II
which included the concept of collective* bargaining; the
labor movement in the United States; law and collective
bargaining in the private and public sectors; collective
negotiation in public education; and collective negotia­
tion in Michigan community colleges.

In addition,

decision-making theory and studies relating to this investi­
gation were carefully scrutinized.
In Chapter III the methodology used in this study
was presented.

This included such areas as:

the defini­

tion of the population; source of data; data collection;
description of the instrument; validity and reliability
of the instrument; scale and index construction; question­
naire item development; and the statistical model and
computational procedures.
In Chapter IV the data were presented and the
methods of analysis discussed.

In the first part of

Chapter IV a general discussion of the hypotheses and
the analysis of the data for the hypotheses were described.
In addition, the results of the data concerning perceived
levels of influence are discussed.
cluded with a summary presentation.

This Chapter was con­

123

Conclusions
This study did not deal with the quality or
quantity of decisions.

It was concerned with perceived

degrees and levels of decision-making involvement.

No

attempt was made to determine whether decisions are pre­
sently better or whether the number of decisions are
greater or less.

Some concerns of this study were:

did

the people feel there had been a change in the organiza­
tional level at which they participate in the decision­
making process and were they presently more involved in
the making of decisions?

They were not asked to state which

way they felt involved, just did they feel more involved.
Another attempt was made to determine whether
individuals in bargaining institutions really have a
greater involvement in the making of decisions than non­
bargaining individuals now that bargaining institutions
were functioning under a negotiated written contract.
Pertinent conclusions to this study were:
1.

There is no difference between the individually

perceived degrees of decision-making influence when compar­
ing bargaining and non-bargaining scores of participants
of this study.
Emery Olson (Table 2.2) indicates that decision­
making today is going from a more authoritarian approach
to a more collegial or group approach.

In both the

-124

institutions with collective bargaining and without collective Bargaining this shift from the authoritarian to the
collegial approach toward decision-making could be going on
as a natural consequence of the theories of decision­
making.

If this were true, it could have had a masking

effect upon the results found in this study.

The contrast

between the collective bargaining schools and non-bargaining
schools would not be as great or as obvious as it might,
if the non-bargaining schools were functioning under an
authoritarian approach and the bargaining schools were
operating under more of an involvement approach.
The fact that there was no measurable difference
in the decision-making power between bargaining and non­
bargaining institutions was not the matter of one having
more decision-making power and one having less decision­
making power and thereby evening each other out.

It

could be simply that in all facets at both places there was
a similar change taking place at the same time.

Therefore,

the change or lack of change could not be attributed to
the advent of collective bargaining.
2.

In the making of decisions, faculty members

tend to interact with other faculty members, administrators
tend to interact with other administrators, and the faculty
organization is the bridge bringing the two groups
together.

225
Gittell and Hollander

(20 31 selected six large

city school systems in 2968 in which to conduct a study of
institutional response.

One of the more pertinent con­

clusions to their study was that public school systems
have removed decision-making from the agents closest to
the school child, namely the teachers and parents.
In this study it was found that administrators
interact with other administrators.

When asked to identify

the organizational level at which they exert influence upon
decisions being made,

faculty members tend to influence

peers and their faculty organizations.

Although citizens

were not included as one of the possible selections on the
Decision-Making Influence Questionnaire, the instrument
used to collect data for this study, there was an "other"
category in which citizens could have been included.

There

were no instances in which citizens were indicated as
being that person or group being influenced with regard
to institutional decision-making.

Gittell and Hollander

indicate that parents were excluded from educational
policy making while constantly being reminded by profes­
sionals of their lack of expertise.

From what was found in

this study, it appears that faculty interacts with faculty,
administrators interact with administrators, and faculty
organizations may tend to bridge the gap between the two
groups.

However, neither group perceives citizen groups

126
a,$ being involved in the decision-making process.

There­

fore, this study tends to support the findings of Gittell
and Hollander and suggests that the same situation seems
to be happening at the junior college.
3.

Faculty members presently influence a greater

number of people with regard to the making of decisions
than they did prior to 1965.
In 1968 Love (98) examined the impact of teacher
negotiations on school system decision-making.

He found

that although administrative and school board discretion
is narrowed by collective negotiations, administrators
quickly learn to use the negotiation process to preserve
areas of discretion and school boards retain their rights
to represent the public interest and make all final
decisions.

He found further evidence that suggested

that the establishment of collective negotiation does
enlarge teacher participation in the decision-making
process.
Data collected in this study would tend to sup­
port Love's findings.

Here it was found that bargaining

and non-bargaining faculty members presently influence a
greater number of people than they did prior to the passage
of the 1965 Public Employment Relations Act, thereby
enlarging teacher participation in the making of decisions.
It was also found that administrators perceived relatively
no change in the number of people they influenced.

This

.127
would tend to support Loye's finding that administrators
quickly learn to use the negotiation process as a means
of preserving as much status quo within the decisionmaking process as possible.
Ann Mitchell describes the position of the
teacher as:
In the educational hierarchy, he is the low man
. . . In the power structure, he is the one with­
o u t power.
In the line of order, he is the one
who takes orders from everyone else.
He has lit­
tle chance to exercise creativity, to show
intelligence, or to use democratic procedures.
He has no say in the important decisions affect­
ing the schools.
The educational system in
America today is a vertical hierarchy and the
teacher is at the bottom (100:66).
From the perceptual data of faculty members in this
study it appears that although the hierarchial order does
not seem to change in the interaction of teachers with
others within the educational system, the quantity of
impact or the number of people with whom teachers inter­
act is greater.

Therefore, faculty impact upon decision­

making is greater but kept at the same level within the
hierarchy as it was prior to 1965.
It was also found that administrators interact at
the same level and with the same number of people as they
did prior to the advent of collective bargaining.

There­

fore, administrative impact upon decision-making has not
changed with regard to degree or level of influence.

1 28
4, Findings of this study support, as would be
expected, that individual administrators perceive a higher
Cgreater) degree of decision-making influence than faculty
members in the areas of financial affairs, academic
affairs, personnel policies, working conditions, and stu­
dent affairs.
Involvement studies at the community college level
were conducted by Campbell

(65) and Nicholson

(66) to ana­

lyze faculty positions within the influence structure of
the community college.

The findings of these studies

indicate that faculty involvement is minimal and that it
tends to be subordinated to the direction of administra­
tors.
Garrison (54) supports these findings in a study
aimed at identifying issues and problems of community col­
lege faculties.

He concluded that community college

faculties perceive themselves as having little or no voice
in the policy affairs of the institutions.
In line with Campbell, Nicholson, and Garrison's
findings it would appear that the administrative percep­
tion of their more ordinate role to the faculty in
decision-making and involvement in decisions was supported
by the data of this study.

Administrators both pre and

post bargaining perceived a greater degree of influence upon
the decisions of institutional concern measured in this
study than faculty members.

129

5, Pre and post degrees of individual decisionmaking influence are similar.
The metamorphosis of organizational theory as out­
lined by Emery E. Olson indicates there has been a change
in decision-making theory from decisions as an individual,
highly centralized act to decisions as collegial and
situational.

In the community colleges of Michigan one

does not presently find the dichotomy of that's management
and that's labor, which would have been extremely noticable
in the decision-making process.

The faculty was not

employed for subsistance alone but found the job to be a
satisfying experience meeting other needs.
Any changes in the decision-making system after the
advent of collective bargaining are not really so much a
major change in the philosophy of the organizational
theory

(management versus labor) but subtle changes in

the representational system within the organization.
The community college faculty is not emerging from
a sT

labor' situation where they worked for subsistence;

where their job was controlled by command; where authority
came from the top down; or, where the work environment was
regimented as was found in the private sector.

The com­

munity college faculty actually had many of the orcranizational traits of involvement; of the job being a
satisfying experience; of a democratic work experience; of

130

authority from the group; and, leadership by consent
prior to ever having collective bargaining.
When community college faculties made a transi­
tion from non-bargaining to bargaining, it was not a
matter of going from autocratic decision-making to demo­
cratic decision-making as much as it was going from:
"we appoint your representatives," to "you choose your
own representatives."
variation.

This was a much more subtle

The perception exhibited by participants of

this study that there has not been a change in the degree
of decision-making influence could be the result of their
looking at traditional collective bargaining change as
found in the private sector and applying this expecta­
tion to their educational institution where the chanqe
was much more subtle.
Educational systems, and higher education systems
in particular, differ from other kinds of organizations
and always have.

The fact that the participants of this

study s a w no g r e a t c b a n g p in t h e d e g r e e of o r e a n d n o s t
bargaining decision-making could be because these organi­
zations were already acting in a more democratic method
and therefore changes were far more subtle, far more
discreet, and less perceptible.

J.3J.
Implications
This section discusses some conditions which could
have been operative prior to, during, or within this
study.
1. One of the criteria which had to be satisfied
prior to the execution of this study was that it was neces­
sary to identify community colleges in the State of
Michigan which were involved in formal collective bargain­
ing and an equal number of institutions not involved in
formal collective bargaining.

The identification of the

non-bargaining institutions created the greater difficulty
and was a factor in limiting the size of the sample.
In Michigan there is a history of formal organi­
zation not only in the private sector but also in the K-12
school system.

Therefore, it is suggested that even in

non-bargaining institutions the heavy labor influence of
the State of Michigan and the historical impact of union
involvement within the State of Michigan could have caused
the non-bargaining community colleges to display some of
the characteristics of bargaining community colleges such
as faculty involvement and the use of representatives.

In

other words, because of the labor history in Michigan, in
its K-12 system, and in some of its community colleges,
the non-bargaining community colleges have incorporated
some of the involvement features of bargaining
institutions.

-132
2, That there is no appreciable difference between
the degree of decision-making influence in bargaining and
non-bargaining community colleges could result from the
fact that representational systems exist in both bargain­
ing and non-bargaining colleges though not exercised in
the classic collective bargaining form.

This would tend

to support the concept that organizational involvement
in higher education is greater than in non-educational
organizations.
It is noteworthy that the administrators in the
non-bargaining colleges did not feel that the represen­
tative system had a greater impact upon present decisions.
Whereas, administrators in the bargaining colleges did
perceive the representative system to play a greater role
in the making of decisions.
This may be attributable to behavior associated
with collective bargaining since under collective bargain­
ing the rank and file expect their leaders to "deliver."
Therefore, one may expect that the faculty would feel a
greater impact upon their representatives in the collect­
ive bargaining schools.

One may also expect administrators

in the bargaining schools to feel the impact of the faculty
representatives.
Un der the classical system of faculty r e p r e s e n t a ­
tion,

the a d m i n ist rat ion has been w o r k i n g w i t h faculty

representatives.

Those represe nta tiv es are not functioning

3.33

as political representatives, as they are in a formal
collective bargaining situation, but as collegial repres­
entatives.

Consequently, the militancy or the impact

probably would not be quite as apparent to the non­
bargaining administrator.

But, the individual faculty

representative is probably under pressure because of
the number of community colleges involved in collective
bargaining in the state.
If the faculty representative is going to make the
collegial system work, he is going to have to be more
responsive to the people he represents.

This may be the

explanation as to why the faculty in the non-bargaining
institutions feel that they now have more access to their
representatives.

This study points out that individual

faculty members of both bargaining and non-bargaining com­
munity colleges presently perceive a greater impact and
involvement in the decision-making process through a
representational system than they did prior to 1965.
3.

The fact that there appears to be no change in

the perceived decision-making involvement does not neces­
sarily imply that there is no greater acceptability of the
decisions being made.

The very process of bargaining may

build in an acceptability for decisions that otherwise
would not have been there.

The decision could have been

the same as it would have been without bargaining but
because of the collective bargaining process, the decision

134

now becomes acceptable to all concerned.

The bargaining

process may not change the decision, nor the level at which
the decision is made.

But, it may build in acceptability

for the decision before it is even made and predetermine
its implementation.
Because this study implies that decisions are
still being made by the same people, it does not necessar­
ily mean that the decisions have the same level of accept­
ability as they used to have.

They may be more acceptable

today even though they are being made at the same organi­
zational level.

The person who makes the decision, now

through the process of bargaining, is talking to people
before the decision, even though he may make the same
decision in the long run.
4.

Collective bargaining may not have changed

the decision-making system at all, even in the bargaining
schools.

It may have preserved the decision-making system

by placing it in a written contract.

This would tend to

be supported by the finding that there is no perceived
change between the degree of decision-making influence
when comparing pre and post bargaining scores.
Given the history of faculty involvement in the
junior college’s decision-making system what really has
changed appears not to be the decision-making system but
possibly the codifying of the system into written
language.

135
5, What of collective bargaining in the future?
Are we going to continue to have collective bargaining?
Collective bargaining accomplishes more than pro­
ducing what are considered traditional benefits such as;
a formalized written contract, salary increases, fringe
benefits, and a voice in decision-making.

It may be that

these benefits could have resulted even if collective bar­
gaining were not being included as part of the educational
administrative modus operand!.
The three needs associated with collective bar­
gaining are economic needs, psychological needs, and
social-political needs.

The economic needs could pos­

sibly be met with or without collective bargaining.

It

is possible that collective bargaining has no effect upon
economic decisions.

However, the faculty is saying they

are our representatives, they are accountable to us, it's
our organization, they are our people, and they speak for
us.

That alone may be worth all the exercise of collect­

ive bargaining.
Even if collective bargaining does not change the
ultimate decision that is made over economic factors or
curriculum factors, the very involvement process,

the very

representational process whether it be throuah collective
bargaining or representation by means of another system,
may be what is more important.

The process ma y be more

136

important than any startling outcome or changes as a
result of the process.
This study has shown that the participants do not
perceive a change in the degree of decision-making
involvement as an individual.

However, faculty partici­

pants indicate that they have greater involvement in
the decision-making process through their faculty organi­
zation.

What is important here is that it may be just as

important for the individual to feel involved in the
decision-making process through his representatives as
it would be for him to be directly involved as an
individual.
Bargaining administrators indicate they exert a
greater number of decision-making influences with the
faculty organization now than they did prior to 1965.
This implies that the faculty organization is presently
involved in more decisions.
The fact of the matter is after having done this
study, it is suggested that collective bargaining is not:
for individuals, collective bargaining is for organizations.
There has been no measurable change in the fact that fac­
ulty members do not have a lot of influence upon the
making of decisions as individuals.

What appears to have

changed is that organizations of these individuals are
having more influence and greater impact with adminis­
trators .

-137
Recommendations
1.

The findings of this study should be judged

against what higher education has been in the past, not
what the results of collective bargaining have been in
the past in noneducational organizations.

There is grest

concern in finding that the change which has occurred as
a result of collective bargaining in public and private
noneducational organizations does not appear to have
happened in the educational organizations examined in this
study.
It is apparent that employees in higher education
are not in the same position as were the coal miners, the
auto workers, or the workers in the sweat shops of thirty
to sixty years ago.

The perceptual change to be viewed

could be, is higher education changing, rather than is
collective bargaining causing the same kind of changes in
educational organizations as it caused in the private
sector?
The perceptual data collected in this study indi­
cates that collective bargaining is not causing the same
kinds of changes that it did in the private sector.

It

may be changing higher education but the chance is so
small that it may not have been realized by the person
who is viewing this phenomena subjectively.
In this context, it is recommended that a compara­
tive study be conducted between private sector employees

J.38
and higher education employees from the turn of the
twentieth century to the present, with regard to decision­
making involvement and changes which accompanied
collective bargaining.
2.

The data collected for this study resulted

from questions asked regarding the degree of decision­
making involvement in areas of institutional concern,
such as financial affairs, academic affairs, personnel
policies, working conditions, and student affairs.

The

attempt was made to identify if there were perceived
changes in the degree and level of decision-making over
the period from 1964 through 1971. Participants of the
study did not perceive a significant change in their
degree of decision-making influence.

A possible explana­

tion for this result is that it could have been caused by
the collapsing of the cells during the analysis of the
data.

Looking at all areas of decision-making collec­

tively may have produced a masked effect over any one of
the five specific decision-making areas identified in
this study.

It is possible that is any one or more than

one decision-making area, bargaining or non-bargaining
participants may have perceived a significant change in
the degree of decision-making influence.
Therefore, it is recommended that a study be con­
ducted with regard to specific decisions which could be
identified within the categories identified in this

JL39
study to determine the impact or lack of impact of col­
lective bargaining upon those decisions.
3.

The results of this study may not portray a

true picture based upon the fact that the organizational
structures of the community colleges that are not bar­
gaining and the organizational structures of the community
colleges that are bargaining may be influenced by factors
that are totally nonrelated to the decision-making system.
The organizational structures may be related to the geo­
graphic setting, financial structure, size, age of the
college, or composition of the board of trustees and have
nothing whatsoever to do with the presence or absence of
collective bargaining.
These are factors which may have had a more influ­
ential effect upon the results of the study than the
attitudes of the participants.

The attitudes of the parti­

cipants may be structured more importantly by these other
variables than by collective bargaining.

As a result, any

replication of this study should make an attempt to control
some of these variables to determine whether or not these
similarities between the non-bargaining colleges and the
similarities between the bargaining colleqes and the dif­
ferences between bargaining and non-bargaininq colleges
had the influence which created the results of this
study.

1.40
4.

Based -upon results realized from this study

which. indicate no significant change between the pre and
post bargaining degrees of decision-making influence, it
is recommended that a longitudinal study be conducted.
Could the difference between the pre and post
bargaining degree of decision-making influence be signi­
ficant even though this study did not reveal this to be
so, in that the memory of the participants could be
questionable?

The difference between the pre and post

scores, if the actual degree of decision-making influence
had been recorded in 19 64 and recorded again in 1971, may
have been more obvious.

In this study the author has asked

the same person to call upon his power to recall and since
memory may be poor and changes so subtle that there
appears to have been no change in the degree of decision­
making influence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

141

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Millis, Harry A., and Montgomery, Royal E.
Organized
Labor.
New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1945.
Taft, Chief Justice. "American Steel Foundries v. TriCity Central Trades Council 27." American Law
Reports 3 6 0 , 1921.
Cox, Archibald / and Bok, Derek Curtis.
Materials on Labor L a w . 6th ed.
The Foundation Press, 1965.

Cases and
Brooklyn:

Foster, William Z. American Trade Unionism.
International Publishers, 1947.

New York

Witney, Fred.
Government and Collective Bargaining.
Chicago!
J! b ! Lippincott Company, 1951.
Parker,

Reginald.
A Guide to
Labor Law.New York:
Frederick A. Praeger, 1961.

U . S . , United States Statutes at Large, Vol. XLIX, Part
United States Government Printing Office, 1936
Lieberman, Elias.
Unions Before the Bar.
Harper and Brothers, 1955.
Gregory, Charles O.
Labor and the Law.
W.W. Norton and Company, 1946.

New York:
New York:

Carlton, Frank Tracy.
Organized Labor in American
Histor” . New York t P
ann 1e t o n
goirinaiiv .
1921:
Hutt, W. H.
The Theory of Collective Bargaining.
Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1954.
Weeb, Sidney and Beatrice.
Industrial Democracy.
London:
Longmans, Green and Company, 1926.
Foner, Philip S.
History of the Labor Movement in the
United States.
New York:
International
Publishers,
47.

143
14.

Arber, Edward, ed.
Travels and Works of Captain John
Smith.
V o l .— I . Edinburgh: 19l0.

15.

Sylvis, James C.
The Life Speaches, Labors and Essays
of William H. Sylvis.
Philadelphia: 1672.

16.

Litwack, Leon.
The American Labor Movement.
Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965.

17.

Bonnett, Clarence E.
History of Employers1
Associations in the United States.
New York:
Vantage Press, 1956.

18.

Mitchell v. Hetchman Coal and Coke Co., Federal
Reporter,
CCXIV (1914).

19.

Woodworth, Robert T., and Peterson, Richard B.
Collective Negotiation for Public and
Professional Employees.
Chicago: Scott,
Foresman and Company, 1969.

20.

Bernstein, Irving.
The Lean Years.
Penguin Books, 1966.

Boston:

Houghton

21.

Kruger, Daniel H . , and Schmidt, Charles T . , Jr.,
editors.
Collective Bargaining in the Public
Service. New York: Random House, 1969.

22.

Mustafa, Husain.
"Can Management Negotiate Aspects
of Its Rights?"
Public Personnel Review, XXIX,
No. 3 (July, 1968).

23.

Thompson, Arthur, and Weinstock, Irwin.
"White-Collar
Employees and the Unions at TVA."
Personnel
Journal, X L V I , No. 1 (January, 1967).

24.

Levine,

Marvin J.
"Dealing with Inadequacies in
Collective Bargaining in the Federal Govern­
ment."
Public Personnel Review, XXX, No. 3
(July, 1969).

25.

Repas Robert.
Labor and Industrial Relations Course
841.
East Lansing:
Michigan State University.
Taken from lecture notes, May 21 and 28, 197 0.

26.

School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Comparative
Analysis, Labor Service Program, No. 611.
East Lansing:
Michigan State University,
January, 1970.

144
27.

Nixon, Richard M.
"Labor-Management Relations in
Federal Service, Executive Order 11491."
Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents,
V o l . V . , N o . 44. Washington,
C . : U.S.
Government Printing Office, November 3, 1969.

28.

Kennedy, John F.
"Employee-Management Cooperation in
the Federal Service." Federal Register,
Vol. XXVII, No. 13. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, January 19, 1962.

29.

Labor Relations Reporter - State Labor Laws. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1971.

30.

Salik, Richard L . , ed. Public Employee Relations
Library, No. 4. Chicago: Public Personnel
Association, 1968.

31.

Weisenfeld, Allan.
"Public Employees Are Still
Second Class Citizens."
Labor Law Journal,
XX, No. 3 (March, 1969).

32.

Schmidt, Charles T . , Jr.; Parker, Hyman; and Repas,
Robert.
A Guide to Collective Negotiations
in Education.
Social Science Research
Bureau.
East Lansing: Michigan State
University, 1967.

33.

Romney,

George.
"Press Release, Office of the G o v e r ­
nor."
Mimeographed.
Lansing, Michigan, July
23, 1965, as cited by Hyman Parker, Michigan
Public Employment Relations Act and P r o c e d u r e s ,
The Employment Relations Study Series, No. 1.
East Lansing:
Michigan State University, 1970.

34.

Parker,

Hyman.
Michigan Public Employment Relations
Act and Procedures.
The Employment Relations
C*-., J . .
U C.UW
4J
T

f

"NT
X
XW •

State University,
35.

Hare,

36.

Rhodes,

1
-1
-•

1970.

James M . , compiler.
Public and Local Acts of
the Legislature of the State of Michigan.
Session of 1965.
L a n s i n g : Speaker-Hines
and Thomas, 1965.
Eric F . , and Neal, Richard G.
Managing
Educational Negotiations.
Washington, D.C.:
Educational Service Bureau, 1968.

xx

145
Pfiffner, John M . , and Sherwood, Frank P. Adminis­
trative Organization.
Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey:
^rentice-Hall, 1960.
38.

Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938.

39.

Jones, Roger w.
"The Model as a Decision Makers
Dilemma." Public Administration Review,
XXIV, No. 3 (September, 1964).

40.

March, James G . , and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959.

41.

Weeb, Sidney and Beatrice.
History of Trade Unionism.
London:
Longmans, Green and Company, 192 0.

42.

Cole, Stephen.
The Unionization of Teachers : A
Case Study of the UFT.
New York:
Frederick
A. Praeger, 1969.

43.

Michigan State University Faculty Affairs Committee.
"An Impartial Review of Collective Bargaining
by University Faculties."
Unpublished Report,
March 9, 1971.

44.

Michigan Education Association.
Teachers Voice.
XLVIII, No. 11 (February 22, 1971).

45.

Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior.
The Free Press, 1945.

46.

Fran\ Eugene H.
"Faculty Ownership of Higher Educa­
tion." Junior College Journal, XXXII, No. 7
(March, 1962).

47.

Garrison,

Roger.

r * .- .
—

_

XXXII

J — ..

J .u i

New York:

"Effective Adm in i s t r a t i o n for
m .

• ^1.

M ..

xc
j i yj i•
x
ca
ao
u iiiiJ
i i .i w

(May,

H

*t . ..

-I

.„

o u iu u i

n

1 1

-l

_
g
s

*r

—»1

u u u iu a x

f

1962).

48.

Dashiell, Richard.
"Teachers Revolt in Michigan."
Phi Delta Kappan, XLIX (September, 1967).

49.

Clark,

50.

Galbraith, John Kenneth.
The N e w Industrial State,
as quoted by Richard C. Richardson, "Needed
New Directions in Administration."
Junior
College Journal, XL (March, 1970).

Burton.
"Faculty Authority."
A merican A s s o c i a ­
tion of University Professors Bulletin,
XLVII (Winter, 1961).

146
51.

Blomerly, Peter.
"The Junior College Department and
Academic Governance."
Junior College Journal,
XLI (February, 1971).

52.

Corson, John. Governance of Colleges and Universities.
New York": McGraw-Hill Book Company, I960.

53.

Priest, Bill J.
"Faculty-Administrator Relationships."
Junior College Journal, XXXIV (March, 1964).

54.

Garrison, Roger.
Junior College Faculty : Issues and
Problems. Washington, D.C.: American Associa­
tion of Junior Colleges, 1967.

55.

Odiorne, George S. Management by Objectives.
York: Pitman^ 1965.

56.

Atwell, Charles A., and Watkins, J. Foster.
"New
Directions for Administration - But For
Different Reasons."
Junior College Journal,
XLI, No. 5 (February, 1971).

57.

Richardson, Richard C . , Jr.
"Restructuring in Human
Dimensions of our Colleges." Junior College
Journal, XLII, No. 5 (February 1971).

58.

Lombardi, John.
"Collective Negotiation in California
Colleges." The Little Kappan, U.C.L.A.,
LXVII—LXVIII, No. 1-P (November, 1967).

59.

Shils, Edward B . , and Whittier, C. Taylor.
Teachers,
Administrators and Collective Bargaining.
New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1968.

60.

Cave, David R.
"A Critical Study of the Leader
Behavior of School Administrators in Conflict
with Teacher's Unions." Unpublished Ed. D.
T> A r*
O O

^

4* *!

<M>A. W W>4 O -x.

rt
*A

f

P o
1 1 a rf
/—*
W J.
^

S-/

-P

XT'/
In
44^ >
■>
Vi V* V> M
V -X.
AA

J

H/f

New

Vs ■» rr —»**%

X X O. Vr X X rf. '-J Vt X A

State University, 1967.
61.

Potts, Vernon Russell.
"A Study of the Relationship
of Professional Negotiations to the Adminis­
trative Tasks Performed by High School Princi­
pals in Michigan." Unpublished Ph. D.
Dissertation, College of Education, Michigan
State University, 1970.

62.

Olsen, Allen Dale.
"The Principal and Professional
Negotiations."
The National Elementary
P r i n c i p a l , XLVI (April, 1967).

147
63.

Gcirver, George Gaylin.
"A Study of the Relationship
Between Selected Variables and the Attitudes
of Public School Principals in Oakland County,
Michigan, Concerning Collective Bargaining for
Public School Teachers." Unpublished Ed.D.
Dissertation, College of Education, Michigan
State University, 1967.

64.

Munger, Benson Scott.
"A Study of the Relationship
Between Selected Variables and the Attitudes
of Michigan Principals Toward Organizing for
Negotiations." Unpublished Ph. D. Disserta­
tion, College of Education, Michigan State
University, 1969.

65.

Campbell, Henry Arville.
"An Analysis of Communica­
tions, Influences, and Reliance in Public
Two-Year Branches of State Universities and
Independent Public Two-Year Colleges."
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Texas, 1963.

66.

Nicholson, Samuel Newton.
"A Comparison of the
Communication, Reliance and Influence Networks
in Two-Year Colleges Operating under the
Independent District System and under the Pub­
lic School System." Unpublished Ph. D.
Dissertation, University of Texas, 1963.

68.

Murphy, David E.
"An Investigation of the Relationship
Between Attitudinal Factors Which Influence
Faculty Morale and Faculty Perceptions of
Involvement in Policy Formulation at Public
Community Colleges in Michigan."
Unpublished
Ed. D. Dissertation, College of Education,
Michigan State University, 1968.

69.

Whittier, C. Taylor.
"Intervention Between Adminis­
trators and Teachers."
Educational Leadership,
October, 1969.

70.

Blau, Peter M. Exchange and Power in Social Life.
New York!
John Wiley and S o n s , Tnc. , 19 6 4 .

71.

"Teachers Unions Proliferate on Junior College Campuses."
Educators Negotiating Service, April 15,

72.

Horvat, John J.

1970.

"The Nature of Teacher Power and

Teacher Attitudes Toward Certain Asnoets of This
Power."
Theory into Practice, Vol. 7, No. 2,

April, 1968.

J.48
73.

iJahoda* f4a,rie; Deutsch, Morton; and Cook, Stuart W,
Research. Methods in Social Relations. Part
One, New York: The Dryden Press, 1951.

74.

"Report of the Survey Subcommittee of Committee T."
American Association of University Professors
Bulletin, LV~ (Summer, 1969)
~

75.

Jahoda, Marie; Deutsch, Morton; and Cook, Stuart W.
Research Methods in Social Relations. Part
Two I Selected Techniques. New York: The
Dryden Press, 1953.

76.

Wilson, Logan.
"Changing University Governance."
Educational Record, L (Fall, 1969).

77.

TenElshof, Annette R.
"A Pilot Examination of DecisionMaking in the Small College Setting."
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, College of
Education, Michigan State University, 197 0.

78.

Marmion, H. A.
"Unions and Higher Education."
Educational Record, XLIX (Winter, 1968).

79.

Lieberman, Myron, and Moskow, Michael H.
"The Future
of Collective Negotiations." Collective
Negotiation for Public and Professional
Employees. eds., Robert T. Woodworth and
Richard B. Peterson.
Chicago:
Scott,
Foresman and Company, 1969.

80.

Campbell, Ralph N.
"Insights from Labor Relations."
Faculty-Administration Re la t i o n s h i p s . Report
of a work conference, May 7-9, Sponsored by
the Commission on Instruction and Evaluation
of the American Council on Education,
Washington, D . C . , 1958.

81.

Heneman, H. J.
"Insights from Industrial Organization
and Relations."
Faculty-Administrat.i on
R e l a t i o n s h i p s . Report of a work conference,
May 7-9, Sponsored by the Commission on
Instruction and Evaluation of the American
Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1958.

82.

Selden, David.
"The American Federation of Teachers."
Perspectives on the Changing Role of the
P r i n c i p a l . Edited by Richard W. Saxe.
S p r i n g f i e l d , Illinois:
Thomas, 196 8.

J.49
83.

Lundaford, Terry, ed. The Study off Academic Admlnls*tra,tion. Boulder, Colorado: Western
interstate Commission on Higher Education, 1963.

84.

Simon, Herbert. Administrative Behavior.
The Mac Millan Company, 1947.

85.

Barnard, Chester.
The Functions of the Executive.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950.

86.

Argyris, Chris.
Personality and Organization.
York: Harper and Row, 1957.

87.

Hertzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; and Snyderman,
Barbara.
The Motivation to Work.
New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1960.

88.

Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality.
Harper and Row, 1954.

89.

Smith, Kerry, ed.
Stress and Campus Response.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968.

90.

Gold, Benjamin K. Ouantative Methods for Administra­
tive Decision-Making in the Junior Colleges.
Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, University of
California at Los Angeles, 1969.

91.

1966 Junior College Directory.
Washington, D. C . :
American Association of Junior Colleges, 1966.

92.

Community College Enrollments 1970-1971. Michigan
Community College Association Research Series,
Vol. 71, No. 1, January, 1971.

93.

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
The OpenDoor Colleges.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, June,

New York:

New

New York:

197 0, Table 3.

94.

Wildman, Wesley A.
"Collective Action by Public
School Teachers." Collective Negotiation for
Public and Professional Employees, eds.
Robert T. Woodworth and Richard B. Peterson.
Chicago:
Scott, Foresmann and Company, 1969.

95.

Redfern, George B.

"Negotiation Changes Principal-

Teacher Relationships."
Professional
Negotiation and the Pr inc ipa lsh ipr Edited by
Department of Elementary School Principals,

1969.

150
96.

Roberts# Harold S. Robert1s Dictionary of Industrial
Relations. Washington# D.C.: Bureau of
National Affairs# 1967.

97.

Dorsey, John T . # Jr.
"A Communication Model for
Administration." Administrative Science
Quarterly.
(December, 1<)$7).

98.

Love# Thomas.
The Impact of Teacher Negotiations on
School System Decision-Making. Dissertation.
Ann Arbor# Michigan: University Microfilms,
Ltd., 1968.

100.

Mitchell# Anne.
"The Crux of the Matter."
Saturday
Review# XLIX. No. 3 (January, 15# 1966).

101.

Scott# Walter Wood.
"A Study of Preparation Pro­
grams in School Administration as Affected
by Collective Negotiation." Unpublished
Ph. D. Dissertation, College of Education#
Michigan University# 1966.

102.

Steele# Marilyn Harger.
"Has Collective Bargaining
Contributed to Instructional Improvement in
Michigan Schools?" Unpublished Ph. D.
Dissertation, College of Education, Michigan
State University, 1969.

103.

Gittell# Marilyn, and Hollander, Edward T. Six Urban
School Systems : A Comparative Study of
Institutional Response.
New York: Frederick
A. Praeger # 1968.

104.

Harnak, Robert S. The Teacher : Decision Maker and
and Curriculum Planner.
Scranton, Pa.:
International Textbook Company, 1968.

105 _

Pannot*
'xrjr *

Miphaol

p. . 3 n d fJaddv. D a l e .

"Facultv

Participation in Junior College Governance."
Junior College Research Review, III, No. 6
(February, 1969).
106.

Neff, Charles B.
"Planning and Governance."
Journal
of Higher Education, XLII, No. 2 (February,
1971).

107.

Swenson, N. G . , and Novar, L.
"Chicago City College
Teachers Strike."
Junior College Journal,
XXXVII (March, 1967).

151
John W . ? Jowise, Peter; and Jentile,
Ralph.
"Our Faculty Participates in
Policy Development."
Junior College Journal,
XXXVII, No. 4 (combined December, 1566,
and January, 1967, issue).

108.

Dunn,

109.

Frankie, Richard J . , and Howe, Ray A.
"Faculty
'Power in the Community College."
Theory
Into Practice, VII, No. 2 (April, 1968).

110.

Helper, John C.
"Timetable for a Take-Over."
Journal of Higher Education, XLII, No.
(February, 1971).

2

111.

Parker, Hyman.
Michigan Public Employment Relations
Act and Procedures'!" School of Labor and
Industrial Relations, Michigan State Uni­
versity, 1970.

112.

Wright, David J.
Occasional Paper No. 9. Office
of Research Consultation, School for Advanced
Studies, College of Education, Michigan
State University, March, 1970.

APPENDICES

152

APPENDIX A

153

J.54

1407-L SPARTAN VILLAGE
EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48823

Dear ___________________ :
I am pleased that you have expressed a willingness to participate
in the study I am conducting. The investigation is being conducted
for a doctoral dissertation and an abstract will be forwarded to you
upon completion of the study. Responses will be kept in strictest
confidence and no allusions will be made to individuals or community
college names.
In this study I will seek to:
1. Determine and examine the degree and level of influence adminis­
trators and faculty members perceive they have exercised over
decisions in areas of institutional concern prior to the year 1965.
2. Determine and examine the degree and level of influence adminis­
trators and faculty members perceive they presently exercise over
decisions in areas of institutional concern.
3. Determine if there are commonalities among answers as related to
those institutions and individuals involved in collective negotiat­
ion and those institutions and individuals not involved in collect­
ive negotiation.
Directions for the enclosed questionnaire are self-explanatory. However,
if you have any questions please call me collect at my home (area code 517
355-0811).
Thank you for assisting me with this project.
Respectfully yours,

Bailey T. Stewart, Researcher
Michigan State U n ive rsity
Enclosure

APPENDIX B

155

1407-L SPARTAN VILLAGE
EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48823

Dear _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I am currently in the process of conducting a dissertation research project at
Michigan State University. This project involves a study of two dimensions of
the community college environment: 1) the degree of influence YOU exercise re­
garding selected decisions and 2) the level at which YOU exercise this influence.
The major emphasis of this research project is upon the differences and/or
commonalities in decision making influence in selected Michigan community
colleges involved in collective negotiation and those not involved in collective
negotiation. All participants and institutions will remain anonymous.
The results of this study will be derived from a questionnaire which is being
given to selected administrators and faculty members from the participating
institutions.
Your name has been included in the sample being used in this study.
assist me in this project by completing the enclosed questionnaire?
sponses will be considered confidential.

Will you
Your re­

Although this instrument appears to be quite lengthy, it contains only thirty
questions. Once you establish a pattern for responding, you are able to answer
questions quite rapidly. It should take you less than twenty minutes to complete
the questionnaire.
A final report of this project will be filed for your reference at the Michigan
State University Library. If you wish to receive an abstract of the final report,
please indicate this along with your name and address on the returned question­
naire.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance with this project.
Respectfully yours,
B a ile y T. S tew art, Researcher
Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity
Enclosure

APPENDIX C

157

1407-L SPARTAN VILLAGE
EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 46823

Dear _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I am writing with reference to my request for your assistance in completing
a questionnaire which was mailed to you in June. As previously indicated, the
responses to this questionnaire will provide the data for a doctoral research
project which I am conducting at Michigan State University.
The initial response to this project has been most gratifying. Approximately
fifty per cent of the faculty members and eighty per cent of the administrators
included in the study have completed and returned the questionnaire. However,
it is felt that a higher percentage of returns would greatly enhance the validity
and reliability of the findings. For this reason, I am forwarding a second copy
of the questionnaire to those who have not responded as of this date.
The coding device included on the originally mailed instrument was included for
the sole purpose of keeping a record of responses in the event that a second
mailing was deemed necessary. In an effort to dispell any misunderstanding
concerning this action, all code devices have been removed.
Ultimately, the value of this project hinges upon a high percentage of returns.
In short, it depends upon the responses of all concerned. Your assistance is
both necessary and vital for the success of this research. Thus, I again
request your cooperation in completing and returning the enclosed questionnaire.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance with this project.
Respectfully yours.
B a ile y T. S te w a rt, Researcher
Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity
Enclosure

APPENDIX D

159

J.60

DECISION MAKING INFLUENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
DIRECTIONS:
In part "A" of each question, place an "X" in the appropriate box to in­
dicate the degree of influence YOU have exercised or are presently exercising
in each of the following areas, letting:
WAS - Indicate YOUR influence on decision making prior to the year

1965.
IS - Indicate YOUR influence on decision making as it is today.
In part "B" of each question, place an "X" beneath the appropriate answer
or answers to indicate where or with whom YOU exert YOUR influence.
You may
indicate one or more levels at which YOU exert YOUR influence if desired.
It is very important that you answer all questions.

161

DECISION MAKING INFLUENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
FINANCIAL AFFAIRS:
Unilateral
Discretion
la. Annual
Institutional
Budgetary
Plans

WAS

r

Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

R e la tiv e ly
L ittle

None

I

is n
President, Vice
Dean or President or
Individual Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Faculty
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
Members

lb. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

WAS
IS
Unilateral
Discretion

2a. Long Range
Institutional
Budgetary
Plans

Very
Substantial

Relatively
Li ttle

None

IS t
President, Vice
Dean or President or
Department Division Board of
Chairman Trustees
Chai rman

IS
'-J
Substantial

A Modsrst?
Amount

Peiafiwplv
Li ttle

None

WAS [_

President, Vice
Dean or President or
Individual Faculty
Organizat- Department Divi sion Board of
Faculty
ion
Chairman
Chai rman Trustees
Members
3b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

Other,
Please
Specify

WAS

Discretion
3a. Determining
Individual
Faculty
Salaries

A Moderate
Amount

WAS L

Individual Faculty
Faculty
OrganizatMembers
ion
2b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

Other,
Please
Speci fy

WAS
IS

(1)

Other,
Please
Specify

J .6 2

U n ila te ra l
D iscretion
4a. Determining
Faculty Salary
Scales

Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

R e la tiv e ly
L ittle

None

WAS T
IS
President, Vice
Individual Faculty
Dean or President or
Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Members
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees

4b. On the whole,
your Influence
1s exerted at the
fol1owlng 1evel

WAS
IS
Un1lateral
Discretion

5a. Determining
Allocation of
Funds for
Equipment and
Supplies

Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

Relatively
Li ttle

None

WAS E
IS £

President, Vice
Dean or President or
Individual Faculty
Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
Members
5b. On the whole,
your Influence
is exerted at the
following level

Other,
Please
S p e d fy

Other,
Please
Specify

WAS
IS

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS:
Uni lateral
Di scretion
la. Determining the
Curri cul urn
Offered

Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

Relati vely
Little

None

WAS E

President, Vice
Dean or President or
Individual Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Faculty
i on
Chai rman
Chairman Trustees
Members
lb. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

WAS
IS

(2)

Other,
PI ease
Specify

J.6 3

U n ila te ra l
D iscretion

Very
Substantial

Moderate
Amount

R e la tiv e ly
L ittle

2a. Long Range
Curriculum
WAS[
Planning
(Institutional
IS I
Academic Direction)

None

I

President, Vice
Individual Faculty
Dean or President or
Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Members
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
2b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

Other,
Please
Specify

WAS
IS

Unilateral
Discretion

Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

Relatively
Little

None

3a. Approval of
WAS |
|
|
j
1
~)
Innovative Methods
__________ ___________________________________________
of Instruction
IS j
j
|
1
1
1
President, Vice
Individual Faculty
Dean or President or
Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Members
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
3b. On the whole,
your influence WAS
is exerted at the
following level
IS

Other,
Please
Specify
______
______

______

____

____

____

____

______

____

____

____

____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Unilateral
Discretion
4a. Determining__________ _________
Acceptable
WAS |
Academic Per_________
formance of
IS |
Students

Very
A Moderate
Relatively
Substantial
Amount
little
None
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
j
1
I
|
I
_ ________ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________
I
I
1
)
1

President, Vice
Other,
Individual Faculty
Dean or President or
Please
Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Specify
Members
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
4b. On the whole,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______
your influence
WAS
______
____
____
____
____
______
is exerted at the
following level
IS
______
____
____
____
____
______

(3)

164

U n ila te ra l
D iscretion

5a. Determining
Specific Degree
Requirements

Very
S ubstantial

A Moderate
Amount

R e la tiv e ly
L ittle

WAS [
IS

r
Individual Faculty
Dean or
Faculty
Organizat­ Department Division
ion
Chairman
Chairman
Members

5b. On the whole,
your influence
Is exerted at the
following level

None

President, Vice
President
or Other,
Board of
Please
Trustees
Specify

WAS
IS

PERSONNEL POLICIES:
Staffing
la. Increasing
Faculty
Size

Unilateral
Discretion

.Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

Relatively
Li ttle

None

WAS £

is n
President, Vice
Dean or President or
Individual Faculty
Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
Members

lb. On the whole,
your Influence
is exerted at the
following level

WAS
IS

Unilateral
Discretion
2a. Determining
Which Candidate
Shall be Hired
for a Specific
Position

Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

Relatively

Li HI t:

WAS p

is E
President, Vice
Dean or President or
Individual Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Faculty
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
Members

2b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

Other,
Please
Specify

WAS
IS

(4 )

Other,
Please
Speci fy

165

Unilateral
Very
A Moderate
Relatively
Discretion
Substantial
Amount
Little
None
e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________
WAS |
I
I
{
)
I

3a. Determining t h
Certification
Requirements for
New Faculty
Members

I

IS 1

I

I

1

I

President, Vice
Individual Faculty
Dean or President or
Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Members
ion
Chairman Chairman Trustees
3b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

WAS

_

__

IS

____

____

Uni lateral
Discretion
4a. Determining
Tenure
Requirements

____

Very
Substantial

____

A Moderate
Amount

____

______

Relatively
Little

None

I

WAS £

is:
President, Vice
Individual Faculty
Dean or President or
Faculty
Organi zat- Department Division Board of
Members
ion
Chai rman
Chairman Trustees

4b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

Other,
Please
Specify

WAS
IS

Uni lateral
Discretion
5a. The Releasing
of Faculty
Members (firing)

Other,
Please
Specify

Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

Relatively
Little

None

WAS £

is E
Individual
Faculty
Members

5b. On the whole,
your influence WAS
is exerted at the
following level
IS

President, Vice
Faculty
Dean or President or
Organizat- Department Division Board of
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees

Other,
Please
Specify
______

____
______

____

___

(5)

166

Working Conditions
U n ila te r a l
D is c re tio n

Very
Substantial

Moderate
Amount

R e la tiv e ly
L ittle

None

la. Determining the
WAS £
Number of
AdmlnlstratlveFaculty
IS I
Communications (I.e.,
faculty meetings)
President, Vice
Dean or President or
Individual Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Faculty
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
Members

Other,
Please
Speci fy

lb, On the whole,

your Influence
is exerted at the
following level

WAS
IS

Unilateral
Discretion
2a. Determining
Grievance
Procedures

Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

Relatively
Little

None

WAS £
IS £
President, Vice
Dean or President or
Individual Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Faculty
Members
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees

2b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

WAS
IS

Unilateral
Discretion
3a. Establishing
Faculty Working
Hours

WAS 1
IS I

Very
Substantial

|
_______
I

A Moderate
Amount

|
________
1

Relatively
Little
j
\

None

I
~1
___________________
I
..71

President, Vice
Dean or President or
Individual Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Faculty
Members
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
3b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

Other,
Please
Speci fy

WAS
IS

(6)

Other,
Please
Speci fy

lb J

Very
S u b s ta n tia l

Uni la t e r a l
D is c re tio n

4a. Establishing
Faculty
Workload
(Number of
Students)

A Moderate
Amount

R e la tiv e ly
Li t t l e

None

WAS n
IS C
President, Vice
Individual Faculty
Dean or President or
Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Members
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees

4b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

WAS
IS

Uni lateral
Discretion
5a. Determining
Leave
Policies

WAS f

Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

Relatively
Li ttle

None

I

IS C
President, Vice
Individual Faculty
Dean or President or
Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Members
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees

5b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

Fringe
Benefi ts

IS

MAC

•»r\w

Very
Substanti al

A Moderate
Amount

Relatively
Li ttle

None

I

IS I

Dean or
Individual Faculty
Faculty
Organi zat- Department Division
i on
Members
Chairman
Chairman
6b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

Other,
Please
Speci fy

WAS

Uni lateral
Discretion
riofdwi

Other,
Please
Speci fy

WAS
IS

(7 )

President, Vice
President or
Board of
Trustees

Other,
Please
Specify

168

Unilateral
Discretion
7a. Determining
Promotional
Policies

Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

WAS |

|

I

IS \

\

1

Relatively
Little
|

1

None
I

1

1

I

President, Vice
Other,
Individual Faculty
Dean or President or
Please
Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Specify
Members
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
7b. On the whole,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______
your influence WAS
______
____
____
____
____
______
is exerted at the
following level
IS
______
____
____
____
____
______

Unilateral
Discretion
8a. Determining
In-Service
Training
Poli ci es

Very
Substantial

Relatively
Little

None

WAS j
I
I
t
I
~)
_________ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________
IS |
I
1
j
1
1
President, Vice
Other,
Individual Faculty
Dean or President or
Please
Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Members
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
Specify
______
_______
____
____
____
____
______

8b. On the whole,
your influence WAS
is exerted at the
following level
IS

_______

____

Unilateral
Discretion
9a. Determining
the School
Calendar

A Moderate
Amount

____

Very
Substantial

____

A Moderate
Amount

____

______

Relatively
Little

None

WAS

9b. On the whole,
your influence WAS
is exerted at the
following level
IS

IS i

i

j

i

i

i

President, Vice
Other,
Individual Faculty
Dean or President or
Please
Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Specify
Members
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
______
______
____
____
____
____
______
______

____

____

(8)

____

____

______

±t>y

Uni la te r a l
D is c re tio n
10a.

Very
S u b stan tial

Moderate
Amount

R e la tiv e ly
Li t t l e

Determining
Other Academic
WAS £
Duties (i.e.,
advising and
I
committee obligations)

None

I

President, Vice
Dean or President or
Individual Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Faculty
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
Members
10b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

Other,
Please
Speci fy

WAS
IS

STUDENT AFFAIRS:
Uni lateral
Di scretion
la. Determining
Extra-curricular
Activities
Offered on
Campus

Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

Relatively
Li ttle

None

WAS £

is L
President, Vice
Dean or President or
Individual Faculty
Faculty
Organizat- Department Di vision Board of
Chairman
Chai rman Trustees
Members
i on

lb.

On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

WAS
IS

Ilni I a t o r a l

Discretion

Very
Substantial

Moderate
Amount

Relatively
Li ttle

None

I

2a. Determining the
WAS
Student Discipline
Code for the
IS
Institution

President, Vice
Dean or President or
Individual Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Faculty
ion
Chairman
Chairman Trustees
Members
2b. On the whole,

your influence
is exerted at the
following level

Other,
Please
Specify

WAS
IS

(9)

Other,
Please
Speci fy

170

Unilateral
Discretion

Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

Relatively
Little

3a. Determining
WAS 1
I
I
1
(
External Speakers,
_________ _ __________ ___________ ___________
Groups and Films
IS |
I
1
|
I
Allowed on Campus

None
~l
I

President, Vice
Individual Faculty
Dean or President or
Faculty
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Members
ion
Chairman Chairman Trustees
3b. On the whole,
your influence WAS
is exerted at the
following level IS

______

____

____

____

____

Other,
Please
Specify
______
______

______

____

____

____

____

______

Very
Substantial

Uni lateral
Discretion
4a. Determining
Student Organizat- WAS c
ions Allowed to
Function on Campus is n
(i.e., social or
service)

A Moderate
Amount

Relatively
Li ttle

None

T

President, Vice
Individual Faculty
Dean or President or
Organizat- Department Division Board of
Faculty
ion
Chairman
Members
Chai rman Trustees
4b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

WAS
IS

Unilateral
Discretion
5a.

Other,
Please
Specify

Very
Substantial

A Moderate
Amount

Relatively
Li ttle

None

Determining
"Student-Power"
WAS
Un Campus (i.e.,
voting power on
IS
faculty-admi ni strative committees)
President, Vice
Dean or President or
Individual Faculty
Organi zat- Department Divi sion Board of
Faculty
Chai rman
Chai rman Trustees
ion
Members

5b. On the whole,
your influence
is exerted at the
following level

WAS
IS

(10)

Other
Please
Specify

APPENDIX E

171

172

STUDY DESIGN

With
Col l e c t l v e
Ba r g a i n i n g
Po s t

Pr e
Deci si o n Collective
Bargati i ng

Mak l ng C a t e g o r i e s

ost
School
I

School
II

Adm inistrators

School
I

School
II
Fac ul t y