I N F O R M A T I O N TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1 .T h e sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may 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 mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of 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 writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE:
received.

Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as

Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

74-13,941

MURTON, Curtis Snith, Jr., 1931ROLE CHOICE ORIENTATION OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC
COMMUNITY1COLLEGE PRESIDENTS IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING NEGOTIATIONS: A STUDY IN ROLE
CONFLICT RESOLUTION.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1973
Education, higher

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan

ROLE CHOICE ORIENTATION OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC
COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENTS IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING NEGOTIATIONS:

A STUDY IN ROLE

CONFLICT RESOLUTION
By
C u r t i s Smi t h Mur t on,

Jr.

A DISSERTATION
Submi t t ed to
Mi chi gan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of t he r e qu i r e me nt s
f o r t he degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Depart ment o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
Hi ghe r Educat i on
1973

and

ABSTRACT
ROLE CHOICE ORIENTATION OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC
COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENTS IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING NEGOTIATIONS:
A STUDY IN ROLE
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
By
Curtis

Begi nni ng

Smi th Mur t on,

in 1965,

p u b l i c empl oyee groups'
ment i n c o l l e c t i v e

Mi chi gan e x p e r i e n c e d a surge of

organization

negotiations.

a t t he community c o l l e g e

right

and consequent engage­

Pr eemi nent were f a c u l t y

level.

Whi l e p u b l i c empl oyees,
have t he

Jr.

including

teachers,

t o ba r g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y under Mi chi gan

t he choi ce of r o l e
i s not mandated.

by p u b l i c

communi ty c o l l e g e

Co n sequent l y ,

expectations
The g e ner al

l a w,

presidents

t he community c o l l e g e p r e s i ­

dent may f i n d h i m s e l f f aced wi t h v a r y i n g
flicting

college

conce r ni ng hi s

purpose of t h i s

and perhaps con­

role.
st udy i s

to de t e r mi ne

the

expect ed and a c t u a l

per f or mance of community c o l l e g e p r e s i ­

dent s i n c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining

negotiations

compari son of t he c h i e f e x e c u t i v e s '
as p e r c e i v e d

situations.

per f or mance e x p e c t a t i o n s

by t h e i r board chai rmen and f a c u l t y

and as p e r c e i v e d

and p r a c t i c e d

A

by t he

presidents

leaders,
i s devel oped.

Curtis

Smi th Mur t on,

Jr.

A measure of t he congruence o f t he r e s p e c t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s
and what t he p r e s i d e n t
for

r egar ds as t he most d e s i r a b l e

behavior

h i m s e l f i s al s o u n d e r t a k e n .
Expectati ons

t he t h r e e p r i n c i p a l
to s p e c i f i c a l l y

f o r t he p r e s i d e n t i a l

role

s u b j e c t s were det er mi ned from responses

f o r mu l a t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e

i t e ms .

o f t he r e se ar ch concer ni ng dependent v a r i a b l e s
t he t h e o r y of Rol e C o n f l i c t
tions,

desi gned to f i t

Resolution;

collective

community c o l l e g e c i r c u ms t a n c e s ,
behavioral

alternatives

tween a l l

General
subjects

role

is r e l a t e d

to

n e g o t i a t i o n s and

were adapt ed from the f o u r
Mason, and McEachern. ^

of t he st udy were:

agreement

in rol e

choi ce p r e f e r e n c e s

sur veyed was i n d i c a t e d .

f o u r of e i g h t e e n community c o l l e g e s were a l l
subjects

The desi gn

choi ce d e s c r i p ­

bargaining

p o s i t e d by Gross,

The maj or f i n d i n g s
1.

from each of

However,
three

i n agreement concer ni ng t he p r e f e r r e d

be­

i n onl y

principal

b e h a v i o r of

t he p r e s i d e n t .
2.

The most n o t a b l e v a r i a b l e

w i t h board chai rman
college

board;

for

found to be c o r r e l a t e d

p r e f e r e n c e was l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e on t he
faculty

representatives,

e n r o l l me n t s was s i g n i f i c a n t ;

while f o r

p e r i e n c e and age were p o s i t i v e l y

size of college

presidents,

related

to r o l e

p r i o r ex­

preference

and b e h a v i o r .
3.
adversarial

Re s u l t s

suggest t h a t many p r e s i d e n t s

r o l e s d ur i n g c o l l e c t i v e

p r e f e r non-

bargaining n e g ot i a t i on s .

^Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Al ex ander W. McEachern,
E x p l o r a t i o n s i n Rol e A n a l y s i s (New York:
John Wi l ey and Sons,
I n c 7, 19 5 8 ) .

Curtis
4. The r e v e l a t i o n of a hi gh
failure

on the p a r t of p r e s i d e n t s

expectation
leaders

conflict

poses s e r i o u s

Smi th Mu r t on,

Jr.

i ncidence

of apparent

to c o r r e c t l y

assess r o l e

between board chai rmen and f a c u l t y
implications.

5. A t e s t of t he Rol e C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n Model
yielded a p r e d i c t a b i l i t y

r a t e of onl y t went y per c e n t .

Lack of consensus on r o l e
community c o l l e g e ,
other's
mutual

and f a i l u r e

expectations

a gi ven

of a p r e s i d e n t t o p e r c e i v e

accurately,

u nde r s t a ndi ng of t h a t

expectations wi t hi n

reveals

president's

an absence of a
pr oper r o l e dur i ng

negot i a t i o ns .
Ot her i m p l i c a t i o n s
solution

of a t t e n d i n g

and p o s s i b l e approaches

probl ems ar e al so

identified.

to t he

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I welcome t h i s
for th e i r

contributions

and r e l a t i v e s

o p p o r t u n i t y t o ext end r e c o g n i t i o n
t o t he many a c q u a i n t a n c e s ,

w i t h o u t whose d i r e c t

encouragement t h i s

assistance,

friends,

support,

st udy woul d not have been p o s s i b l e .

To my gui dance commi t t ee c h a i r e d by
Dr. James Nel son;
To t he member i n s t i t u t i o n s and s t a f f o f the
Mi chi gan Community Co l l e g e A s s o c i a t i o n ;
To t hose p a r t i c i p a n t s
p o p u l a t i on ;

from t he st udy

To Gi l M i l l e r , and to S h i r l e y
Dave Donovan;

and

To my p a r e n t s - i n - l a w ;
To my own mot her and f a t h e r ;
To my u nde r s t a ndi ng c h i l d r e n ; and e s p e c i a l l y
to my u n s e l f i s h w i f e , J a n i e , I d e d i c a t e
t h i s vol ume.
In r et ur n f o r
"Thank You. "

all

t hey have g i v e n ,

I o f f e r my i n a de qu a t e

and

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LI ST OF T A B L E S .......................................................................................

v

LI ST OF F I G U R E S ............................................................................... vi i
LI ST OF A P P E N D I C E S .......................................................................

viii

Chapt er
I.

II.

BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
S T U D Y .......................................................................................

1

Introduction
.................................................................
Need:
t he P r o b l e m ...................................................
Purpose o f t he S t u d y ...........................................
Definitions
.................................................................
Faculty Organization Representative .
.
Gover ni ng Board Chairman
.............................
Legi t i ma t e Expectati on
....................................
.................................................................
President
Rol e C o n f l i c t ..........................................................
Sa nc t i ons
.................................................................
Assumpti ons and L i m i t a t i o n s
.............................
Genera 1 i z a b i 1 i t y ..........................................................
H y p o t h e s e s ........................................................................
O r g a n i z a t i o n and Procedur es
.............................
Over vi ew of t he S t u d y ...........................................

1
2
6
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
12
12
13
14

RELATED THEORY AND RESEARCH ....................................

16

Introduction
.................................................................
C o l l e c t i v e Ba r g a i n i n g i n Hi ghe r
E d u c a t i o n .................................................................
The Community Co l l e ge P r e s i d e n t . . . .
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Theory i n Educat i on .
,
.
Rol e T h e o r y .................................................................
Rol e C o n f l i c t .................................................................
Re l a t e d Role R e s e a r c h ...........................................
General Role E x p e c t a t i o n S t u d i e s
. . .
....................................
Ed uc a t i on a l Rol e St u di e s
S u mma r y ................................................................................

16

iii

16
24
28
29
32
38
41
43
49

Page

Chapt er
III.

50

DESIGN
....................................
Introduction
D e s c r i p t i o n of St udy P o p u l a t i o n
Measures Employed and Met hodol ogy
Suppl ement ar y Pr ocedur es
T e s t a b l e Hypotheses .
D e s c r i p t i v e Comparisons
Methods of A n a l y s i s . . . .
Hypotheses
....................................
Suppl emental Fi ndi ngs
Summary ..................................................

I V.

INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
Intoduction
....................................
A n a l y t i c a l Procedur es
E x p e c t a t i o n s o f P r e s i d e n t ' s Per f or mance
Comparison of E x p e c t a t i o n s of P r e s i d e n t s ,
Board Chai rmen, F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
Resul t s P e r t i n e n t to Hypot heses .
Review of the Rol e C o n f l i c t Re s o l u t i o n
Model ........................................................................
Resul t s P e r t i n e n t to Rol e C o n f l i c t
R e s o l u t i o n Model
...........................................
Test o f t he Rol e C o n f l i c t Re s o l u t i o n
Theory
.................................................................
Ot her F i n d i n g s :
D e s c r i p t i v e Comparisons
Re ac t i on Comments
...........................................
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Re s u l t s .............................
Hypotheses
..........................................................
Rol e C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n Model
Ot her Find i n q s ...................................................
S i g n i f i c a n c e of Findinqs
.............................
Summary ........................................................................

V.

50
50
52
56
58
61
62
63
64
65
66

66
67
69
72
78
81
83
87
89
95
96
96
96
97
98
99

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

101

Summary o f the Study
.............................
Summary of t he Fi ndi ngs
Concl usi ons
...................................................
I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Community Col l e qe s
Suggest i ons f o r F u r t h e r Research

101

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

120

APPENDICES

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

...................................................
iv

102

107
108
118

141

LI ST OF TABLES
Tabl e
4. 1

Page
Aggr egat e Ranki ngs o f Board Chai rman Rol e
Perf or mance Ex p e c t a t i o n s f o r P r e s i d e n t
.

.

70

Aggr egat e Ranki ngs of F a c u l t y Re p r e s e n t a ­
t i v e Rol e Perf or mance E x p e c t a t i o n s f o r
P r e s i d e n t ...............................................................................

71

4. 3

Frequency o f Rol e Choi ce Pr e f e r e n c e s

72

4.4

Frequency of Rol e Choi ce P e r c e p t i o n Agr e e­
ment w i t h i n a Gi ven Community C o l l e g e . . .

73

Board Chai rman P r e f e r e n c e
72- 73

74

4.2

4.5
4.6
4. 7

4.8
4.9

4.10

4. 11
4.12

.

.

.

per FYES, AY

F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e P r e f e r e n c e per
FYES, AY 72 - 73.........................................................................

74

Board Chairman P r e f e r e n c e per Lengt h of
Se r v i c e as Member of t he Co l l e g e Gover ni n g B o a r d ...............................................................................

75

F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e P r e f e r e n c e per Lengt h
of S e r v i c e as Member of t he C o l l e g e F a c u l t y .

75

Board Chai rman P r e f e r e n c e per Number of Years
Co l l e ge Oper at ed wi t h a F a c u l t y Mast er
Agreement Co n t r a c t
..........................................................

76

F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e P r e f e r e n c e per Number
of Years Co l l e g e Oper at ed wi t h a F a c u l t y
Mast er Agreement Co n t r a c t ...............................................

76

Frequency of Rol e P r e f e r e n c e Hel d by
P r e s i d e n t ...............................................................................

77

Frequency and Per cent age of P r e s i d e n t s '
Act ual Rol e Perf or mance Repor t ed
. .

77

V

.

.

Tabl e
4.13

4.14

Page
T es t R e s u l t s , Respondent s' Rol e P r e f e r e n c e
Ranki ngs.
K e n d a l l ' s C o e f f i c i e n t of
Concordance ( W ) .................................................................

79

T e s t R e s u l t s , Respondent s' Rol e P r e f e r e n c e
Ranki ngs.
Spearman' s C o e f f i c i e n t o f Rank
Correl ati on (rho)
..........................................................

80

4.15

Re s u l t s

4.16

Frequency of P r e s i d e n t s ' Pe r c e i v e d Board
Chairman E x p e c t a t i o n , L e g i t i m a c y , and
SanctionbyRoleChoice
...........................................

85

Frequency of P r e s i d e n t s ' Pe r c e i v e d F a c u l t y
R e p r e s e n t a t i v e E x p e c t a t i o n , L e g i t i m a c y , and
Sanct i on by Rol e C h o i c e ............................................

86

P r e s i d e n t s ' Pe r c e i v e d C o n f l i c t Compared
wi t h Board C h a i r m a n / F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e
Congruence and P r e s i d e n t s ' Be ha vi or
. . .

87

P r e d i c t e d and Act ual Behavi or s i n Ten Rol e
C o n f l i c t S i t u a t i o n s ..........................................................

89

P r e s i d e n t s ' Be ha vi or per C h i e f N e g o t i a t o r
f o r B o a r d ...............................................................................

90

P r e s i d e n t s ' Be ha vi or per Length of S e r v i c e
i n Pr e se nt P o s i t i o n ..........................................................

91

P r e s i d e n t s ' Behavi or per Number o f Years
Co l l e g e Oper at ed wi t h a F a c u l t y Mast er
Agreement Co n t r a c t
..........................................................

91

4.17

4.18

4.19
4.20
4. 21
4.22

of Chi - Squar e T es t o f Homogenei ty

.

4.23

Presidents'

Behavi or per FYES, AY 7 2 - / 3

4.24

President's

Behavi or per Hi s Age

4.25

P r e s i d e n t s ' Rol e Pr e f e r e n c e per P r i o r
P o s i t i o n H e l d ........................................................................

94

P r e s i d e n t s ' Rol e P r e f e r e n c e per Hi ghe st
Earned Degree H e l d ..........................................................

95

4.26

vl

.

.

.
.

.

81

.

92
93

LI ST OF FIGURES
i gures
4. 1

4.2
4.3

Page
Example of P o s s i b l e Outcomes o f t he
Combi nat i ons of L e g i t i m a c y / S a n c t i o n s /
O r i e n t a t i o n s Opt i ons
..................................................

82

Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Scores on
P r e s i d e n t ' s E x p e c t a t i o n s I n s t r u me n t

.

84

Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e s i d e n t s '

Ages

.

.
.

92

LI ST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX

Page

A.

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .................................................................................. 121

B.

Cover L e t t e r s

for

C.

Institutional
Col 1 eges

Data Summary f o r Sample
.................................................................. 134

D.

Concordance

E.

Consensus Role Ranki ng by Co l l e ge s .

F.

P r e d i c t e d Behavi or s o f P r e s i d e n t s i n 48 Types
of Rol e C o n f l i c t ..........................................................................137

G.

Composi te Re s u l t s o f S e l e c t i o n s on the
P r e s i d e n t ' s Personal O r i e n t a t i o n P r e d i s p o s i ­
t i o n E x p e c t a t i o n s I n s t r u me n t
....................................

138

H.

Request t o use M a t e r i a l s

139

I.

Per mi ssi on t o use M a t e r i a l s .............................................. 140

Questionnaire

(W) Wi t h i n Co l l e g e s

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

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

.

.

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

130

135
136

CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION
OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The choi ce of r o l e by p u b l i c community c o l l e g e
p r e s i d e n t s d ur i n g c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining

not mandated by l aw i n Mi c h i g a n .
i ng school

and c o l l e g e t e a c h e r s ,

gai n c o l l e c t i v e l y

do have t he r i g h t

social

is
includ­

to b a r ­

P u b l i c Act 379

of community c o l l e g e

t r u s t e e ar e e s t a b l i s h e d
of t he f or mal

P u b l i c empl oyees,

under Mi chi gan l aw,

The p o s i t i o n s

negotiations

president

(1965).
and

by law^ and ar e l o c a t e d a t t he top

h i e r a c h y of a community c o l l e g e d i s t r i c t ;

t he board i s s u p e r o r d i n a t e to t he p r e s i d e n t

and t he f a c u l t y .

By l e g a l

pol i cy-making

definition

t he board i s t he f or mal

organ of a communi ty c o l l e g e d i s t r i c t
chi ef executive o f f i c e r .
of t h e i r

i ncumbent s,

of i t s

Through t he d e l i b e r a t i o n

and a c t i o n s

purpose and t he m a n i p u l a t i o n

human,

financial,

and m a t e r i a l

and c o o r d i n a t i v e

resources.

d e c i s i o n s f o r t he c o l l e g e

allo­

ar e vest ed

in t hese p o s i t i o n s .
^Community C o l l e g e Act o f 1 966 , P. A.
Chapt er 1, Se c t i on s 3 8 9 . 1 4 and 3 8 9 . 1 2 4 .

1

331

af­

and

The a u t h o r i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to make maj or p o l i c y ,
cative,

its

d e c i s i o n s ar e reached whi ch c l e a r l y

f e c t t he o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
utilization

and t he p r e s i d e n t

(1 9 6 6 ) ,

2

In concept,

t he c o l l e g e gover ni ng

and t he c o l l e g e f a c u l t y
versaries
However,
caught

unit,

i n t he c o l l e c t i v e

i ng e x p e c t a t i o n s

bargaining

Na t i o n a l

p r e s i d e n t may f i n d

pr ocess.

himself

t e n u r e o f communi ty c o l l e g e

by Sel den

( 1 9 72 )

and hi s r o l e .

The Problem

aver ages f o r

ye ar s r e s p e c t i v e l y .

become t he ad­

negotiations

concer ni ng hi s a l l e g i a n c e s

p r e s i d e n t s as r e p o r t e d
and Wing

as empl o y e r ,

f aced w i t h v a r y i n g and perhaps c o n f l i c t ­

Need:

(1969),

as empl oyees,

t he community c o l l e g e

in t he m i d d l e ,

boar d,

(1960),

were 7 . 8 y e a r s ,

Ferrari

and Ber t e

5.5 years,

and 4 . 2

The aver age t e n u r e f o r Mi chi gan p u b l i c

community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s i ncumbent as of J u l y 1, 1972,
2
was 3 . 7 y e a r s .
The aver age annual cummul at i ve r a t e o f
change,

or f r e qu e n c y o f t u r n o v e r ,

p e r i od J u l y 1,

1969,

t o June 30,

d ur i n g t he t h r e e - y e a r
1972,

was 25 per cent as

compared wi t h a "nor mal "

10 per cent annual

chi ef executive o f f i c e r s

for all

Such d e v i a t i o n

from n a t i o n a l

t he e x t e n t of agr e ement ,

t u r n o v e r of

j uni or / communi ty c o l l e g e s .

3

t r e n d s may be a s s o c i a t e d wi t h

or d i s a g r e e me n t ,

e x e c u t i v e and boards o f t r u s t e e s

between t he c h i e f

or o t h e r community c o l l e g e

O
Mi chi gan Community C o l l e g e A s s o c i a t i o n , " Successi on
of C h i e f Ex e c ut i v e s a t Mi chi gan Community C o l l e g e , " Occasi onal
R e p o r t , F a l l 1972.
^Ray Hawk, "A P r o f i l e of J u n i o r C o l l e g e P r e s i d e n t s , "
J u n i o r Co l l e g e J o u r n a l , XXX, No. 6, 3 4 0 - 4 6 .

3
groups

(e.g.

faculty)

concer ni ng t he r o l e and perf ormance

st andards f o r the o f f i c e
From Jul y 1,

of president.

1969,

to June 30,

ni ne p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s
d if f e r e n t chief administrators;
administrators;

i n Mi chi gan:

seven had t h r e e

e i g h t ot he r s had two c h i e f

w h i l e t he r emai ni ng f o u r t e e n r e t a i n e d t he

same c h i e f e x e c u t i v e .
three-year

1972, o f the t we n t y -

Duri ng t he l a s t t en months of t h i s

period--in

the course of t he academi c y e a r - - s i x

Mi chi gan p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s

acqui r ed new p r e s i d e n t s .

I mme d i a t e l y pr ecedi ng and o v e r l a p p i n g t he t i me per i od
as s t a t e d above, Mi chi gan exper i enced an unprecedent ed surge
of publ i c empl oyee groups'
gagement i n c o l l e c t i v e

o r g a n i z a t i o n and consequent en­

negotiations.

Pr eemi nent were f a c u l t y

a t the community c o l l e g e l e v e l .
4
Savage
poi nt ed out t h a t f r i c t i o n
interpersonal

and group r e l a t i o n s

f aced by e d u c a t i o n a l

was dev e l op i ng i n

because of new problems

administrators:

federal

and s t a t e d i ­

r e c t i v e s and r e g u l a t i o n s

c o n t r a r y to t he wi shes o f t he board

and t he community;

rights

civil

i s s ue s ;

faculty militancy

and t he necess i t y f o r col 1e c t i ve b a r g a i n i n g .
bargaining

is taking a t o l l

in e a r l y

Collective

presidential

retirements

^ Wi l l i a m W. Savage, I n t e r p e r s o n a l and Group R e l a t i o n s
i n Educat i onal A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
( Gl e nv i e w, 1 1 1 . :
Scott,
Foresman and Company, 1 9 6 8 ) .

4
and wh o l e s a l e r e s i g n a t i o n s
pr essur es of c o n f l i c t

5

and Upton has s t a t e d

that

11.

have l ed a number o f p r e s i d e n t s

to

.

.

st ep down."
Mor t or ana r e p o r t e d 7 t h a t

" Mi chi gan shows e v i de nc e of

c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e o f o p i n i o n as t o j u s t what shoul d be
the r o l e of t he communi ty c o l l e g e and how t h i s
be c a r r i e d o u t . "
t he e d u c a t i o n a l

Such a s i t u a t i o n

stems from d i f f e r e n c e s

in

p o i n t o f vi ew hel d by persons o f v a r y i n g

backgrounds o f e x p e r i e n c e and t r a i n i n g
positions

r o l e shoul d

of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

Stamm found a c l o s e

and h o l d i n g d i f f e r e n t

in educat i on.
relationship

between what t he

board o f t r u s t e e s and t he communi ty c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t r e ­
garded as a c t u a l

per f or mance o f hi s o f f i c e

ency between t h e i r

respective

but an i n c o n g r u ­

e x p e c t a t i o n s of t he p r e s i d e n t i a l

Q

role.

Likewise,

Kl aus r e p o r t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s a g r e e me n t

existed

between l o c a l

junior

college presidents

and l o c a l

C

John Gi a n o p u l o s , " C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g :
What Pa r t
Should Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t s P l a y ? " , C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y
Busi nes s, XLIX ( Sept ember , 1 970)> 7 1 - 7 2 , 102.
£
John H. Upt on, "Rol e C o n f l i c t and F a c u l t y Conf i dence
i n L e a d e r s h i p , " J u n i o r Co l l e g e J o u r n a l , X L I , No. 5, 31.
7S. V. Mo r t o r a n a , The Community C o l l e g e i n M i c h i g a n ,
Revi sed E d i t i o n , June 1957, S t a f f Study Number 1, The Survey
of Hi ghe r Educat i on i n M i c h i g a n , J. D. R u s s e l l , D i r e c t o r .
SHar l an C. Stamm, "The Rol e E x p e c t a t i o n s of 18
C a l i f o r n i a Community J u n i o r Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t s Compared to
Thr ee Re f er ence Gr oups, " Unpubl i shed Ed. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n ,
New Mexi co S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1968.

5

j uni or college
local

junior

board members on r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s hel d f o r
g
college presidents,
w h i l e Upton encount er ed

s i m i l a r r e s u l t s when exami ni ng p r e s i d e n t i a l
hel d by t r u s t e e and f a c u l t y

role

expectations

groups.^

One e x p l a n a t i o n o f t he r e s u l t a n t

hi gh t u r n o v e r / s h o r t

t e n u r e e x p e r i e n c e by community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s
between 1969 and 1972 mi ght be t h a t t h e r e
sensus between t he p o s i t i o n
"role

what c o n s t i t u t e s

i s l a c k of con­

i ncumbent s and c e r t a i n

d e f i n e r s " - - e . g . board o f t r u s t e e s

i n Mi chi gan

significant

and f a c u l t y - - a s

to

t he p r e s c r i b e d r o l e o f t he c h i e f e x e c u t i v e .

There may be l a c k of consensus on t he e x p e c t a t i o n s a t t a c h e d
t o t he p o s i t i o n between segments o f t he
definers.

Does a p r e s i d e n t ' s

perception

popul ati ons of r o l e
of t he degree o f

consensus on e x p e c t a t i o n s hel d by a p a r t i c u l a r
significant

ot he r s

position a f f e c t

on e v a l u a t i v e

hi s

gaining n e got i at i ons

st a nda r ds a p p l i c a b l e

t o hi s

r o l e be ha v i or ?

More s p e c i f i c a l l y :
chief administrator

group of

how does t he communi ty c o l l e g e

p e r c e i v e hi s
process?

role

i n t he c o l l e c t i v e

bar­

how does he p e r c e i v e t he e x ­

p e c t a t i o n s o f hi s board and f a c u l t y r e g a r d i n g

t h a t role?

9Loren E. Kl aus, "Rol e E x p e c t a t i o n s o f Local J u n i o r
C o l l e g e P r e s i d e n t s and Local J u n i o r C o l l e g e Board Members
in Cl ass 1 J u n i o r Co l l e g e s i n Downst at e I l l i n o i s , " Unpub­
l i s h e d Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , I l l i n o i s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1969.
^9John H. Upt on, " R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Rol e Expec­
t a t i o n s of F a c u l t y and T r u s t e e Groups f o r the Community
J u n i o r Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t and S e l e c t e d V a r i a b l e s , " Unpubl i shed
Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n , 1969.

6

ar e t hese e x p e c t a t i o n s

congr uent wi t h h i s own p e r c e p t i o n o f

hi s r o l e ? and how does he a c t u a l l y

perf orm?

Purpose of t he Study
It
skills,

i s assumed t h a t t he a p t i t u d e ,

abilities,

and t h a t

it

i n l a r g e degree t h e

of t he community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t .

o r d e r to f a c i l i t a t e

tenure,

i n t h e community c o l l e g e

b e h a v i o r det er mi nes

success or f a i l u r e

correlation

additional

of perceived r o l e ,

investigation
functions,

In

of p o s s i b l e

practices,

i s al s o assumed necessar y and f e a s i b l e

devel op compari sons o f c h i e f e x e c u t i v e

and

to f u r t h e r

per f or mances as

1.

perceived

byt he p r e s i d e n t as d e s i r a b l e ;

2.

p e r c e i v e d by
des i r a b l e ;

members of hi s g ov er ni ng board as

3.

pe r c e i v e d

members o f hi s

4.

vi ewed by t he p r e s i d e n t
out.

by

An a t t e mp t w i l l
and b e h a v i o r a l
collective

practices

faculty

as d e s i r a b l e ;

as havi ng been c a r r i e d

be made to r e l a t e

role expectations

of community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s

bargaining n e g o t i a t i o n s .

and i d e n t i f i e d
zation

habits,

and i n f o r m a t i o n o f t he p r e s i d e n t have no

meaning i ndependent o f hi s b e h a v i o r
setting,

training,

Expectations

in

perceived

by gov er ni ng board chai rmen and f a c u l t y o r g a n i ­

l e a d e r s ar e to be compared w i t h t he r o l e

expectations

and p r a c t i c e s as p e r c e i v e d by t he i ncumbent p r e s i d e n t s .
Gross, Mason,
retically

and McEachern have i n d i c a t e d t h a t

grounded e m p i r i c a l

inquiries

.

. theo­

a r e needed t o d e t e r mi n e

7

how much agreement t h e r e
h a v i o r of p o s i t i o n
analysis

i s on t he e x p e c t a t i o n s

i ncumbent s.

t h a t p r e c l u d e t he

Concept ual

investigation

o f r o l e consensus ar e d i s t i n c t l y
An a d d i t i o n a l
own p r e f e r r e d

as e x p e c t a t i o n s
it

I n o t h e r wor ds,

role conflict

resolution

from t h a t whi ch he p e r c e i v e s

t o a d j u s t hi s b e h a v i o r

when r o l e c o n f l i c t

a t t e mp t s

developes,

r e s u l t whi ch may or may not

devel op a compari son o f community

college chief executives'
bargaining

per f or mance e x p e c t a t i o n s

negotiations

situation

board chai r men and t he c o l l e g e f a c u l t y

p e r c e i v e d and p r a c t i c e d by t he p r e s i d e n t s .
of t he congruence o f t he r e s p e c t i v e
president's

leader,

results.

Thi s st udy w i l l

their

when t he p r e s i d e n t ' s

from hi s board chai rman a n d / o r f a c u l t y

accordingly.

collective

role

lim ited."^

becomes necessar y f o r t he p r e s i d e n t

produce p o s i t i v e

schemes f o r

of t he b as i c q ue st i on

assumpt i on i s t h a t ,

behavior d i f f e r s

f o r t he be­

as p e r c e i v e d by
leaders,
Also,

and as

a measure

e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t he

r o l e and what t he p r e s i d e n t

d e s i r a b l e behavior f o r

in a

r egar ds

as t he most

h i m s e l f under t he c i r cums t a nces w i l l

be unde r t a k e n.
The e x p e c t a t i o n s
l e a d e r ar e not r e q u i r e d

o f t he board chai r man and f a c u l t y
i n o r d e r to assess r o l e

conflict

r e s o l u t i o n b e h a v i o r on t he p a r t o f t he p r e s i d e n t ;
^ N e a l Gross,
Eacher n, E x p l o r a t i o n s
Wi l e y and Sons, I n c . ,

however,

Ward S. Mason, and Al e x a n d e r W. Mci n Rol e A n a l y s i s (New Yor k:
John
1 958 J , p . 43.

8
such e x p e c t a t i o n s
ally

exists,

ar e necessar y to d e t e r mi n e i f

whet her or not t he p r e s i d e n t p e r c e i v e s

The gener al

puspose of t h i s

t he expect ed and a c t u a l
dent s i n c o l l e c t i v e
situations

r e se ar ch

is

it

actu­

to e x i s t .

to de t e r mi ne

per f or mance of community c o l l e g e p r e s i ­

bargaining neg ot i at i on

ar e h e r e i n

openi ng of f ormal
tion

conflict

limited

collective

situations.

t o t h a t p e r i o d o f t i me
bargaining t al ks

until

Such

from t he
t he execu­

of a n e g o t i a t e d c o n t r a c t .

Definitions
The d e f i n i t i o n

o f terms and concept s used i n d e v e l o p ­

i ng the r e s e a r c h desi gn were o b t a i n e d from s e l e c t e d

theories

and s t u d i e s and- - when necessar y or d e s i r a b l e - - r e w o r d e d t o ap­
ply o p e r a t i o n a l l y

to t he o b j e c t i v e s

of t he p r e s e n t s t u d y .

Def i ni t i ons
Faculty Organization
Representative
A faculty organization

representative

l e a d e r of a group of community c o l l e g e
members a f f i l i a t e d

o u t s i d e t he f or mal

e l e c t e d or appoi nt e d from w i t h i n

i s t he d e s i g n a t e d

instructional
structure

that

staff

of t he c o l l e g e ,

group.

Gover ni ng Board Chairman
The gover ni ng board chai rman

is

t he f or mal

community c o l l e g e d i s t r i c t

pol i cy-maki ng

college

from w i t h i n

president--elected

gover ni ng board.

l eader of a

b o d y - - o t h e r t han t he

t he l e g a l l y

constituted

9
Legitimate

Expectation

A legitimate
t he r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n
by t he f o c a l
i.e.,

is a perceived o b l i g a t i o n ;

hel d by c o u nt e r p o s i t i o n

position

an e x p e c t a t i o n

faculty

expectation

i ncumbent s j udged

i ncumbent t o be t he r i g h t
t he p r e s i d e n t

representative

thinks

o f t he h o l d e r ;

hi s board chai r man or

r e a s o n a b l y coul d or shoul d hol d f o r

hi s b e h a v i o r .
Pres i dent
The p r e s i d e n t
community c o l l e g e ,
constituted

is

t he c h i e f e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r

selected

and a p p o i n t e d by t he

g ov er ni ng body o f a community c o l l e g e

of a

legally
district

to

administer p o l i c y .
Rol e C o n f l i c t
Rol e c o n f l i c t

i s an i n c o n s i s t a n t

st a nda r d hel d f o r a person by h i m s e l f
others;

i.e.,

perceived d i s p a r i t i e s

e x p e c t a t i o n s o f a gi ven p o s i t i o n
count er p o s i t i o n

prescription

or

or by one or more

that exist

between t he

i ncumbent and t hose of

i ncumbent s.

Sanct i on
Sa nc t i o n
of contingent

is des cr ip ti on s,

concepts,

or a n t i c i p a t i o n s

rewards or puni shment s.
Assumpti ons and L i m i t a t i o n s

Ot her assumpt i ons deemed b a s i c t o t h i s
st udy ar e t h a t :

particular

10

1.

A f or mal

organization

a pr i macy o f o r i e n t a t i o n

is a social

to t he a t t a i n m e n t

system wi t h

o f an i d e n t i f i e d

mi s s i o n .
2.
tion

The achi evement o f t he mi ssi on o f t he o r g a n i z a ­

is contingent

upon t he achi evement o f t asks

by p o s i t i o n

i ncumbent s.
3.
lated

The t a s k of t he o r g a n i z a t i o n

into r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

as r e q u i r i n g
4.

ultimately

whi ch t he i n d i v i d u a l

is t r a n s ­

perceives

b e h a v i o r on hi s p a r t .
I ncumbent s o f p o s i t i o n s

i n f or mal

organizations

ar e mo t i v a t e d to a c h i e v e t he t asks f o r whi ch t hey ar e hel d
accountable.
5.

The communi ty c o l l e g e

thus a system of s o c i a l
of f a c u l t y

leader,

i s a f or mal

relationships

president

organization,

f o r whi ch t he

positions

or c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t o r ,

and

board chai rman ar e i n v o l v e d .
6.

Each p o s i t i o n

i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n

r e l a t e d to c e r t a i n o t h e r s ,

l ess d i r e c t l y

pos i t i on of c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t o r
related

to t he p o s i t i o n s

is d i r e c t l y

to others.

The

i n a community c o l l e g e

of f a c u l t y

is

l e a d e r and board c h a i r ­

man .
7.

In f ormal

organizations

t h e r e ar e l e g i t i m a t e d i f f e r e n c e s

l i k e communi ty c o l l e g e s ,

of o p i n i o n whi ch a c t

as

11

forces

to c r e a t e di s agr e ement between p o l i c y makers

i ng b o a r d ) ,
pl oyees

their

administrators

(president),

{govern­

and o t h e r em­

(faculty).
8.

I n community c o l l e g e s ,

bot h t he board and f a c u

mi ght n o r ma l l y expect t he suppor t o f t he c h i e f e x e c u t i v e o f ­
ficer

( pres i d e n t ) .
Certain

cation

limitations

o f t he r e s u l t s o f t h i s
1.

Expectations

gov er ni ng board chai r men
tives

appli

st udy:

r e p o r t e d as p e r c e i v e d and hel d
and f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n

by

representa­

ar e not to be r egar ded as consensus e x p e c t a t i o n s nec­

essarily

hel d by t h e i r
2.

their

ap p l y i n t he e v a l u a t i o n and

respective

boards or o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

P r e s i d e n t s may have been r e l u c t a n t

true feelings

man and f a c u l t y

about t h e i r

role with t h e i r

to expr ess
board c h a i r ­

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e also p a r t i c i p a t i n g

i n t he

study.
3.

Ac t ua l

per f or mance b e h a v i o r d ur i n g c o l l e c t i v e

b a r g a i n i n g may not have been a c c u r a t e l y

r e p o r t e d by t he

pres i d e n t .
4.

The l e g i t i m a c y o f e x p e c t a t i o n s o f both t he board

chai rman and f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e may have been " gr a n t e d "
but not f i r m l y
5.

hel d by t he p r e s i d e n t .

The degree o f n e g a t i v e s a n c t i o n ,

a u t h o r i t y to impose puni shment ,
assessed by p r e s i d e n t s .

backed by t he

may have been i n a c c u r a t e l y

12

6.

Institutions

r e p r e s e n t e d by t he st udy p o p u l a ­

t i o n do not c o n s t i t u t e a homogeneous gr o up i n g .
7.
ma t i o n ;
their

Measurement o f consensus can onl y be an a p p r o x i ­

since expect at i on

que s t i on s were s t r u c t u r e d ,

phr asi ng or o r d e r o f p r e s e n t a t i o n mi ght a l t e r

gree of consensus;
sarily

role

choi ce a l t e r n a t i v e s

t hose whi ch r espondent s coul d r e l a t e

institutional

changi ng
t he de­

ar e not nec es­
to t h e i r

own

c i r c u ms t a n c e s .
G e n e r a l i z i b i 1i ty

Re s u l t s and c o n c l us i on s drawn from t h i s
be a p p l i c a b l e

to t he s u b j e c t

gover ni ng board c ha i r me n,
sentatives

populations

and f a c u l t y

st udy w i l l

of p r e s i d e n t s ,

organization

repre­

o f t he autonomous p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s

in

Mi c h i g a n .
In a d d i t i o n ,

results

and con c l us i on s may be g e n e r a l -

i z a b l e t o comparabl e and s i m i l a r

subject

populations

o t h e r s t a t e s where autonomous communi ty c o l l e g e s
dependent o f l o c a l
or s t a t e - w i d e

public

" u mb r e l l a "

school

districts,

operate

in­

universities,

gov er ni ng boards and where c o l l e c t i v e

b a r g a i n i n g on t he p a r t o f community c o l l e g e f a c u l t i e s
reality

in

is a

or an i mmi nent devel opment .
Hypotheses
Si mpl y p u t ,

t he r e s e a r c h

hypot heses s t a t e :

1.

t he p r e s i d e n t ,

gover ni ng board c h a i r ma n,

f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a gi ven community

and

13
c o l l e g e e s s e n t i a l l y agr ee upon t he r o l e o f t he p r e s i d e n t
d ur i n g c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining n e g o t i a t i o n ;

2.

t he r o l e c h o i c e o f a p o s i t i o n

c o n f r o n t e d wi t h r o l e c o n f l i c t s
bent's

and

behavioral

can be p r e d i c t e d

pre-disposition

if

i ncumbent when
t he i ncum­

and hi s p e r c e p t i o n s of

l e g i t i m a c y and s a n c t i o n s a r e known.
The r e s e a r c h hypot heses ar e r e - s t a t e d

in oper at i onal

terms i n Chapt er Thr ee.
O r g a n i z a t i o n and Pr ocedur es
Pr ocedur es
of t he w r i t i n g s
collective

st udy i n c l u d e d an e x a mi n a t i o n

and o p i n i o n s o f a u t h o r i t i e s

negotiations,

role analysis.
appropriate

for this

i n t he f i e l d s

communi ty c o l l e g e o p e r a t i o n ,

To suppl ement a s y s t e ma t i c manual

indicies

was conduct ed t o

and r e f e r e n c e manual s,

identify

dissertations

"communi ty c o l l e g e ; "

"role."

Do c t o r a l

(junior)

college

gaining

in publ i c

dissertations
president's

and

sear ch of

a D a t r i x sear ch

p e r t a i n e n t t o t he

st udy whi ch had been compl et ed t hr ough 1970.
employed were:

of

The d e s c r i p t o r s

"president;"

and

d e a l i n g w i t h t he community

r o l e and wi t h c o l l e c t i v e

bar­

hi g he r e d u c a t i o n were exami ned i n a d d i t i o n

to numerous document s,

books,

and p e r i o d i c a l

articles.

Data g a t h e r i n g was accompl i shed t hr ough
t e r v i e w s wi t h t he p r e s i d e n t s o f M i c h i g a n ' s
community c o l l e g e s .

per sonal

in­

autonomous p u b l i c

Gover ni ng board chai rmen and f a c u l t y

14
o r g a n i z a t i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were p e r s o n a l l y i n t e r v i e w e d or
surveyed t hrough t he use of a mai l ed q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
E v a l u a t i o n o f t he dat a devel oped on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
was by summation of answers to i n d i v i d u a l
son of answers gi ven by t he p r i n c i p a l

i tems and compar i ­

s u b j e c t groups.

and per cent ages of responses to a l t e r n a t i v e s

offered

Totals
f o r each

i t em were c a l c u l a t e d f o r both t he whole p o p u l a t i o n surveyed
and f o r each p r i n c i p a l
Statistical

group w i t h i n

the study p o p u l a t i o n .

anal yses of t he r espondent s'

r anki ngs of r o l e

p r ef e r e nc es and a t e s t o f a p r e v i o u s l y devel oped r o l e c o n f l i c t
r e s o l u t i o n model were u nde r t a k e n.
Overvi ew of t he Study
Chapt er I c o n s i s t s o f t he devel opment o f t he back­
ground to the t o p i c

and s y n t h e s i s of a procedure f o r g a t h e r ­

i ng and a n a l y z i n g p e r t i n e n t d a t a .
Chapt er

II

i s devot ed to the p r e s e n t a t i o n of i n f o r m a ­

t i o n from t he l i t e r a t u r e
in hi g he r e d u c a t i o n ,

relating

a gener al

to c o l l e c t i v e

r evi ew o f t he o f f i c e of the

p u b l i c community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t ,
theory,

r o l e c o n f l i c t and i t s

bargaining

o r g a n i z a t i o n and r o l e

resolution,

and s i m i l a r r o l e

studies.
Chapt er I I I
subjects

investigated,

gathering,

analytical

t he s t a t i s t i c a l
empl oyed.

i nc l u d e s a d e s c r i p t i o n of t he sample and
t he r e f i n e me n t o f pr acedur es f o r dat a
measur es- - ! ' ncl udi ng an e x p l a n a t i o n of

methods used- - and suppl ement al

procedures

15
Chapt er IV i s a c o mp i l a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n of a l l
t he dat a devel oped i n t he sur vey.
expectations r epor t ed,

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of r o l e

a t e s t of a r o l e c o n f l i c t

resolution

model , and a r e p o r t of d e s c r i p t i v e f i n d i n g s ar e i n c l u d e d .
In Chapt er V, a summary of t he st udy and i t s
is presented,

concl usi ons drawn from the dat a ar e o f f e r e d ,

and i m p l i c a t i o n s
ar e suggest ed.

findings

f o r community c o l l e g e s and f u t u r e r e se ar ch

CHAPTER I I
RELATED THEORY AND RESEARCH
I n t r o d u c t i on
An e x h a u s t i v e

r e v i e w o f t he

no st udy concer ni ng r o l e c o n f l i c t
col lege presidents
situations

in c o l l e c t i v e

literature

resolution

revealed

that

by community

bargaining negotiations

had been conduct ed and r e p o r t e d .

Nevertheless,

a g r e a t number o f r e l a t e d

studies

much u n d e r g i r d i n g t h e o r y was encount er ed and r e v i e we d .

and
Thi s

r e l a t e d r e s e a r c h and l i t e r a t u r e

f ocused on t h e o r y o f o r g a n i ­

zation;

position,

t he c o l l e g e

role c o n f li c t ,
pectation

president's

as we l l

as g e n e r a l

s t u d i e s and c o l l e c t i v e

role

t h e o r y and

and e d u c a t i o n a l
negotiations

role ex­

i n h i g h e r edu-

cat i on.
Thi s c h a p t e r

is

devot ed t o a r e v i e w o f t hese concept s

and s t u d i e s as t hey p e r t a i n

t o t he p r e s e n t

study.

C o l l e c t i v e Bargai ning in
Hi g h e r Educ at i on
Educat i on has become an i m p o r t a n t f i e l d
s e c t o r b a r g a i n i n g not onl y f o r
for

teachers

Wollett,

i n t he p u b l i c

s e r v i c e empl oyees

s c h oo l s .

However,

of p ub li c but a l s o

a c c o r d i n g to

no compr ehensi ve st udy o f t he e x t e n t o f c o l l e c t i v e

16

17

negotiations

i n hi g he r e d uca t i on i s p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e and

"one o f t he most s u r p r i s i n g

f a c t s of c o l l e c t i v e n e g o t i a t i o n s

i n h i g h e r educat i on i s t he p a u c i t y o f r e l i a b l e

i n f o r ma ­

t i o n . " 12
Whi l e some c o l l e c t i v e
in educational

institutions

b a r g a i n i n g has been r e po r t e d

before I 96 0,

uni on a c t i v i t y was a p p a r e n t l y l i m i t e d
pl oyees;

there is l i t t l e

hi gher educat i on

t o non- academi c em­

evi dence to suggest t h a t f a c u l t y

members were i nv ol v e d up to t h a t t i me.
Interest

i n uni oni sm i n t he p u b l i c s e c t o r accompanied

t h a t of the p r i v a t e s e c t o r ,
federal

employee uni ons r oughl y p a r a l l e l e d t h a t o f t he p r i -

vat e s e c t o r t hrough 1961.
zational

and growth and membership in

efforts

13

of federal

Accompanying the e a r l y o r g a n i ­
s e r v i c e employees was the e s t a b ­

l i s hment of t he American F e d e r a t i o n of Teachers
Na t i onal

Educat i on As s o c i a t i o n

t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y Pr of essor s

(NEA),

employees and gover ni ng boards

t he

and t he Ameri can As s o c i a ­

( AAUP) . 14

Each of t hese o r g a n i z a t i o n s
st r ong advocat e o f c o l l e c t i v e

( AFT) ,

i n t u r n has become a

b a r g a i n i n g between p r o f e s s i o n a l
in i n s t i t u t i o n s

o f educa t i on

12Donald H. W o l l e t t , "The St at us and Trends of
C o l l e c t i v e N e g o t i a t i o n s f o r F a c u l t y i n Hi gher E d u c a t i o n , "
Wi sconsi n Law Revi ew, MCMLXXI, No. 1, 2 and 9.
13Mi chael H. Moscow, J. Joseph Loewenberg, and
Edward C. K o z i a r a , C o l l e c t i v e Ba r ga i ni ng i n P u b l i c Empl oy­
ment (New York:
Random Housed 1 9 7 0 ) , p . 32.
1 4 I b i d . , p.

19.

18

at a l l

levels.

The e f f o r t s

o f t he AFT,

NEA,

and AAUP may

expand f u t u r e uni oni sm i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n more r a p i d l y ;

and

a l t hough t h e number o f f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y
boards t h a t have n e g o t i a t e d a c o n t r a c t wi t h t h e i r
is small,

if

t he t r e n d c o n t i n u e s ,

several

faculties

institutions

may

soon be a f f e c t e d .
E a r l y at t emps a t c o l l e c t i v e
vate s e c t o r ,
cul mi na t e d

and t he v a r i e t y o f

in f e d e r a l

bargaining

i n t he p r i ­

resulting judicial

intervention

opinions,

and Congr essi onal

action:

Each decade s i n c e t he 1 9 3 0 ' s has had a t l e a s t one
maj or l aw d e a l i n g w i t h l a b o r r e l a t i o n s :
t he Wagner
Act o f 1935, t he T a f t - H a r t l e y Act o f 1947, t he LandrumG r i f f i n Act o f 1959 . . .
t he 1 9 6 0 ' s . . . earned t he
r i g h t t o go down i n l a b o r r e l a t i o n s h i s t o r y as t he
decade of t he p u b l i c e m p l o y e e .
Z a g o r i a al s o cont ends t h a t

public

a phenomenon o f t he 1 9 6 0 ' s and p o i n t s
uni ons and empl oyee a s s o c i a t i o n s
p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r
t he i n d u s t r i a l

uni ons were l a r g e l y

up t h a t

" . . .

have a t t r a c t e d

shar e of t he work f o r c e

public

a larger

i n 10 ye ar s

t han

uni ons have been a b l e t o do i n 30. " 16

C o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g has p r oba bl y grown more
r a p i d l y i n p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n t han any o t h e r ar ea o f
government al a c t i v i t y .
Whi l e v i r t u a l l y no t e a c h e r s
were covered by c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g agreement s as
of t he 19 61- 1962 school y e a r . . .
By t he 1970- 1971
15Jack S t i e b e r , " C o l l e c t i v e Ba r g a i n i n g i n t he P u b l i c
S e c t o r . " i n Chal l enge s to C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g , ed. by
Ll oyd Ulman (Engl ewood C l i f f s , N. J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . ,
1 9 6 7 ) , p. 65.
16 Sam Z a g o r i a , e d . , P u b l i c Workers and P u b l i c
Uni ons ( Engl ewood C l i f f s , N. J . :
Pr e n t i c e - Ha 11 , I n c . ,
1 9 7 2 ) , p. 1.

19

school year . . . 3 , 5 2 2 c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g a g r e e ­
ments cov e r i n g 1 , 3 3 7 , 1 4 6 t e a c h e r s . 17
"Prior

t o 1960,

t he c o u r t s wi t h near u n a n i mi t y hel d t h a t

p u b l i c empl oyees di d not have any c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
to j o i n

or form uni ons

.

.

now " V i r t u a l l y

state statutes

affirmatively

have t he r i g h t

to j oi n

col 1e c t i v e l y ."

all

o f t he

pr o v i de t h a t p u b l i c empl oyees

and form uni ons and t o b a r g a i n

1R

Duri ng t he 1 9 6 0 ' s ,
statutes

right

granting

pressure increased f o r

p u b l i c empl oyees t he r i g h t

state

to o r g a n i z e

and b a r g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y :
P r e s i d e n t Kennedy' s Ex e c u t i v e Order 10988 [ J a n u a r y
17, 1 9 6 2 ] , whi ch g r a n t e d n e g o t i a t i o n r i g h t s t o f e d e r a l
empl oyees, p r oba bl y had some ' s p i l l o v e r 1 e f f e c t s among
p u b l i c school t e a c h e r s as we l l as o t h e r p u b l i c empl oy­
ees . . . .
By t he same t o k e n , once a few s t a t e l e g i s ­
l a t u r e s pass a n e g o t i a t i o n s t a t u t e f o r p u b l i c school
t e a c h e r s , i t becomes much e a s i e r f o r o t h e r s t a t e l e g i s ­
l a t u r e s to do so.
S i m i l a r l y , t he o b s t a c l e s f aced by
a school board in s i g n i n g a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g a g r e e ­
ment wi t h t e a c h e r s decr ease when o t h e r school boards
si gn s i m i l a r a g r e e me n t s . 19
Presently,
requiring

school

twenty-four

states

have enact ed s t a t u t e s

boards t o n e g o t i a t e wi t h t h e i r

teachers

1 7 F r e d e r i c k R. L i v i n g s t o n , " C o l l e c t i v e Ba r g a i n i n g
and t he School Boar d, " i n P u b l i c Workers and P u b ! i c U n i o n s ,
ed. by Sam Za g or i a (Engl ewood C l i f f s , N. J . :
Prentice-Hal1 ,
I n c . , 1 9 7 2 ) , p . 63.
^®Lee C. Shaw, "The Devel opment of S t a t e and Feder al
Laws, " i n Pu bl i c Workers and P u b l i c U n i o n s , ed. by Sam
Zagor i a (Engl ewood C l i f f s , N.
P r e n t i c e - Ha 11 , I n c . , 1 9 7 2 ) ,
pp. 21 and 28.
^Mo s c ow,
i n g , p . 135.

Lowenberg, and K o z i a r a ,

Collective

Bargaj_n-

20
and a n o t he r f o u r have enact ed l e g i s l a t i o n
t o do s o . 20

" . . .

t he d e v e l op i ng t r e n d f o l l o w s

laws gover ni ng 1abor- management r e l a t i o n s
try,

authorizing

of a l t e r n a t e

of s t r i k e s
21
sett l ement procedures."

Mi chi gan was among t he f i r s t
allowing c o l l e c t i v e
tutions.
setts,

In 1965,

Oregon,

negotiations
Si nce 1965,

bargaining
Mi chi gan

indus­

and t he p r o v i s i o n s

states

to pass a law

by groups i n e d u c a t i o n a l

( al ong wi t h C a l i f o r n i a ,

and Washi ngt on)

passed l e g i s l a t i o n

by empl oyees o f i n s t i t u t i o n s
at l e a s t f i f t e e n

existing

in p r i v a t e

except f o r t he p r o h i b i t i o n

them

additional

insti

Massachu­

gover ni ng

of higher education

states

have enact ed

laws a p p l i c a b l e to such empl oyees.
Faculties

of community c o l l e g e s were t he f i r s t

h i g he r e d u c a t i o n t o o r g a n i z e f o r
bargaining.

t he purpose of c o l l e c t i v e

Gi anopul os acknowl edges t he 1966 n e g o t i a t i o n s

at Henry Ford Community Co l l e g e
t he begi nni ng of c o l l e c t i v e
col 1eges .

in De ar bor n,

bargaining

as

community

22

had been si gned

f a c u l t y contracts

in t w e n t y - s i x p u b l i c communi ty or j u n i o r

i n Mi c h i g a n ;
20

Livingston,

21S t i e b e r ,
Issues,"

Mi chigan,

in public

For t he academi c y e a r 1 9 7 2 - 1 9 7 3 ,

colleges

in

there

remai n onl y t h r e e such

"Collective

"Collective

Bargaining,"

Bargaining,"

pp.

p.

63.

76-77.

22John Gi a n o p u l o s , "Beyond t he Bread and B u t t e r
J u n i o r Co l l e ge J o u r n a l , X L I I ( Mar ch, 1 9 7 2 ) , 18.

21
i n s t i t u t i o n s whose f a c u l t i e s
f o r t he purpose o f c o l l e c t i v e
i ng boar ds.

have not f o r m a l l y or g a n i z e d
bargaini ng with

their

g ov e r n-

2?

Community c o l l e g e t e a c h e r s
representation

e l s ewhe r e have a l s o sought

and gai ned r e c o g n i t i o n

as c o l l e c t i v e

ing co n t i n ue s t o gai n accept ance among c o l l e g e
faculties,

and Coe r e p o r t e d a t o t a l

i ng agent s

i n t he community c o l l e g e s

and u n i v e r s i t y

of 137 f a c u l t y
of f i f t e e n

bargain­

bargain­

s t a t e s by

May o f 1 972 . 24
Boyd c i t e s
collective

as one o f t he causes of t he emergence o f

b a r g a i n i n g by c o l l e g e f a c u l t i e s

t he

"inferiority

complex" of j u n i o r col l eges and f or me r t e a c h e r s c o l l e g e s .
"Junior c ol l e ge f a c u l t y
fessor's
pation
tion,

traditional

ar e now seeki ng t he c o l l e g e

academi c s t a t u s

i n d e c i s i o n - ma k i n g
and r u l e s

and r i g h t s

in r e s p e c t

interest

gover ni ng d i s c h a r g e of p r o f e s s i o n a l

i n uni oni sm and c o l l e c t i v e

pro­

of p a r t i c i ­

to c u r r i c u l u m ,

The c h a r a c t e r o f i n s t i t u t i o n s

25

has i n f l u e n c e d

negotiations,

promoduties."

26

faculty

and t he

oo
Mi chi gan Community Co l l e g e A s s o c i a t i o n , "An A n a l y ­
si s of 1972- 73 F a c u l t y Co n t r a c t s i n Mi chi gan Community
C o l l e g e s , " MCCA Research S e r i e s , V o l . 73, No. 1, Febr uar y 1973.
24

Al an C. Coe, "A Study of t he Pr ocedur es Used i n
C o l l e c t i v e Ba r g a i n i n g wi t h F a c u l t y Uni ons i n P u b l i c Co l l e ge s
and U n i v e r s i t i e s , " Unpubl i shed Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Mi chi gan
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1972.
2S

W i l l i a m B. Boyd, " C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g
Causes and Consequences, " L i b e r a l E d u c a t i o n , L V I I
1971), 306-18.
2^ W o l l e t t ,

" St a t us and T r e n d s , "

p.

8.

i n Academe:
( October,

act i ons of gover ni ng boards have f r e q u e n t l y s t i m u l a t e d and
encouraged t he growth and devel opment of f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a ­
tions.

C o l l e c t i v e bargaining

i n hi ghe r e d uca t i on may be nec­

e s s i t a t e d by t he f a c t t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,
legislatures,
hostile,

gover ni ng boar ds,

and governors have been i n d i f f e r e n t ,

to f a c u l t i e s

if

not

l a c k i n g economic and/ or p o l i t i c a l

muscl e.
L i v i n g s t o n cl ai ms t h a t
tiable

"The scope of what i s nego­

tends to be c o n s i d e r a b l y br oader i n school

than i n o t he r u n i t s of government" and t h a t

"The NLRA l a n ­

guage i s o f t e n i n t e r p r e t e d more br oadl y i n school
than ot her s

.

.

four-year,

because of the d i f f e r e n c e s

public,

c o l l e g e s . " 28

private,

Collective

as one among s e ve r a l
faculty participation

vary between

and mul t i - campus

b a r g a i n i n g may r eas ona bl y be viewed
procedures f o r a c h i e v i n g

i n deci sons a f f e c t i n g

p o l i c y a t aca­

al t hough c o l l e c t i v e

a democr at i c way of s e t t l i n g
per haps,

"The

among t w o - y e a r ,

s i n gl e - c a mpu s ,

alternative

demic i n s t i t u t i o n s 29 and,

ing i s ,

situations

. " 27 w h i l e Moscow has a s s e r t e d t h a t

scope of i ssues and the na t u r e of n e g o t i a t i o n s
institutions

districts

disputes,

logically antithetical

bargaining is

t he concept of bar gai n
to val ues deemed to

27L i v i n g s t o n , " C o l l e c t i v e Bargai ni ng, "

p.

68.

28Mi chael H. Moskow, "The Scope of C o l l e c t i v e Bargai n
i ng i n Hi gher E d u c a t i o n , " Wi sconsi n Law Revi ew, MCMLXXI, No.
33.
29C. Da l l a s Sands, "The Role of C o l l e c t i v e Ba r g a i n ­
ing in Hi gher E d u c a t i o n , " Wi sconsi n Law Re vi ew, MCMLXXI,
No. 1, 152.

23
have prime i mpor t ance i n hi g he r e d u c a t i o n .

Ba r ga i ni ng

" .

.

may cut i n t o some of t he val ues of t he c o l l e g e which hold to
the pri macy of r eason,
val ue of

rational

d i s cour se and the per s uas i v e

i deas as an a l t e r n a t i v e to t he r u l e of custom,

force

, , .
„30
or mam pul a t i on .
Expansion of c o l l e c t i v e
col l e ge s

b a r g a i n i n g i n t o community

has added a new di mensi on t o the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of

these i n s t i t u t i o n s .

Educ at or s ,

e s p e c i a l l y board members,

u r g e n t l y need to a c q u i r e a wor ki ng under st andi ng of t he d i f ­
f er ence between " d i s t r i b u t i v e "
ing mo d e l s . 31
sources;
parties.

and " devel opment al "

The f or mer r e l a t e s

t he l a t t e r pr ovi des

to a l l o c a t i n g

for j o i n t

limited re­

gai ns f o r both

D i f f e r i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s of t he n e g o t i a t i o n

and r o l e s can e a s i l y

i mpl ement at i on

have r e q u i r e d gover ni ng boards and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
l i s h new procedures f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n

vi ew of n e g o t i a t i o n s

is d i s t o r t e d ;

to est ab­

i n t he c o l l e c t i v e

Accordi ng t o Howe,

under st andi ng and i n s i g h t ,
of c o l l e c t i v e

process

l ead to b a r g a i n i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s .

C o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g and c o n t r a c t

n e g o t i a t i o n s pr ocess.

bargain­

t he a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

he l acks

and an a f f i n i t y

information,
f o r t he l abor s

. .
32
bargaining.

30W o l l e t t ,

" St at us and T r e n d s , "

p.

2.

31 James R. Lewel l en and W i l b e r t Sturbaum, "Power
and C o n f l i c t i n Educat i onal N e g o t i a t i o n s , " Jour nal _o_f_
C o l l e c t i v e N e g o t i a t i o n s in t he Pu b l i c Sector7, I I ( S p r i n g ,
19 7 3 ) , 13 5- 45.
3 ^Ray Howe, "The I mpact of C o l l e c t i v e Ba r ga i ni ng on
Community C o l l e g e s , " Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y D r i v e - I n Co n f e r ­
ence, A p r i l 5, 1968.

24
Boards ar e advi sed to become aware o f and t o do some­
t h i n g about t he t r a i n i n g

of future admi nistrators

n e g o t i a t i o n s and i mp l e me n t a t i o n .
t he d i r e c t i o n

Kershen f e e l s

of t he c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t o r ,

a management team wi t h a f u l l - t i m e
ble f or n e g o t i a t i o n s - - a n
of gri evances,
tistics,
for

contract

and p r e p a r a t i o n

negotiation.

there

that,

whose d a i l y

interpretation,

under

shoul d be

administrator

individual

in contract

responsi­
life

preparation

consists
of s t a ­

o f pr oposal s and c o u n t e r - p r o p o s a l s

33

The Community Co l l e ge

President

The p r i n c i p l e concerns o f a c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t ar e
similar

t o the p r o d u c t i o n ,

common t o e x e c u t i v e s
college

president

finance,

ever ywher e.

and ma r k e t i n g concerns

Simon has s t a t e d :

a

is an e x e c u t i v e whose r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

and c h a l l e n g e s ar e ver y much t he same as t hose o f t he executive

i n busi ness
However,

administration

is

of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
attention.

35

and gover nment . "

34

Shannon concl uded t h a t
sufficiently different
to war r ant speci al

community c o l l e g e
from o t h e r areas

professional

st udy and

"What f o r m e r l y was a j ob as t he p r i n c i p a l

of

^ H a r r y Kershen, "Who Shoul d N e g o t i a t e f o r t he Board?"
Jour nal of C o l l e c t i v e N e g o t i a t i o n s i n t he P u b l i c S e c t o r , I
( November, 1 972) , 351.
3d
H e r b e r t A. Si mon, "The Job of a Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t , "
Ed uc a t i on a l Re c o r d , XLV111 ( W i n t e r , 1 967 ) , 68.
35

W i l l i a m G. Shannon, "The Community C o l l e g e P r e s i d e n t
A St udy of t he Rol e of P r e s i d e n t of t he P u b l i c Community
J u n i o r C o l l e g e , " Unpubl i shed Ed. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Col umbi a
U n i v e r s i t y , 1962.

25

a p r e p a r a t o r y program has become a r o l e
leader,

and as t he e x e c u t i v e of a compl ex e n t e r p r i s e w i t h

many t as ks of management r e l a t i n g
plant,

as e d u c a t i o n a l

finance,

Morgan,

and p u b l i c

to personnel ,

36
r e l a t i o n s . 11

a l t hough community c o l l e g e s

difference
or g o a l s ,

in p r a c t i c e s ,
it

t i c e and f u n c t i o n s
and u s e f u l

certain

and s t a t e d purposes

common a l i t i e s of p r a c ­

can be deduced whi ch w i l l

generalizations.

37

Prator

dents t end t o a c t somewhat a l i k e
which c o n f r o n t them d a i l y

3R

feels

by v i r t u e

college

presi­

o f t he probl ems
that

similarity

p r e s i d e n t s much

39
There i s a growi ng r e c o g n i t i o n

college a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
t i on s

l ead to wor kabl e

and St oke t h i n k s

of mi ssi ons makes t he probl ems of c o l l e g e
alike.

Accor di ng to

ar e marked by a wi de

organization,

i s assumed t h a t

program,

units

of community c o l l e g e s

compl ex,

t he a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

that

as community

become l a r g e r and as the f u n c ­
become more comprehensi ve and
of t he

individual

community

3 6 Cl yde E. B l o c k e r , Rober t H. Plummer, and Ri char d
C. Ri c h a r d s o n, J r . , The Two- Year C o l l e g e :
A Soci al Sy nt hes i s
{Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . :
P r e n t i c e - H a l 1 , I n c . , 1 965 ) , p ^ 185.
37

Pr esi dency
D. C. :
19 63 ) .

Don Morgan, P e r s p e c t i v e s o f t he Community Co l l e g e
(San Fr anci sYo :
J o s se y- Ba ss , 1 9 7 0 ) , p. 1.

3 8 Ralph P r a t o r , The Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t ( Washi ngt on,
The Cent er f o r Ap p l i e d Research i n E d u c a t i o n , I n c . ,

39Har ol d W.
(New York:
Ha r p e r ,

St o k e , The Ameri can Co l l e g e
and B r o t h e r s , 1 9 5 9 ) .

President

26
c o l l e g e b e c o me s i n c r e a s i n g l y more i mp o r t a n t i n a c c ompl i s hi ng
educational

objectives.

daily a c tiv itie s
stitutional

Concurrently,

t o t hose e d u c a t i o n a l

Some s t u d i e s
t i o n tend t o r e s u l t

faculty,

and r e p o r t s
in f i nd i n g s

typical

be h a v i o r p a t t e r n s ,

{e.g.

Hemphi l l
Simon,

Campbel l ,

1971;

and Wal ber g,

1967;

platitudes

Wi ng,

as:

usual

expectations

1972)

and t he gover ni ng boar d.

t asks

Joel,

1970;

1965;

and gen­

o f r e spond­

Hanneken,

Schultz,

1969;

1965;

or t hey r e l y on such sweepi ng

goals.

t he i n s t i t u t i o n

Many such s t u d i e s

p r e s i d e n t gi v e more i n s i g h t

into

i s to
to a c ­

of t he com­
presidents

as

group t han i n t o t he p r e s i d e n t as an i n d i v i d u a l

behavi ng i n a r o l e - d e f i n e d ,
a t t e mp t i n g t o cope wi t h

p a r t i c u l a r college

stress

president's

role

setting,

situations.

Represent at i ve of studies
i t y college

a

the p r i ma r y f u n c t i o n o f t he p r e s i d e n t

compl i sh i n s t i t u t i o n a l

a generalized

pe r f o r me d ,

hel d by cl a s s e s

maxi mi ze t he energy a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n

muni ty c o l l e g e

administra­

and g e n e r a l i z e d t r a i t s ,

Ferrari,

1966;

values,

t h a t ar e e s s e n t i a l l y

of aver age c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

significant

t he a t t i t u d e s ,

of educational

listing

erally

and t he i n ­

i n t he community c o l l e g e

t h i n k i n g and b e h a v i o r i n f l u e n c e

and b e h a v i o r o f s t u d e n t s ,

ents

objectives

mi ssi on becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y more d i f f i c u l t .

The p r e s i d e n t hol ds a key p o s i t i o n
--his

t he t as k o f r e l a t i n g

concerned wi t h t he commun­

perception

h a v i o r were t hose o f Graham, Osborne,

and r e s u l t a n t

and W i l l i a m s .

be­

27

I n hi s st udy o f t he j u n i o r c o l l e g e
Graham found a p a t t e r n

president's

job,

i n d i c a t i n g an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p

between t he s i z e o f t he c o l l e g e and t he wei ght o f i mpor t ance
gi ven an i t em ( f u n c t i o n
cl uded t h a t

or t a s k )

the p r e s i d e n t ' s

by him as r e a l i t y .
After

by t he p r e s i d e n t and con­

perception of r e a l i t y

40

s t udyi ng t he maj or f u n c t i o n s

qui r ement s of t he p u b l i c j u n i o r

college

and c r i t i c a l

president,

recommended t h a t t h e r e shoul d be a r e g u l a r e f f o r t
p a r t of t he p r e s i d e n t

t o d e t e r mi n e how we l l

matches t he b e h a v i o r a l
communi ty.

expectations

of hi s

re­

Osborne
on t he

hi s b e h a v i o r
institution

and

41

Williams,
community c o l l e g e

s t u d i n g t he r o l e of f i f t e e n Mi chi gan
presidents

t h a t when i n s t i t u t i o n s
six presidents a c t i v e l y

first

in c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining,

began c o l l e c t i v e

found

bargaining,

at t e mp t e d to i n f l u e n c e n e g o t i a t i o n s

w h i l e e i g h t assumed an a d v i s o r y r o l e .
initially

i s accept ed

served on t h e i r

b oa r d ' s

t i o n i n g as t he c h i e f spokesman.

Fi v e p r e s i d e n t s

b a r g a i n i n g t eam,

had

one f u n c -

42
c

^° Ro b e r t G. Graham, "The J u n i o r Co l l e ge P r e s i d e n t ' s
Job:
An An a l y s i s of Pr e c e i v e d Job Per f or mance and P o s s i b l e
I n f l u e n c i n g V a r i a b l e s , " Unpubl i shed Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, 1965.
4 ^John R. Osborne, "A St udy of t he C r i t i c a l R e q u i r e ­
ments of a P u b l i c J u n i o r Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t , " Unpubl i shed
Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , East Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1969.
AO

Dougl as F. W i l l i a m s , "A Study of t he O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
Procedures f o r C o l l e c t i v e N e g o t i a t i o n s i n F i f t e e n S e l e c t e d
Mi chi gan Community C o l l e g e s , " Unpubl i shed Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas, 1970.

28
O r g a n i z a t i o n Theor y i n Educat i on
Theory o f e d u c a t i o n a l
theories
tary,

t h a t t hey f ocus on r e c o n c i l i n g t he

needs o f s o c i e t y w i t h t he p a r t i c u l a r

individual.

Whi l e t h e r e

administration,
ciples

is s i m i l a r to

of o t h e r ki nds o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n - - g o v e r n m e n t , m i l i ­

industrial--in

gener al

administration

i s no o v e r a l l

none o f t he t h e o r i e s ,

based upon e x p e r i e n c e

i s adequat e t o e x p l a i n a l l

needs o f t he

t heory of educational
nor none o f t he p r i n ­

i n o t h e r t ypes o f i n s t i t u t i o n s ,

t he phenomena o f t he e d u c a t i o n a l

admi ni s t r a t o r .
Whi l e not a l l

have been t e s t e d

i n an e d u c a t i o n a l

en­

vi r onment nor been f ocused on the r o l e of t he communi ty
college

chief executive,

studies

in organizat ional

b e h a v i o r by Barnar d

(1952,

1962),

zels

1957),

Griffiths

and Guba ( 1 9 5 5 ,

Thompson ( 1 9 6 2 ) ,
Medsker

(1966),

Sweitzer,
Eckel

et a l .

(1969),

have r e v e a l e d many t h o u g h t s ,

Drucker,

concepts,

e l s which pr o v i de a f ramework f o r

(1959),

(1963),

Robert s

(1954),

Get -

Stogdill

Kahn, e t

(1971),

and human

al.

(1962),
(1964),

and ot h e r s

and t h e o r e t i c a l

t he i n v e s t i g a t i o n

mod­

o f t he

probl em h e r e i n under st udy.
Barnar d f e l t

t he essence of o r g a n i z a t i o n

system o f i n t e r a c t i o n s ;
i ng hi s

theory,

operative

this

vi ew has endur ed.

In p r e s e n t ­

Barnard e x p l o r e d an o r g a n i z a t i o n

syst em,

f or mal

contribution-satisfaction

and i n f o r ma l
equilibrium,

t o be a

as a co­

organization,
status

t he

and a u t h o r i t y ,

29
and d e c i s i o n - ma k i n g .

From t h e s e ,

the d i r e c t i o n of most sub­

sequent t h e o r y may be p l o t t e d .
Role Theory
Rol e t h e o r y i s a w i d e l y accept ed framework f o r
analysis

of s o c i a l

systems;

abl es i n e d u c a t i o n a l
s h i p.

However,

in f a c t ,

t he case.

levels

pr ovi des f o r t he maj or v a r i ­

o r g a n i z a t i o n and e d u c a t i o n a l

" r o l e t heor y"
The t y p i c a l

st udy of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
var i ous

it

leader-

i mp l i e s more t h e o r y than i s ,
role

t heor y approach to t he

b ehav i or concerns i t s e l f

wi t h the

of c o g n i t i o n s s e l e c t e d persons have conce r n­

ing the r o l e of the p r e s i d e n t - - v e r b a l i z a t i o n s
p r e s i de nt s shoul d do ( r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s ) ,
dent does ( r o l e p e r c e p t i o n s ) ,
t h e i r pe r c e pt i ons

of o t h e r s '

t i o n s t hey t h i n k ot her s

about what

as to what a p r e s i ­

and by p r e s i d e n t s

r e ga r d i ng

e x p e c t a t i o n s and t he e x p e c t a ­

shoul d hol d f o r them.

A person cannot enact a r o l e f o r which he l acks t he
necessary r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s ;
experience.
of our r o l e s ,

t hese he must a c q ui r e through

We tend to behave i n accord wi t h our p e r c e p t i on s
and our perf ormance i s h i g h l y det er mi ned by

our own e x p e c t a t i o n s and by our p e r c e p t i o n of t he e x p e c t a ­
t i o n s of ot he r s toward us.

Ex p e c t a t i o n s are presumed by

43 Howard Ec ke l , Devel opi ng and T e s t i n g Research I n st rument s f o r Role An a l y s i s of Educ a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,
Fi nal Re po r t , Na t i o n a l Cent er f o r Educat i onal Research and
Development ( Washi ngt on, D. C. :
H. E. W. , 1 2 / 3 1 / 6 9 ) , p. 1.

30

most r o l e
dicting

theorists

social

t o be an e s s e n t i a l

behavior;

ingredient

human conduct i s ,

in p r e ­

in p a r t ,

a func­

t i o n o f such e x p e c t a t i o n s .
The broad concept ual u n i t s o f t he t h e o r y ar e ROLE,
t he u n i t of c u l t u r e ; POSI TI ON, t he u n i t o f s o c i e t y ; and
SELF, t he u n i t o f p e r s o n a l i t y .
We d e f i n e p o s i t i o n as
a system of r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s . " . . . "Rol e and p o s i t i o n
ar e c o n j o i n e d .
Rol es ar e d e f i n e d i n terms o f t he a c t i o n s
perf ormed by t he person t o v a l i d a t e hi s occupancy of
t he p o s i t i o n . "
the s e l f i s what t he person
" i s , " t he r o l e i s what t he person " d o e s . "44
Thi s concept ual

scheme has been e l a b o r a t e d by Get -

zel s :
Roles ar e d e f i n e d i n terms of r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s .
A r o l e has c e r t a i n no r ma t i v e o b l i g a t i o n s and r e s p o n s i ­
b i l i t i e s , whi ch may be t ermed " r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s , "
and when t he r o l e i ncumbent puts t hese o b l i g a t i o n s
and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n t o e f f e c t , he i s s a i d to be
p e r f o r mi n g hi s r o l e .
The e x p e c t a t i o n s d e f i n e f o r t he
a c t o r , whoever he may be, what he shoul d or shoul d
not do as l ong as he i s i ncumbent o f t he p a r t i c u l a r
r o l e . 45
Ge t z e l s

h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t he a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

process

was dependent on t he n a t u r e o f t he o v e r l a p o f t he p e r c e p t i o n
of e x p e c t a t i o n s

o f t hose h i e r a c h i c a l l y

The concept

"role expectations"

approach t o o b t a i n i n g e s t i ma t e s
priateness

and d e s i r a b i l i t y

separated.
i s seen as a usef ul

from persons

of t he a p p r o ­

o f b e h a v i o r t h a t mi ght be e x ­

h i b i t e d by a c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t o r of a communi ty c o l l e g e .
Theodore R. S a r b i n , "Rol e Theor y" i n Handbook of
Soci al Psychol ogy (2 V o l s . ; Cambri dge, Mass. :
Addi sonWesl ey P u b l i s h i n g Company, I n c . , 1 9 5 4 ) , I , 2 2 3 , 224, and 244.
4 5 J. W. G e t z e l s , " A d m i n i s t r a t i o n as a So c i a l P r o c e s s , "
i n A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Theor y i n E d u c a t i o n , ed. by Andrew W. H a l pin (Chicago":"" Uni v e r s i t y o f Chi cago, 1 9 5 8 ) , p. 153.

31

Role e x p e c t a t i o n cannot be t hought of a p a r t from a p a r t i c u ­
l a r t h e o r y si nce concept s are vi ewed d i f f e r e n t l y
theories.

N e i t h e r can r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s

by v a r i ous

be s t u d i e s per se;

t hey must be r e l a t e d t o some d e f i n i t e aspect s o f b ehav i or
and to some i n d i v i d u a l

or group.

Thi s is c o n s i s t e n t wi t h Ge t z e l s and Guba' s concept ual
f ramewcrk in whi ch the most i mp o r t a n t a n a l y t i c u n i t of t he
institution
of r o l e

is r o l e ,

vi ewed as the d e f i n i t i o n

i ncumbent s.

of the i n d i v i d u a l

Accordi ng to Get z e l s and Guba,

results

of e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r

of be h a v i o r
behav i or

as he at t e mpt s to cope wi t h p a t t e r n s

hi s b ehav i or i n ways c o n s i s t e n t wi t h hi s

own i ndependent p a t t e r n o f needs.
Basically,

the " N o m o t h e t i c - I d i o g r a p h i c Theory" de­

vel oped by Ge t z e l s and Guba concei ves any o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
sub-organization,

as a s o c i a l

or

system which i s composed of

two cl asses of phenomena which si mut aneousl y ar e c o n c e p t u a l l y
i ndependent as we l l

as phenomenal l y i n t e r a c t i v e .

cl ass of phenomena i s

"institutions"

46

The f i r s t

which are made up of

r ol es and e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t are i n keepi ng wi t h t he goal s
of the system and which ar e aimed at meet i ng t he goal s of
t he system.

The second cl ass of phenomena i s

each havi ng c e r t a i n

personalities

"individuals,"

and n e e d s - d i s p o s i t i o n s and

whose i n t e r a c t i o n s make up group b e h a v i o r .
46J. W. Ge t z e l s and E. G. Guba, " Soci al Behavi or and
t he A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Pr ocess, " School Revi ew, LXV, 4 2 3 - 4 1 .

32
The f i r s t

cl a s s

i s aimed a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g b e h a v i o r

i n terms of t he nor mat i ve di mensi ons o f a c t i v i t y ,
el ement s of i n s t i t u t i o n ,
mension i s r e f e r r e d

role,

i.e.,

and e x p e c t a t i o n .

to as n o m o t h e t i c .

Thi s d i ­

The second c l a s s

aimed a t unde r s t a nd i n g b e h a v i o r i n terms

of t he per sonal

di mensi on o f a c t i v i t y ,

individual,

ality,

i.e.,

el ement s o f

and n e e d s - d i s p o s i t i o n s .

t he

is

pe r s o n ­

Thi s di mensi on i s r e f e r r e d

to as i d i o g r a p h i c .
The i n s t i t u t i o n
a larger

e n v i r onme nt ;

ope r a t e s w i t h i n

t he i n d i v i d u a l

and i n t e r a c t s

behaves w i t h i n and i n ­

t e r a c t s wi t h a l a r g e r e n v i r o n me n t .

Thi s

external

envi r onment i s made up of t h r e e e l e me nt s :
values.

and l a r g e r

ethos,

mores,

and

Each el ement on each di mensi on serves as t he a n a l y t i c

u n i t f o r t he el ement pr ec edi ng i t ,
i s d e f i n e d by i t s
stituent

wi t h

roles,

institutions,

and each r o l e

e.g.,

t he s o c i a l

each i n s t i t u t i o n

system

by i t s

by t he e x p e c t a t i o n s

con­

attached

to i t .
Rol e C o n f l i c t
Invol ved
of r o l e
However,

is

in Linton's

and many o t h e r e a r l y d e f i n i t i o n s

t he p o s t u l a t e of consensus on r o l e d e f i n i t i o n s .

ot he r s

expectations

have shown t h a t

i s an e m p i r i c a l

t h a t make up the s e l f
gruent,

conflict

feeling

that

t he degree of consensus on

variable.

and t he r o l e

results.

the j u n i o r

When t he q u a l i t i e s

expectations

ar e i n c o n -

Cohen and Roueche expr essed the

( communi t y)

college

p r e s i d e n t must

33
be t he e d u c a t i o n a l
stitutional

l e a d e r of hi s c o l l e g e as we l l

manager.

47

Stogdill

has a l s o s t a t e d

tend t o behave i n accord wi t h t h e i r
roles

t h a t persons

perceptions of t h e i r

and t h a t per f or mance i s h i g h l y det er mi ned by our own

expectations

and by our p e r c e p t i o n s

ot he r s toward us.
his

as t he i n -

48

If

of t he e x p e c t a t i o n s

t he p r e s i d e n t

is obligated

of

to use

best j udgment on b e h a l f of t hose he r e p r e s e n t s , i s he

al so o b l i g a t e d

to do what t hey

wish him t o do?

C o n t r a d i c t o r y r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s gi v e r i s e t o op­
posi ng r o l e pr essur es ( r o l e c o n f l i c t s ) , whi ch g e n e r ­
a l l y have t he f o l l o w i n g e f f e c t s on the emot i onal
e x p e r i e n c e of the f o c a l person:
inte ns ifie d internal
c o n f l i c t , i nc r e a s e d t e n s i o n a s s o c i a t e d wi t h v a r i o u s
aspect s o f t he j o b , reduced s a t i s f a c t i o n wi t h t he
j ob and i t s v a r i o u s component s, and decr eased c o n f i ­
dence i n s u p e r i o r s and i n t he o r g a n i z a t i o n as a
whole.
The s t r a i n ex p e r i e nc e d by t hose i n c o n f l i c t s i t u a ­
t i o n s l eads t o v a r i o u s copi ng r e s p o n s e s - - s o c i a 1 and
p s y c h o l o g i c a l wi t h d r a wa l ( r e d u c t i o n i n communi cat i on
and a t t r i b u t e d i n f l u e n c e ) among them.
F i n a l l y , t he pr esence of c o n f l i c t i n one' s r o l e
t ends t o undermi ne hi s r e l a t i o n s w i t h hi s s e nde r s ,
t o produce weak bonds of t r u s t , r e s p e c t , and a t t r a c ­
tion.
I t i s q u i t e c l e a r t h a t r o l e c o n f l i c t s are

A r t h u r M. Cohen and John E. Roueche, I n s t i t u t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t o r or Ed uc a t i on a l Leader :
The J u n i o r
Co l l e ge P r e s i d e n t ( Washi ngt on, D. C. :
Ameri can A s s o c i a t i o n
of J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , 1 9 6 9 ) .
4 8 Ralph M. S t o g d i l l , "Rol e P e r c e p t i o n and F u l f i l l ­
ment i n Re s e a r c h , " i n Research i n Ed uc a t i ona l A d m i n i s t r a t i on, ed. by Stephen P~ Hencl ey (n . p . : U n i v e r s i t y Counci l
f o r Ed uc a t i ona l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Ja n ua r y , 1 9 6 2 ) , pp. 1 5 3 - 1 5 8 .

34
c o s t l y t o t he o r g a n i z a t i o n , which depends on e f f e c ­
t i v e c o o r d i n a t i o n and c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h i n and among
i t s p a r t s . 49
"A c o n f l i c t w i t h i n t he o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
two of i t s
conflict

subgroups or f a c t i o n s ,

i n an i n d i v i d u a l ;

may i mme di a t el y i nduce a

he may have become to some e x t e n t

i d e n t i f i e d wi t h both f a c t i o n s
i n t o a c o n f l i c t of l o y a l t i e s . "
c r e a t e p s y c h ol o gi c a l

say between

and on t h i s
50

account be thrown

C o n f l i c t i ng expectations

c o n f l i c t - - c o n f 1i c t which may e x i s t be­

tween needs and val ues of a person and t he demands of t he
position;
personal

i.e.,

r o l e r e qui r ement s may v i o l a t e

code of e t h i c s ,
11.

sirability)

.

or p r o f e s s i o n a l

values,

st a nd a r d s .

. r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s have a val ue el ement
as we l l

as a p e r c e p t u a l

a

el ement

(de­

(probability).

Role c o n f l i c t al s o occurs when c o n t r a d i c t o r y e x p e c t a t i o n s
51
are made upon a p o s i t i o n i ncumbent . "
Role C o n f l i c t
st udi es seek to det er mi ne t he nat ur e and e x t e n t of r o l e
s t r a i n because of c o n f l i c t i n g
wi t h i n d i f f e r e n t

e x p e c t a t i o n s between or

r e f e r e n c e groups.

52

St udi es f ocusi ng on

Robert L. Kahn, Donald M. Wol f e , Robert P. Qui nn,
J. D i e d r i c k Snoek, and Robert A. Ro s e n t h a l , Or gar i i z at i ona 1
St r ess:
St udi es i n Rol e C o n f l i c t and Ambi gui t y (New York:
John Wi l ey and Sons, I n c . , 1 9 6 4 ) , pp. 7 0 - 7 1 .
^^R. N e v i t t Sanf or d, " I n d i v i d u a l C o n f l i c t and^Or gani ­
z a t i o n a l I n t e r a c t i o n , " i n Power and C o n f l i c t i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s ,
ed. by Robert L. Kahn and El i ' se Boul di ng (New York:
Basi c
Books, I n c . , 1 9 6 4 ) , p. 95.
51Robert E. S w e i t z e r , et a l . , Role Ex pe c t a t i o ns and
Per cept i ons of School Pri j i c i pal s (ITt i l l w a t e r , O k l a . :
Oklahoma
St a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Januar y, 1 963~T, p. 23.
52James M. Lipham, " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Ch a r a c t e r i n Edu­
cation:
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Be h a v i o r , " Review of Educat i onal
Research, XXXIV ( Oc t obe r , 1 9 6 4 ) , pp. 4 3 5 - 5 4 .

35

cause and e f f e c t
variables

relationships

between c o n f l i c t s

ar e b a d l y needed.

The key assumpt i on here i s
ganizational
that derive
hi s r o l e

and s e l e c t e d

p e r f o r me r

is

t h a t b e h a v i o r of any o r ­

t he pr oduct o f m o t i v a t i o n a l

forces

i n l a r g e p a r t from t he b e h a v i o r o f members of

set;

their

i n accordance w i t h

influences

ser ve to r e g u l a t e

role expectations

hi s b e h a v i o r

t hey hol d f o r

him.

But

when peopl e know what t o do,

t he y do not al ways know how;

such u n c e r t a i n t i e s

because e x p e c t a t i o n s

may a r i s e

the r o l e ar e t hemsel ves vague and i n c o n s i s t e n t .
required

Certain

is

or der f o r

t he person t o conform t o t he r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n hel d
role

set,

pe r f o r ma n c e .

in­

f o r ma t i o n

by members of hi s

f o r adequat e r o l e

defining

he must know:

1.

what t he e x p e c t a t i o n s ar e and t he r i g h t s ,
d u t i e s , and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of t he o f f i c e ;

2.

somet hi ng about what a c t i v i t i e s on hi s p a r t
w i l l f u l f i l l t he r e q u i r e me n t s o f the o f f i c e ,
53
and how t hese a c t i v i t e s can best be p e r f or me d.

Rol e b e h a v i o r may be f r u i t f u l l y
conflict

perspective;

role c o n f l i c t

however ,

a n a l y z e d f rom a r o l e

t he f i r s t

di d not appear u n t i l

1949.

empirical

.

. full

institutionalization

one end and 11.
a t t he o t h e r . ^
^Kahn,
Soci al
1949).

.

. anomie

.

.

.

.

st udy of

54

Parsons r e c o g n i z e d t h a t consensus i s
11.

In

a g r ad i en t with

or consensus,

at

or absence of consensus

The e x i s t e n c e of nor ma t i v e
e t al . , O r g a n i z a t i o n a l

ranges

S t r e s s , p.

had a l s o
22.

54Samuel A. S t o u f f e r , "An A n a l y s i s o f C o n f l i c t i n g
Norms, " Ameri can S o c i o l o g i c a l Re v i e w, XIV ( December ,

55T a l c o t t Par sons, The S o c i a l
The Free Pr ess, 1 9 5 1 ) , p. 39.

System ( Gl e n c o e ,

111.:

36

been emphasi zed by S t o u f f e r who p o i n t e d out t h a t c o n f l i c t s
in r ol e o b l i g a t i o n
The f i n d i n g s

ar e a common e x p e r i e n c e of a l l

of many more r e c e n t s t u d i e s

individuals.

suppor t

their

an­

alyses.
Var i ous persons and subgroups e n t e r t a i n
expectations

relative

cei ved d i f f e r e n t l y
Stogdill

t o t he same r o l e ,

by t he r o l e

suggest s t h a t

dividuals,

role

have e x p e c t a t i o n s

is a t t r i b u t i b l e

situation.

person i s

actually

pr essur es t o make hi s

expectations

.

.

The Ge t z e l - Guba

regarding

perf ormi ng.

per f or mance congr uent

. whi ch l eads

in turn

to c e r t a i n

approach assumes t h a t

role conflicts

devel op when an a c t o r c o n c u r r e n t l y occupi es m u l t i p l e
t i o n s t o whi ch ar e a t t a c h e d c o n f l i c t i n g
an a c t o r may be exposed t o r o l e

of hi s occupyi ng a s i n g l e

position,

their

president,

conflict

e.g.,

How­

as a r e s u l t

faculty

and board

expectations

as a p r e s i d e n t .

In o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,

perhaps

but t he absence of c o n f l i c t
5^Kahn,

posi­

expectations.

members may be p e r c e i v e d as h o l d i n g c o n f l i c t i n g
for

role

\
,,56
( or ma1a d j u s t i v e ) r esponses.

adjustive

ever,

to i n ­

"Rol e senders

They a l s o have p e r c e p t i o n s

t he way i n whi ch t he f o c a l

wi t h t h e i r

is per­

r e g a r d i n g t he way i n whi ch t he f o c a l

shoul d be per f or med.

and e x e r t

and the r o l e

i ncumbent and by o t h e r s .

conflict

not t o the s t i mu l u s

different

et a l . ,

that

it

i s not t he pr e s e n c e ,

constitutes

Organizational

t he s u r p r i s i n g

S t r e s s , p.

277.

37
or abnor mal .
flict

"The i s s u e ,

then, i s not e l i m i n a t i o n

and a mb i g u i t y f rom o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

life;

cont ai nment o f t hese c o n d i t i o n s

at

are a t

and low i n c o s t ,

least

humane,

tolerable,

a t best mi ght be p o s i t i v e

levels

it

in c o n t r i b u t i o n

of con­
is

t he

and i n forms whi ch
and whi ch

to i n d i v i d u a l

and

•
*•
,.5 7
organization.
"The concept of
subsumed under i t ,
ultimately,
includes

copi ng i s

not by the success o f such b e h a v i o r s

the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

o f t he core pr obl em,

interpersonal,

and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

conflicts

may be

system f l e x i b i l i t y
.

change.

by

probl ems

58

that c o n f li c t

"From s o c i e t y ' s

useful;

t he p e r ­

point

i s not

o f v i e w,

t he y o f t e n gi v e a s o c i a l

providing

an e n t e r i n g wedge f o r

social

1.50

The o b j e c t i v e
that co n fli c ts

remai n

of

" c o n f l i c t management"

on the c r e a t i v e

i s t o see

and u s e f u l

s i d e of

57 I b i d . , p. 387.
5 8 I b i d . , p.
Cliffs,

.

t o t he i n t r a p s y c h i c ,

syst ems. "

has been w i d e l y r e c o g n i z e d

n e c e s s a r i t y a bad t h i n g . 59
role

t he d e r i v a t i v e

and t he cost o f t he s o l u t i o n

It

.

copi ng must be a n a l y z e d w i t h i n a f r amewor k whi ch

s o n a l i t y of t he probl em s o l v e r ,
evoked,

d e f i n e d by t he b e h a v i o r

340.

59Ami t ai E t z i o n i , Modern O r g a n i z a t i o n s (Engl ewood
N. J . :
Pren t i ce-Ha'l 1 , I n c . , 19 6 4 ) , p . 27.

50Jackson Toby, "Some V a r i a b l e s i n Rol e C o n f l i c t
A n a l y s i s , " So c i a l F o r c e s , XXX ( Mar ch, 1 9 5 2 ) , 324.

a

.

38
C*|
b a r r i e r whi ch d i v i d e s
of c o n f l i c t

"good" from "bad" c o n f l i c t .

is possible

if

some s o r t of machi ner y f o r a v o i d ­

i ng " p a t h e o l o g i c a l " moves i s
t hese c o n t r o l

t he p a r t i e s

A mechanism i s

this

is a c t u a l l y

trol

a t t he per sonal
unite

Gener al l y speaking,

unilateral

d e l i b e r a t e l y ma n i p u l a t e s

esses i n or der t o c o n t r o l

feet,

provided.

mechanisms may be of two k i n d s :

or o r g a n i z a t i o n a l .

its

the s e c r e t o f a good deal
level;

the two p a r t i e s

organization

con­

in e f 62

Rol e Research
on per f or mance

presidents

and McEachern and r e p o r t e d

i n Rol e A n a l y s i s

(1958).

is

t h a t conduct ed

i n E x p ! o r a t i ons

Thi s st udy i n v o l v e d r o l e e x p e c t a ­

and per f or mance o f 105 p u b l i c school

conflict

of c o n f l i c t

solutions,

by Gross, Mason,

school

r e s e a r c h e r s capped t h e i r

proc­

equilibrium--

in a l a r g e r o r g a n i z a t i o n .

of community c o l l e g e

and members of t h e i r

when one of

own r e a c t i o n

Research whi ch bears most d i r e c t l y

tions

unilateral

t he p o s i t i o n o f mutual

Re l a t e d

expectations

Cont r ol

boar ds.

superintendents

More p a r t i c u l a r l y ,

t hese

st udy by d e v e l o p i n g a t h e o r y o f r o l e

r e s o l u t i o n which t hey employed t o p r e d i c t

h a v i o r of Massachuset t s school

superintendents.

t he be­

T h e i r model

^ K e n n e t h Bo u l d i n g , "Two P r i n c i p l e s of C o n f l i c t , " i n
Power and C o n f l i c t i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s , ed. by Rober t L. Kahn
and E l i s e Bo u l d i n g , p. 76.
^ K e n n e t h B o u l d i n g , "A Pure Theory of C o n f l i c t Ap p l i e d
t o O r g a n i z a t i o n s , " i n Power and C o n f l i c t i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s ,
p. 143.

39
pr ovi des

four p r e d i c t i v e

alternate

behaviors

to resol ve

role

c o n f 1i c t :
1.

conf orm to e x p e c t a t i o n A;

2.

conform t o e x p e c t a t i o n

3.

per f or m some compromise b e h a v i o r whi ch r e p r e s e n t s
an a t t e mp t t o conform i n p a r t t o both e x p e c t a ­
tions;

4.

a t t e mp t to av oi d conf or mi ng to e i t h e r
p e c t a t i o n s . 63

The s t a r t i n g
definition
a c t or s w i l l

point

f o r such a t h e o r y i s

of a r o l e c o n f l i c t

situation.

have p e r c e p t i o n s of t he

macy of t he e x p e c t a t i o n s
will

B;

It

each of them,

and t h a t

cor di ng to t h e i r

an a c t o r ' s

was assumed t h a t

legitimacy

and of t he s a n c t i o n s

be exposed as a consequence o f t h e i r

of t he ex -

or i l l e g i t i ­
to whi ch t hey

n o n c o n f o r mi t y to

i n d i v i d u a l s may be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d

pr i macy o f o r i e n t a t i o n

ac­

t o t he l e g i t i m a c y

or to t he s a n c t i o n di mensi ons o f t he e x p e c t a t i o n s

i n t he

situation.

Three t ypes o f o r i e n t a t i o n s

a different

s e t o f p r e d i c t i o n s were p o s i t e d f o r each t y p e .

The f i r s t

t ype pl aces

to hol d t he e x p e c t a t i o n

stress

he p e r c e i v e s

to ex pect at i ons

and

on t he r i g h t of ot he r s
t hey hol d f o r him and

de- emphasi zes t he s a n c t i o n s

he t h i n k s w i l l

f o r n on c o nf o r mi t y to them.

Such a person i s cha r ac t er ! * z e d

as havi ng a MORAL o r i e n t a t i o n

6 4 1bi d . ,

pp.

and McEachern,

289-93.

be a p p l i e d

to e x p e c t a t i o n s .

pr edi sposed to behave i n a r o l e - c o n f l i c t
6 ^Gross, Mason,

64

t o him

He w i l l

situation

be

i n such

Rol e A n a l y s i s , p.

248.

40
a way t h a t

he can f u l f i l l

illegitimate

ones,

l e g i t i m a t e expectations

regardless

of what s a n c t i on s

and r e j e c t

are i n v o l v e d .

The second t ype i s d e s c r i b e d as EXPEDIENT.
vidual

who has t h i s

to t he s a n c t i o n s
pectations

orientation

i s one who gi ves

a ct so as t o mi n i mi z e t he n e g a t i v e
situation;

f ense f o r h i m s e l f
sa nc t i ons
ity

he w i l l

Such a person w i l l

sanctions

try

ot her s w i l l

expectations.

hol d c e r t a i n e x p e c t a t i o n s

i n t he

s e v e r i t y o f t he

appl y to him f o r nonconf or m­

Whether ot he r s
is

involved

t o p r o v i d e t he best de­

i n vi ew of t he r e l a t i v e

he f e e l s

to t h e i r

priority

over t he l e g i t i m a c y di mensi on o f t he e x ­

p e r c e i v e d as hel d by o t h e r s .

r o l e - c o n f 1i c t

An i n d i ­

irrelevant

have a r i g h t

to

or o f secondar y i m­

por t ance t o him.
In a d d i t i o n ,

a third

t ype of o r i e n t a t i o n

tion

i s t he MORAL-EXPEDIENT o r i e n t a t i o n .

this

orientation

to e x p e c t a ­

A person who has

does not gi ve pr i macy t o t he l e g i t i m a c y

or

s a nct i ons di mensi on but t akes both di mensi ons r e l a t i v e l y
equally

i n t o account and behaves i n accor dance wi t h t he p e r ­

cei ved " n e t bal ance" of the two.
situations,

the d e c i s i o n s

expedient o r i e n t a t i o n

For some r o l e - c o n f 1 i c t

o f an i n d i v i d u a l

ar e r e l a t i v e l y

the l e g i t i m a c y and s a n c t i on s el ement s
behavior.

In g e n e r a l ,

if

wi t h a mo r a l -

si mpl e s i n c e both
l ead him to t he same

t he l e g i t i m a c y di mensi on

l eads

him to t he same b e h a v i o r i n d i c a t e d by t he s a n c t i o n s di men­
sion,

no probl em e x i s t s

d e c i s i o n - ma k e r s

for

him.

I t was r e p o r t e d t h a t most

f ol l ow a moral -expedi ent o r i e n t a t i o n .

41
To summari ze,
and McEchern s t a t e s

the t heor y devel oped by Gross, Mason,

t h a t the incumbent of a p o s i t i o n

one of f o u r d i f f e r e n t
two c o n f l i c t i n g

actions

chooses

a v a i l a b l e when c o nf r ont e d wi t h

role expectations;

t hese a r e :

c o n f o r mi t y

to e x p e c t a t i o n A,

c o n f o r mi t y to e x p e c t a t i o n B, compromi se,

or avoi dance.

was hypot hesi zed t h a t t h r e e f a c t o r s a c ­

It

count f o r the i ncumbent ' s choi ce:
and personal

orientation.

legitimacy,

L e g i t i ma c y r e f e r s

i ncumbent b e l i e v e d t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l
cl ai m had a r i g h t
tions;

sanct i ons r e f e r

personal

cumbent bri ngs

to p e n a l t i e s

or group maki ng the

orientation

p e r c e i v e d as a conse­

of the c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e e x p e c t a ­
refers

to his own val ues an i n -

to bear i n r eachi ng a d e c i s i o n .

Some persons r e a c t d i f f e r e n t l y
of a s i t u a t i o n as wel l
either

t o whet her the

to expect him to conform to the e x p e c t a ­

quence to f o l l o w i n g e i t h e r
tions;

sanctions,

to t he moral

aspect s

as to the v a r y i ng pr essur es t h a t

promi se to reward or t h r e a t e n to p e n a l i z e them.

The

mo r a l l y o r i e n t e d person pl aces more wei ght on l e g i t i m a c y
than

upon s a n c t i o n s ;

the

expediently oriented

more wei ght on sanct i ons than upon l e g i t i m a c y ;

person pl aces
the mor a l -

e x pe di e nt person wei ght s both di mensi ons r e l a t i v e l y
General
Miller

equally.

Role E x p e c t a t i o n St udi es

and Shul l

t e s t e d the Role C o n f l i c t

t heor y usi ng t he p r i n c i p l e

t h a t as the d i f f e r e n c e

Re s o l ut i on
between

42
t he opposi ng p e n a l t i e s

(sanctions)

grows s m a l l e r ,

the l e g i t i

macy assessments become more i mp or t a n t as t he basi s f o r
c hoi c e .

65

They not ed,

i n an a n a l y s i s o f t he p r e d i c t e d a c ­

curacy of the m o r a l - e x p e d i e n t model ,

t h a t an aver age of 62

per cent c o r r e c t predi ct i ons were secured f o r open-end r o l e
c o n f l i c t cases compared to onl y 43 per cent c o r r e c t p r e d i c t ­
i ons f o r s t r u c t u r e d types of r o l e c o n f l i c t

situations,

sug­

gesting t h a t t he dat a gi ven by respondent s out of t h e i r own
e x per i e nc e may enabl e t he r e s e a r c h e r to p r e d i c t more accu­
rately.

In a l l ,

reported,

a p r e d i c t i v e accur acy o f 71 per cent was

which f e l l

below t he o v e r a l l

91 per cent accuracy

o bt a i ned by Gross and hi s a s s o c i a t e s . 66
Further,
personal

M i l l e r and Shul l

orientation

as a s t a b l e t r a i t ,

a concept of v a r i a b l e
personal
ues at

replacing

i t wi t h

choi ce dependi ng upon such f a c t o r s as

and o r g a n i z a t i o n g o a l s ,

stake.

r e j e c t e d t he concept of

group s u p po r t ,

and t he v a l ­

They concl uded t h a t a d e c i s i o n - ma k e r sor t s

out a p a r t i c u l a r mode of a c t i o n from hi s own h i e r a c h y of
val ues t o f i t

the expected outcomes i n o r d e r to make a

s p e c i f i c choi ce.

67

D e l b e r t C. M i l l e r and Fremont A. S h u l l , J r . ,
"The P r e d i c t i o n of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Role C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n s ,
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Sci ence Q u a r t e r l y , V I I ( Sept ember , 1 9 6 2 ) , 152
6 6 1 b i d . , p.

155.

5 7 I bi d . , p.

159.

43
Wol f e and Snoek acknowl edged t he c o n t r i b u t i o n
Gross st udy and went on to say t h a t
a variety

o f emot i onal

reactions

ar e o f t e n m a l a d j u s t i v e - - o f t e n
vidual
at

role c o n flic t

and t h a t

copi ng r e a c t i o n s

conflicts,

ti mes seem t o s t i m u l a t e an i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n

pressures,

t he g r e a t e r

".

.

. if

of c o n f l i c t .

t h e r e ar e two opposi ng

The amount o f c o n f l i c t -

i nduci ng p r e s s u r e a r o l e sender pl aces

upon a f o c a l

is a d i r e c t function of t h e i r organi zat i on
person r e c e i v e s

and i n f a c t ,

t he s t r e n g t h o f t he weaker o f t he two

t he more i n t e n s e t he c o n f l i c t . 11*^

focal

stimulates

i na de qua t e t o p r o t e c t t he i n d i

from f u t u r e and more i n t e n s e

They al so p o i n t e d out t h a t

o f t he

person

proximity--a

t he g r e a t e s t amount of pr e s s ur e from

. •
.•
.
.
69
hi s d i r e c t s u p e r i o r s .
Ed u c a t i o n a l
Some s t u d i e s

Rol e S t u d i e s

of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

have been based upon t h e o r i e s
dill.

Stogdill,

of G e t z e l s

following Talcott

of r o l e , 70 c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n

roles

in education

and Guba and St og-

Par sons'

general

t o t he maj or di mensi ons o f r o l e

^ D o n a l d M. Wol f e and J. D i e d r i c k Snoek,
of Tensi ons and Adj ust ment under Rol e C o n f l i c t , "
So c i a l I s s u e s , X V I I I ( J u l y , 1 9 6 2 ) , 105.
CQ

Kahn, e t a l . ,

concept

Orqanizational

S t r e s s , p.

"A St udy
Jour nal o f
184.

7 0 Par sons, The So c i a l Syst em, pp. 3 8 - 9 .
"A r o l e . .
i s a s e c t o r o f t he t o t a l o r i e n t a t i o n system of an i n d i v i d u a l
a c t o r whi ch i s o r g a n i z e d about e x p e c t a t i o n s i n r e l a t i o n to
a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n cont ex t , t h at is i nt e g r a t e d with
a p a r t i c u l a r set of v a l u e - s t a n d a r d s whi ch govern i n t e r a c t i o n
wi t h one or more a l t e r s i n t he a p p r o p r i a t e compl ement ar y
r o l e s ."

44
expectation.
drive

He r egar ded e x p e c t a t i o n s

(or m o t iv a ti o n) ,

( b ) e s t i ma t e d

o f a p o s s i b l e outcome,
outcome.
tion,"

and ( c)

In S t o g d i l l ' s

t he concept ual

as a f u n c t i o n o f

level

e s t i ma t e d

"mi ddl e

of d e s i r a b i l i t y

p r o b a b i l i t y o f an

range t h e o r y o f a d m i n i s t r a ­

f ramework c o n s i s t e d o f t h r e e v a r i a b l e s

concei ved as maj or el ement s i n b e h a v i o r :
f or mance,

( a)

interaction,

per­

and e x p e c t a t i o n s . ^

I n t he st udy o f r o l e
principals

d ur i ng c o l l e c t i v e

administrators

perceive

their

expectations
bargaining,
role

hel d f o r

school

Ur i c h found t h a t

as t h a t

of board r e p r e s e n ­

tative.

Re spondent s- - whi ch i n c l u d e d s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s

teachers

as wel l

distinct

groups dependi ng on t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n o f t he p r i n ­

cipals'

as p r i n c i p a l s - - a l i g n e d

t hemsel ves

and

into four

role:
a.

" e d u c a t i o n a l managers" f e l t t hey shoul d r e p r e ­
sent t he school boa r d, and ser ve as l i a i s o n
between t he board and t he t e a c h e r s ;

b.

"anxi ous p a r t i c i p a t o r s " opt ed f o r
p o s i t i o n of di sengagement ;

c.

" a mb i v a l e n t p a r t i c i p a t o r s " f e l t he shoul d
ser ve as c o n s u l t a n t t o t he t e a c h e r o r g a n i z a ­
t i o n o n l y ; and

d.

" e d u c a t i o n a l b y - s t a n d e r s " want ed t he p r i n c i ­
pal t o be r e p r e s e n t e d by t he t e a c h e r o r g a n i z a ­
t i o n i n n e g o t i a t i o n s .72

a neutral

71

Ralph M. S t o g d i l l , I n d i v i d u a l Behavi or and Group
Achi evement (New York:
Oxf ord U n i v e r s i t y Pr e s s , 1 9 5 9 ) .
7?

Collective

Ted U r i c h , T h e R o l e o f t he School
N e g o t i a t i o n s (Purdue U n i v e r s i t y ,

P r i n c i p a l in
August , 1 9 7 0 ) .

45

Role consensus f o r community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s ,
t h e i r boards and f a c u l t y ,
tuti ons

ar e t o r e a l i z e

shoul d be devel oped i f

their potential.

f a c t o r s t en d i n g to c r e a t e c o n f l i c t i n g
but , e s s e n t i a l l y ,

74

".

.

role expectations;

hel d f o r hi s p o s i t i o n but

p e r c e i v e hi s

he shoul d examine r a t h e r c a r e f u l l y

of hi s own b e h a v i o r . "

board and p r e s i d e n t r egar ded as a c t u a l
i ncongruency between t h e i r

Further­

hi s own p e r c e p t i o n s

between what the

per f or mance,

but an

respective expectations

role resulting d i r e c t l y

di s t a n c e s c r e a t e d by o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

office;

behavior.

75

Stamm found a cl ose r e l a t i o n s h i p

of the r o l e

of be­

. each a d m i n i s t r a t o r needs an under st andi ng

al so of the ways t h a t ot her s

presidential

73

to r o l e c o n f l i c t and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

not onl y of t he r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s

more,

Klaus found s e v e r a l

the l a c k of a c l e a r s p e c i f i c a t i o n

ha v i or c o n t r i b u t e s
stress.

t hese i n s t i ­

of t he

from the i n t e r p e r s o n a l
structure.

76

Al l

members

set do not share a common concept of the f o c a l

the adequacy of t he r o l e s e n d e r ' s concept i on of t he

f ocal

j ob i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o hi s o r g a n i z a t i o n

to i t

. .
.
77
and to hi s bei ng i n a super or di nat . e p o s i t i o n over i t .
73

Kl aus,

"Rol e E x p e c t a t i o n s . "

^Gross,
75

Mason, and McEachern,

Savage,
Stamm,

^Kahn,

proxi mi t y

Interpersonal

Role A n a l y s i s , p.

and Group R e l a t i o n s , p.

"Role E x p e c t a t i o n s . "
et al . , O r g a n i z a t i o n a l

S t r e s s , p.

184.

5.
129.

46

Similarly,
faculty

negotiators

president

Pr i s c o found t h a t board members and
di d not mandate a s p e c i f i c

in c o l l e c t i v e

n e g o t i a t i o n s and t h a t

not t end t o agree w i t h e i t h e r
members on t he r o l e

educational

role

expectations

i ve b a r g a i n i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s

t he p r e s i d e n t as t he person caught
f er ence s o f f a c u l t y n e g o t i a t o r s
There ar e s e v e r a l

as i t

as c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t o r and
w i t h one

by t he p r e s i d e n t

may l ead t o c o n f l i c t

e t i c di mensi on o f t he i n s t i t u t i o n

presidents

t hat presidents

Pr i s c o concl uded t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s

f o r t he per f or mances

ar eas

di d

or board

l e a d e r or were a v o i d i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

group or t he o t h e r .

f o r t he

presidents

f a c ul ty negotiators

e x p e c t a t i o n whi ch i m p l i e s

were p l a y i n g a t r a n s a c t i o n a l

role

in

in c o l l e c t ­

i n t he nomoth­

and have adver se e f f e c t s

on

i n t he mi ddl e between d i f -

and board members.

78

i n whi ch community c o l l e g e

ar e not meet i ng t he e x p e c t a t i o n s

of t h e i r

office

i s vi ewed by t hemsel ves and o t h e r members o f t he

college

communi ty,

a c c or di ng t o Osborne:

a.

communi cat i on wi t h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
faculty;

b.

allowing p a r t i c i p a t i o n
maki ng;

c.

ma t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g
fessional status;

7 fi

in deci si on

to s a l a r y ,

staff

and

and p o l i c y

tenure,

and p r o ­

F r e d e r i c k R. P r i s c o , J r . , " E x p e c t a t i o n s o f P r e s i ­
d e n t s , Board Members, and F a c u l t y N e g o t i a t o r s f o r t he Rol e
of t he New Jer sey Count y-Communi t y C o l l e g e P r e s i d e n t i n
F a c u l t y - B o a r d N e g o t i a t i o n s , " Unpubl i shed Ed. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n ,
The S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o f New J e r s e y , 1971.

47

d.

d e l e g a t i n g a u t h o r i t y t o ot he r s and backi ng
t he d e c i s i o n s of s u b o r d i n a t e s ;

e.

c r e d i b i l i t y . 79

St out concl uded t h a t t he more a c c u r a t e l y t h a t
p e r c e i v e t he e x p e c t a t i o n s
likely

of t h e i r

r e f e r e n c e gr oups,

t hey ar e t o meet t hese e x p e c t a t i o n s

maki ng.

t he more

in decision-

80
Gi anopul os s t a t e d t h a t ,

college

presidents

if

at al l

possible,

t he

p r e s i d e n t shoul d remai n an i ndependent t h i r d

i n t he n e g o t i a t i o n

process as r e q u i r e d by hi s p o s i t i o n as

l e a d e r of t he f a c u l t y
Wesley A.

and e x e c u t i v e of t he boa r d,

Wi l dman, who suggest ed t h a t

a d m i n i s t r a t o r may become t h a t of
inq i n f o r m a t i o n ,

party

counsel

and quot ed

"t he r o l e o f t he c h i e f

' mi d d l e man

.

.

. provid-

and me d i a t i n g s e r v i c e t o both

. . .
. .
81
board and f a c u l t y d u r i n g b a r g a i n i n g .
Notwithstanding,
role

Rober t s f e l t

per f or mance i n c o l l e c t i v e

individual

interpretation,

that

bargaining

where no l e g a l

t he s e l e c t i o n of
i s a m a t t e r of
mandate e x i s t s ,

and concl uded t h a t Gr oss ' s p r o t o t y p e c o n f l i c t

790s bor ne ,

"Critical

Re q u i r e me n t s , "

p.

resolution

131.

8 0 Fern D. S t o u t , "A Comparison of Rol e Pe r c e p t i o n s
of S e l e c t e d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s i d e n t s and T h e i r Re f er ence Groups,
Unpubl i shed Ed. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f New Mex i co,
1 962 .
81Gi a n o p u l o s ,

"Collective

Bargaining,"

p.

102.

48
model

pr ovi des a v a l i d means of p r e d i c t i n g

collective

bargaining rol e c o n f l i c t

In ada pt i ng the model
the f o l l o w i n g a l t e r n a t i v e

perf ormance in

situations.

to hi s s t u d y ,

82

Robert s o f f e r e d

r o l e choi ces f o r the s u p e r i n t e n d ­

ent :
1.

serves p r i m a r i l y as agent of t he boar d, e i t h e r
as c h i e f n e g o t i a t o r or as t he person wi t h t he
maj or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a s s e r t i o n of the
b oa r d' s p o s i t i o n i n n e g o t i a t i o n s ;

2

f u n c t i o n s as an agent of me di a t i o n wi t h t he
board and the s t a f f .
Conducts sessi ons wi t h
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of both groups i n t he i h"
t e r e s t of a c h i e v i n g a s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s o l u t i o n
of e x i s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s ;

3.
4.

is i d e n t i f i e d as spokesman f o r the p r o f e s s i o n a l
i n t e r e s t s of t he t e a c h e r s ;
act s as the pr i mar y r esour ce person f o r each
q r o u p , p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on r e q u e s t which
may be u t i l i z e d i n c l a r i f y i n g and r e c o n c i l i n g
l o c a l i ssues.

He f u r t h e r concl uded t h a t ,

f o r c h i e f school

officers,

aware

ness of t he concept s and i n t e r a c t i o n

i nv ol v e d i n the t heor y

will

c a p a c i t y t o deal

not a u t o m a t i c a l l y i mprove t h e i r

e f f e c t i v e l y wi t h an a mbi v a l e nt or c o n f l i c t - r i d d e n

more

situation

82 George F. Rober t s , "Rol e Choi ce of C h i e f School
Of f i cer s in C o l l e c t i v e Negot i at i ons:
Anal y si s and D e s c r i p ­
t i o n " R. E. R. A. 55t h Annual Me e t i n g , Februar y 4 : 7, 197 .
Gross' s f o r m u l a t i o n has al so been t e s t e d i n S1J 1
c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s c o n f r o n t i n g law enf or cement o f f i c e r s ,
mi ddl e-management personnel i n l n d u s t ^ >
c ^ h 1 study
government o f f i c i a l s i n a d e v el opi ng n a t i o n
l a c " s* “
support ed the u t i l i t y of Gr oss' s Theory of Role C o n f l i c t
Resolution.

49
Summary
Chapt er two has been devot ed t o a r e v i e w o f s t u d i e s ,
concept s,

and t h e o r i e s whi ch ar e p e r t i n e n t t o and u n d e r g i r d

t he pr e s e n t

st u d y .

After

i n t e n s i v e e x a mi n a t i o n o f t he l i t e r a t u r e

i ng to c o l l e c t i v e
boar ds,

bargaining,

administration,

det er mi ned t h a t t h i s

role,

college

presidents,

and r e l a t e d

st udy be l i m i t e d

negotiations

expectation c o n f l i c t ,

situations,

and i t s

Si nce t he Gr oss,
tested

its

i n s t r u me n t s

it

in c o l l e c t i v e

t he accompanyi ng r o l e

resolution.

Mason,

McEachern st udy had p r e v i o u s l y

o t h e r s - - e . g . , Nel son (1960), Upton ( 1 9 6 9 ) ,
studies,

and s i nce

Robert s

(1971)--

and si nce t h i s

st udy r e p r e ­

sent s a c o n t i n u a t i o n and r e f i n e me n t o f t hose p r e v i ou s
this

investigator

and r e f i n e

studies,

deci ded t o use t hese as models and t o adapt

them f o r use wi t h communi ty c o l l e g e

gover ni nq board cha i r me n,

and f a c u l t y

leaders.

a l s o p e r mi t ready compari son o f r e s u l t s
a r e s i m i l a r and t he r e l a t i v e
c o mp a r a b l e .

was

t o an assessment of

and t h e o r y i n p r a c t i c e ,

had adapt ed them t o t h e i r

gover ni ng

research,

t he r o l e o f t he community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t
bargaining

pertain­

positions

presidents,
Thi s w i l l

s i n c e t he i n s t r u me n t s
of t he s u b j e c t s ar e

CHAPTER I I I
DESIGN
I n t r o d u c t i on
Tne o b j e c t of t h i s r e se ar ch i s t o det er mi ne r o l e e x ­
pectati ons

f o r community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s

b a r g a i n i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s and t he a c t ua l
such s i t u a t i o n s w h i l e t e s t i n g

role

in c o l l e c t i v e
perf ormance i n

a role c o n f l i c t

r e s o l u t i o n pre

di c t i on model .
The desi gn of t he st udy i s aimed a t
of

( 1 ) compari sons of p r e s i d e n t ' s

the devel opment

role expectations

hel d by

f ac ul t y organization

representatives,

gover ni ng board c h a i r ­

men, and p r e s i d e n t s ,

and ( 2 ) a measure of t he congruence of

these r e s p e c t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s .
P r e s i d e n t ’ s r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s from each o f t he t h r e e
principal

positions

(i.e.,

r o l e sender s)

from response to s p e c i f i c a l l y

were det er mi ned

f o r mu l a t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e

i tems

The desi gn of t he r e sear ch concer ni ng dependent v a r i
abl es

is r e l a t e d

to the Gross, Mason, and McEachern t h e o r y

of Rol e C o n f l i c t Re s o l u t i o n

i n t h a t the di mensi ons of these

v a r i a b l e s ar e d es cr i bed i n terms o f the di mensi ons o f t h a t
theory.
D e s c r i p t i o n of Study Po pu l a t i on
The p o p u l a t i o n
tive

officers

s t u d i e d c o n s i s t s of the c h i e f execu­

(presidents)

of t he p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s

51

i n Mi chi gan which a r e ope r a t e d by a l e g a l l y c o n s t i t u t e d au­
tonomous c o l l e g e d i s t r i c t .

Thi s

description

e x c l u s i o n from t he st udy of p r i v a t e
year c o l l e g e s

or " j u n i o r c o l l e g e s "

results

i n t he

a n d / o r p r o p r i e t a r y t woas we l l

c o l l e g e s o pe r a t e d as p a r t o f a l o c a l

as t hose community

public

school

system

and p o p u l a r l y r e f e r r e d t o as "K- 14 d i s t r i c t s . "
The st udy p o p u l a t i o n
lation

of t w e n t y - f i v e

In a d d i t i o n ,

(25)

s e l e c t e d was t he e n t i r e

community c o l l e g e

popu­

presidents.

t he c o r r e s po n di n g gover ni ng board chai r man

and c or r es pondi ng f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n
each o f t hese t w e n t y - f i v e

representative

from

c o l l e g e s were sur veyed i n an a t ­

tempt t o measure t he consensus o f t he e x p e c t a t i o n s
chi ef executive o f f i c e r ' s

o f t he

r o l e as hel d by t hese t h r e e

campus

pr i nci p a l s .
Pr e s i d e n t s

represent

i ncumbents i n the f o c a l

gover ni ng board chai r men and f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n
tatives

are i ncumbent

gether,

t hese t h r e e

definers"

principals

community c o l l e g e s

wi t h

abl e

significant

groups c o n s i s t s

To­

"role

of i n d i ­

i ssues c o nce r ni ng the

and who al s o have a s t a k e i n t h e i r

group

functions.
To i n c l u d e o t h e r

position

i mp o r t a n t

represen­

counter p o s i t i o n s .

constitute

and each o f t he r e s u l t i n g

v i d u a l s who must deal

and i t s

in s i g n i f i c a n t

position

significant

role definers

i ncumbents was not co n s i de r e d t o be w i t h i n

limits

of t i me a n d / o r expense f o r

p a r t i c u l a r st udy.

or c o u n t e r
reason­

t he purpose of t h i s

52

Measures Employed and Methodol ogy
Comparisons proposed made i t
and i d e n t i f y r o l e

necessar y t o i s o l a t e

p e r c e p t i o n and perf ormance e x p e c t a t i o n s

which appear to i n f l u e n c e t he b ehav i or of c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a ­
tive officers

dur i ng the c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining negot i at i ons

process.
I t was necessar y t o o bt a i n dat a on t he r o l e e x p e c t a ­
tions

f o r the incumbent p r e s i d e n t s

hel d by the t h r e e r o l e -

d e f i n e r p o p u l a t i o n groups i d e n t i f i e d .
of t he p r e s i d e n t ' s

role

in c o l l e c t i v e

No s p e c i f i c ment i on
bargaining n e g ot i a ­

t i ons was encount er ed in a r evi ew of s e l e c t e d w r i t t e n
ci es r e l a t i n g

to rol e d e f i n i t i o n s

poli­

of community c o l l e g e

presi d e n t s .
E x i s t i n g documents p e r t a i n i n g to f a c u l t y c o n t r a c t
provisions,
boards,

presidential

and f a c u l t y u n i t

pr ovi ded a basi s

office-holders,

l e a d e r s h i p were obt ai ned which

f o r d e t e r mi n i n g

bargaini ng u n i t a f f i l i a t i o n
To f a c i l i t a t e

c u r r e n t gover ni ng

t he n a t u r e of t he f a c u l t y

and v a r i ous

dat a g a t h e r i n g ,

position

i ncumbent s.

i ns t r ume nt s

previously

devel oped and t e s t e d

i n e v a l u a t i n g e x e c u t i v e and board p e r ­

ceptions,

and a t t i t u d e s

practices,

In a d d i t i o n ,

original

were adapt ed to t h i s

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were desi gned to devel op

i n f o r ma t i o n o f a b i o g r a p h i c a l

or demographi c n a t u r e f o r

individual

p r e s i d e n t s sampled and f o r t he i n s t i t u t i o n s

resented.

Such i n f o r m a t i o n

ministrative

st udy.

(e.g.:

president's

the
rep­

age and ad­

e x p e r i e n c e , year s of c o l l e g e o p e r a t i o n under a

53

f a c u l t y mast er agreement c o n t r a c t ) ,
e x i s t i n g sour ces,

pr ovi ded l e v e l s

not r e a d i l y o bt a i ned from

of v a r i a b l e s

f o r analysis

to det er mi ne p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e s on e x p e c t a t i o n s

and be­

havior.
A total

of s i x separ at e and d i s t i n c t

i ns t r ume nt s were

empl oyed:
1

President's
A-l)

Expectations

2.

President's
A-2)

Personal

3.

President's

Pe r ce pt i on

4.

Board Chairman Ex pe c t a t i o n
A-4)

I n s t r u me nt

(Appendi x

5.

F a c u l t y Leader Ex pe c t a t i o n
A-5)

I n s t r u me n t

( Appendi x

6.

Institution

The Gross,
Superintendent's

I ns t r ume nt

Data I ns t r ume nt
Ins.trument

Data I ns t r ume nt

Mason,

(Appendi x

( Appendi x A- 3)

( Appendi x A - 6 ).

and McEachern " Ex p e c t a t i o n s f o r

Perf ormances"

to pr ovi de t he basi s f o r

(Appendi x

i n s t r u me nt which was adapted

t he P r e s i d e n t ' s

Ex pe c t a t i o ns

Instru­

ment c o n si st e d of t h i r t y - s e v e n

i t ems cover i ng t he range of
83
behavi or s nor mal l y expect ed of c h i e f school o f f i c e r s .
The
response c a t e g o r i e s were:

may or may n o t ,

a b s o l u t e l y must , p r e f e r a b l y shoul d,

p r e f e r a b l y shoul d n o t ,

Ordinarily,
to f a c t o r a n a l y s i s

a b s o l u t e l y must not .

t hese items would have been subj e ct e d
to det er mi ne t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s and

pos s i bl e e l i m i n a t i o n

of i t ems.

However,

si nce t he study

83Gross , e t a l . , had e s t a b l i s h e d an e s t i m a t e d ^ r e l i a b i l i t y of . 884 f o r t he scores from t h i s i n s t r u me n t .
RoJ_e
A n a l y s i s , p. 298.

54

p o p u l a t i o n o f community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s was r e l a t i v e l y
small

and to have run a p i l o t

potential

st udy would have reduced the

r espondent s f u r t h e r ,

experience

t he r e s e a r c h e r drew upon hi s

i n community c o l l e g e t e a c h i n g and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

to a p r i o r i

reduce t he number of i t ems to t he t w e n t y - f i v e

consi der ed to be most r e l e v a n t
and to e l i m i n a t e

to community c o l l e g e

t hose i t ems a p p r o p r i a t e onl y to e l e me n t a r y

and secondary school

levels.

Role choi ce d e s c r i p t i o n s ,
bargaining negot i at i ons
specifically,

and McEachern.

K-14 d i s t r i c t
t o "dry run"
t he f o u r

st udy whi ch i n t u r n were

college

alternatives

presidents

the p r e s e n t a t i o n

posited

by

potential

pr ovi de d t he oppor ­

and i n t e r v i e w p r o c e d ­

to be compl et ed by,

the s u b j e c t p r e s i d e n t s .

prior

de­

84

i n s t r u me n t s

obt a i ned and s e v e r a l
corrected

i n hi s

of t he f o u r b e h a v i o r a l

Gr oss, Mason,

istered to,

collective

were adapt ed from t he f o u r a l t e r n a t i v e s

a reflection

ures f o r

desi gned t o f i t

and community c o l l e g e ci r cumst ances

vel oped and used by Robert s

tunity

situations

or admi n­

V a l u a b l e r e a c t i o n s were

probl em ar eas a n t i c i p a t e d

to the s t r u c t u r e

per sonal

interviews

and

con­

ducted wi t h t he s u b j e c t p r e s i d e n t s .
Data from t he q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

ar e pr es ent ed i n t h r e e

forms:
1.

a t a b u l a t i o n o f the f r e qu e n c y of responses to
the i t ems from each sample group;

^ R o b e r t s ,. "Rol e C h o i c e . "

55
2.

r e s u l t s of s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of response as
t hey p e r t a i n to the r esear ch hypot heses;

3.

a d d i t i o n a l t a b u l a t i o n s accor di ng to demographi c
and b i o g r a p h i c a l v a r i a b l e s a t l e v e l s chosen t o
pr ovi de optimum d i s t r i b u t i o n of the datum r e ­
c e i v e d.

Each s u b j e c t p r e s i d e n t was cont ac t e d by t el e phone
at which ti me the nat ur e and purpose of t he st udy were de­
scr i bed and a b r i e f

personal

The P r e s i d e n t ' s
Personal

i n t e r v i e w schedul ed.

Ex pe c t a t i o n

I ns t r ume nt and P r e s i d e n t ' s

Data I nst r ument were f or war ded by mai l

t o the p r e s i ­

dent to be compl eted at hi s conveni ence and c o l l e c t e d a t t he
t i me of the personal
sonal

interview,

a d mi n i s t e r e d ;

interview.

t he P r e s i d e n t ' s

Duri ng the s t r u c t u r e d p e r ­
Perception

I ns t r u me nt was

usi ng t h a t p o r t i o n of t he q u e s t i o n n a i r e as an

i n t e r v i e w gui de ,

t he p r e s i d e n t was pr ovi ded a card l i s t i n g

the pos s i bl e response a l t e r n a t i v e s

and t he i n t e r v i e w e r read

each quest i on i n t ur n and s o l i c i t e d
bef or e pr oceedi ng.

In a l l

compl et e answers t h e r e t o

instances,

dat a from s u b j e c t

pr e s i d e n t s was obt ai ned i n a f a c e - t o - f a c e
i n t e r v i e w s were conducted s o l e l y by t h i s
interpretations

interview.

Al l

r e s e a r c h e r and

and e x p l a n a t i o n s were c o n s i s t e n t f o r a l l

subjects.
In or der to reduce the p o s s i b i l i t y
of the r e s e a r c h e r ' s
subjects'

bi ases and t h e i r

r esponses, no gener al

p os s i b l e i n f l u e n c e upon

d i s c u s s i o n of t he t o p i c s

under c o n s i d e r a t i o n was engaged i n u n t i l
Ex pe ct a t i on

the P r e s i d e n t s

I nst r ument and t he P r e s i d e n t ' s

st r ument had been compl et ed.

of i n t r o d u c t i o n

Pe r c e p t i o n

In­

56

Duri ng t h i s

interview,

t he I n s t i t u t i o n a l

st rument was al so compl eted and the p r e s i d e n t ' s

Data I n ­
assistance

was request ed in c o n t a c t i n g the gover ni ng board chai rman
and f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n

leader.

Whenever p o s s i b l e ,

the

chairman and l e a d e r were i mme di a t el y c ont ac t e d and t he r e s p e c ­
t i v e Board Chairman Ex p e c t a t i o n
Ex pe ct a t i on

I ns t r ume nt or F a c u l t y Leader

I ns t r ume nt a d m i n i s t e r e d ,

and p r ec aut i ons as descr i bed above.
such personal

usi ng s i m i l a r procedures
In t hose i ns t ance s when

c o n t a c t was not f e a s i b l e ,

t he m a i l i n g address

of t he subj e ct s was obt a i ned and the a p p r o p r i a t e
al ong wi t h a cover l e t t e r
addressed,

and i n s t r u c t i o n s ,

p os t a g e - p a i d r e t u r n

Appendix B f o r L e t t e r s

i ns t r u me nt

and a p r e ­

envel op were ma i l e d .

(See

of T r a n s m i t t a l . )

No at t empt to ma i n t a i n anonymi t y of r espondent s was
under t aken.

Thi s d e c i s i o n was based on two f a c t o r s :

pr ovi de c o n t r o l
r e que st s;

( 1)

to

of t he st udy and ai d i n f o l l o w - u p of unanswered

( 2 ) to a l l o w a mat chi ng of responses from p r i n c i p a l s

of a gi ven c o l l e g e .

However,

results

or Ex pe ct a t i ons and Pe r ce pt i ons

of t he Personal

I nst r ument s w i l l

not be r e ­

por t ed on a basi s which would i d e n t i f y an i n d i v i d u a l
or a p a r t i c u l a r

Data

respondent

institution.
Suppl ement ary Procedures

On the basi s of t he pri macy of t h e i r
the " P r e s i d e n t ' s

Ex p e c t a t i o n

c l a s s i f y presidents

I ns t r ume nt "

it

responses to
i s p o s s i b l e to

as havi ng a " mo r a l , " an " e x p e d i e n t , " or

57
a " mo r a l - e x p e d i e n t "

orientation

or p r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o a c t i n

a role c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n .
Each i t em i n t h i s

i n s t r u me n t r e f e r s

to e x p e c t a t i o n s

which may be a p p l i e d to a p u b l i c community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t .
For the t w e n t y - f i v e
asked,

i tems i n t h i s

i n s t r u me n t ,

"As a community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t ,

you f e e l
t hi ngs ?"

p r e s i d e n t s were

what o b l i g a t i o n

do

t h a t you have to do or not to do t he f o l l o w i n g
The response c a t e g o r i e s were:

p r e f e r a b l y shoul d;

may or may n o t ;

a b s o l u t e l y must;

p r e f e r a b l y shoul d not ;

a b s o l u t e l y must not .
Those p r e s i d e n t s who f a l l

i n t o t he low ma n d i t o r i ness

group may be d e f i n e d as e x p e d i e n t s ;
high ma nd i t or i n e s s
those who f a l l

t hose who f a l l

i n t o t he

group may be consi der ed m o r a l i s t s ;

i n t o a mi ddl e range may be c a t e g o r i z e d

and
as

mor a l - e x p e di e n t s .
In a d d i t i o n ,
the r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s

each p r e s i d e n t was asked to i n d i c a t e
he p e r c e i v e d both hi s gover ni ng board

chairman and f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n
him i n c o l l e c t i v e
expectations'

representative

bargaining negot i at i ons

l e g i t i m a c y or i l l e g i t i m a c y ,

hel d f o r

i n terms of the
and t he l i k e l i h o o d

of each of t hese o t h e r r o l e d e f i n e r s t o respond wi t h

st r ong

or weak n e g a t i v e sanct i ons shoul d he not conform to t h e i r
expectations.

Further,

hi s own p r e f e r e n c e s f o r such a r o l e ,

and the r o l e b ehav i or he a c t u a l l y e x h i b i t e d dur i ng t he most
r e c e n t f a c u l t y - b o a r d n e g o t i a t i o n s were r e que st ed.

58

Governi ng board chai rman and f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s each were asked to i n d i c a t e t he r o l e e x p e c t a ­
t i on he or she hel d f o r t he p r e s i d e n t
ing s i t u a t i o n s

by r anki ng the f o u r a l t e r n a t i v e s

Presidents'
vi de i n f o r ma t i o n

biographical

institution

to p r o ­

t enur e of o f f i c e ,

other a d mi n i s t r a t i v e

and the l e v e l ,

p r e s ent ed.

dat a were s o l i c i t e d

r e ga r d i ng t h e i r age,

medi at e p r i o r p o s i t i o n ,
experiences,

in c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n ­

maj or f i e l d ,

im­

and t eachi ng

date,

and g r a n t i n g

of earned degr ees.

Institutional
of t he st udent body,

dat a pr ovi ded d e t a i l s

regarding size

number of c o n t r a c t s and year s of o p e r a ­

t i o n under a f a c u l t y mast er agreement c o n t r a c t ,
n e g o t i a t o r s f o r both the board and f a c u l t y ,

the c h i e f

and the t o t a l

years o f s e r v i c e to t he c o l l e g e of both the gover ni ng board
chai rman and f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n

representative.

T e s t a b l e Hypotheses
The hypotheses p o s i t e d f o r t h i s
main p a r t s ,

st udy f a l l

i n t o two

each wi t h t h r e e s u b - ar e as :

1.

presidents'

e x p e c t a t i o n consensus;

2.

f a c u l t y leaders'

3.

board chai r men' s e x p e c t a t i o n consensus;

1.

president/faculty

2.

p r e s i d e n t / b o r a d chai rman consensus;

3.

faculty

e x p e c t a t i o n consensus;

l e a d e r consensus;

l e a d e r / b o a r d chai rman consensus.

and

59
Fol l owi ng ar e the hypotheses to be t e s t e d wi t h t he
l evel

of s i g n i f i c a n c e set a t 0 . 0 5 :

Hypot hesi s

1:

Pr e s i de nt s w i l l d i f f e r i n t h e i r r anki ngs of
t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s of t he f o u r r o l e a l t e r n a ­
t i v e s f o r t he p r e s i d e n t i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n ­
i ng n e g o t i a t i o n s .

Hypot hesi s

2:

Board chai rmen w i l l d i f f e r i n t h e i r r anki ngs
of t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s of t he f o u r r o l e a l t e r ­
n a t i v e s f o r t he p r e s i d e n t i n c o l l e c t i v e
bargaining n e g o t i a t i o n s .

Hypothesi s

3

F a c u l t y l e a de r s w i l l d i f f e r i n t h e i r r anki ngs
of t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s of t he f o u r r o l e a l t e r ­
n a t i v e s f o r t he p r e s i d e n t i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r ­
gaining n e g o t i a t i o n s .

Hypot hesi s

4

In a g g r e g a t e , p r e s i d e n t s , board chai r men,
and f a c u l t y l e a de r s w i l l d i f f e r i n t h e i r
r anki ngs of t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s of t he f o u r
r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r t he p r e s i d e n t in
c o l l e c t i v e bargaining ne g ot i a t i o ns .

Hypothesi s

5:

As groups, board chai rmen and p r e s i d e n t s
w i l l d i f f e r i n t h e i r r anki ngs of t h e i r
pr e f e r e n c e s of t he f o ur r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e s
f o r the p r e s i d e n t i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g
negot i a t i o ns .

Hypot hesi s

6:

As groups, board chai rmen and f a c u l t y l ea de r s
w i l l d i f f e r i n t h e i r r anki ngs of t h e i r p r e f ­
erences of t he f o u r r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r
t he p r e s i d e n t i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g nego­
tiations.

Hypothesi s

7:

As groups, p r e s i d e n t s and f a c u l t y l eader s
w i l l d i f f e r in t h e i r r anki ngs of t h e i r
pr e f e r e n c e s of t he f o ur r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e s
f o r the p r e s i d e n t i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g
negot i a t i o n s .

Hypot hesi s

8:

Board chai rmen se r v i ng c o l l e g e s wi t h expe­
r i e n c e i n o p e r a t i n g wi t h a f a c u l t y mast er
agreement c o n t r a c t of f ewer than 3 y e a r s ,
3 year s but l ess than 6 y e a r s , and 6 or
more year s w i l l agree i n t h e i r r o l e ex pec­
tat i on preference.

60

Hypot hesi s

9:

Hypot hesi s

10:

F a c u l t y l e a d e r s s e r v i n g c o l l e g e s wi t h expe­
r i e n c e i n o p e r a t i n g wi t h a f a c u l t y mast er
agreement c o n t r a c t of f ewer t han 3 y e a r s ,
3 y e a r s but l ess t han 6 y e a r s , and 6 or
more year s w i l l agr ee i n t h e i r r o l e expec­
t a t i o n preference.
Board chai rmen whose y e a r o f s e r v i c e t o t h e i r
c o l l e g e i s 3rd or l e s s , between 4t h and 6 t h ,
or 7 th or more w i l l agree i n t h e i r r o l e e x ­
pectation preference.

Hypot hesi s 1 1 :

F a c u l t y l e a d e r s whose y e a r of s e r v i c e to
t h e i r c o l l e g e i s 3rd or l e s s , between 4t h
and 6 t h , or 7t h or more w i l l agree i n t h e i r
r o l e expectation preference.

Hypot hesi s

12:

Board chai rman s e r v i n g c o l l e g e s w i t h AY197273 FYES e n r o l l m e n t s of 0 t o 10 0 0 , 1001 to
3 0 0 0 , and 3001 and g r e a t e r w i l l agr ee i n
t h e i r role expectation preference.

Hypot hesi s

13:

F a c u l t y l e a d e r s s e r v i n g c o l l e g e s wi t h AY 1 97 273 FYES e n r o l l m e n t s of 0 to 10 0 0 , 1001 to
3 0 0 0 , and 3001 and g r e a t e r w i l l agr ee i n
t h e i r role expectation preference.

Hypot hesi s 1 4 :

P r e s i d e n t s s e r v i n g c o l l e g e s w i t h AY 1 97273 FYES e n r o l l m e n t s of 0 t o 1000, 1001 to
3 0 0 0 , and 3001 and g r e a t e r w i l l agr ee i n
t h e i r cho i c e of r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e i n c o l l e c ­
t i v e bargaining neg ot i at i ons .

Hypot hesi s

15:

P r e s i d e n t s o f t he ages 53 and o l d e r , 46 to
52, and 45 and younger w i l l agr ee i n t h e i r
choice of r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e in c o l l e c t i v e
bargaining negoti ati ons.

Hypot hesi s

16:

P r e s i d e n t s who assumed t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s i ­
t i o n p r i o r t o J u l y 1, 1967; between J u l y 1»
19 6 7 , and June 30, 1970; and J u l y l , 1970,
or subse quent l y w i l l agree i n t h e i r choi ce
of r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n ­
i ng n e g o t i a t i o n s .

Hypot hesi s 17:

Presi dent s servi ng col l eges wi t h experience
i n o p e r a t i n g wi t h a f a c u l t y mast er agreement
c o n t r a c t o f f ewer than 3 y e a r s , 3 ye ar s but
l e s s than 6 y e a r s , and 6 or more ye ar s w i l l
agr ee i n t h e i r choi ce of r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e
in. c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s .

61

Hypot hesi s 18

P r e s i d e n t s whose i mmedi at e p r i o r p o s i t i o n
was w i t h a n o t h e r community c o l l e g e and
t hose whose was not w i l l agr ee i n t h e i r
choi ce of r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e i n c o l l e c t i v e
bargaining n eg o t i a t i o n s .

Hypot hesi s 19

P r e s i d e n t s whose h i g h e s t earned degr ee i s
t he Ed. D. or Ph. D. and t hose whose i s not
w i l l agr ee i n t h e i r choi ce of r o l e a l t e r ­
n a t i v e s in c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g n e g o t i a ­
tions.

Hypot hesi s 20

P r e s i d e n t s whose h i g h e s t earned degree i s
i n t he f i e l d o f e d u c a t i o n and t hose whose
i s not w i l l agr ee i n t h e i r choi ce o f r o l e
a l t e r n a t i v e s in c o l l e c t i v e bargaining
negotiations.

H.ypothesi s 21 :

P r e s i d e n t s whose scores on t he P r e s i d e n t ' s
E x p e c t a t i o n I n s t r u me n t i n d i c a t e t h e i r o r i e n
t a t i o n t o be m o r a l i s t , e x p e d i e n t , or m o r a l /
e x p e d i e n t w i l l agree i n t h e i r choi c e of
role a l t e r n a t i v e s in c o l l e c t i v e bargaining
negot i a t i o ns .
Descriptive

Comparisons

Responses from gover ni ng board chai rmen and f a c u l t y
organization
usef ul

representatives

pr o v i de dat a which may prove

i n assessi ng t he accur acy of t he community c o l l e g e

presidents'

p e r c e p t i o n of t he r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n

particular counter-position

i ncumbent s.

To make use o f such d a t a ,
quest i ons w i l l

hel d by t hese

t he f o l l o w i n g

research

be e x p l o r e d :

Research Duest i on 1:

What p r o p o r t i o n of p r e s i d e n t s c o r r e c t l y
p e r c e i v e the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g
n e g o t i a t i o n r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n hel d f o r
them by t h e i r gover ni ng board chai rman?

Research Quest i on 2:

What p r o p o r t i o n of p r e s i d e n t s c o r r e c t l y
p e r c e i v e t he c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g
n e g o t i a t i o n r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n hel d f o r
them by t h e i r f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n
r e p r e s e n t a t i ve?

62

Research Quest i on 3:

What p r o p o r t i o n of p r e s i d e n t s hol d a
preference f o r t h e i r r ol e in c o l l e c t i v e
b a r g a i n i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s whi ch agrees
wi t h the p r e f e r e n c e hel d by t h e i r g o v ­
e r n i n g board chai rman?

Research Quest i on 4:

What p r o p o r t i o n of p r e s i d e n t s hol d a
preference f o r t h e i r role in c o l l e c t i v e
b a r g a i n i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s whi ch agrees
wi t h t he p r e f e r e n c e hel d by t h e i r
f acult y organization representative?

Research Quest i on 5:

What p r o p o r t i o n o f p r e s i d e n t s r e p o r t e d
b e h a v i o r a l per f or mance i n c o l l e c t i v e
b a r g a i n i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s whi ch c o i n c i d e d
w i t h t he r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n hel d by t h e i r
gover ni ng
board chai rmen?

Research Quest i on 6 :

What p r o p o r t i o n of p r e s i d e n t s r e p o r t e d
b e h a v i o r a l per f or mance i n c o l l e c t i v e
b a r g a i n i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s whi ch c o i n c i d e d
wi t h t he r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n hel d by t h e i r
faculty organization representative.

Research Quest i on 7:

What p r o p o r t i o n of p r e s i d e n t s r e p o r t e d
b e h a v i o r a l per f or mance i n c o l l e c t i v e
b a r g a i n i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s whi ch c o i n c i d e d
wi t h t h e i r own r o l e p r e f e r e n c e ?
Methods of A n a l y s i s

The purpose o f t he anal yses

ar e t o d e t e r mi n e :

whet her or not r espondent groups hel d c o n f l i c t i n g
tions f o r
dent s

whet her i n d i v i d u a l
preferences
group;

expecta­

t he r o l e per f or mance of community c o l l e g e

in c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining negot i at i on
r espondent s d i f f e r

from t he p r e f e r e n c e s

( 3 ) whet her f a c u l t y

men e x p e c t a t i o n s

differ

demographi c v a r i a b l e s ;
be h a v i o r d i f f e r s

situations;

hel d by t h e i r

( 2)

in t h e i r

respective

and board c h a i r ­

s i g n i f i c a n t l y according to se l ec t ed
and ( 4 ) whet her p r e s i d e n t s '

significantly

g r aphi c v a r i a b l e s .

presi­

significantly

representatives

( 1)

actual

a c c o r d i ng t o s e l e c t e d

demo­

63

Hypotheses
For hypot heses Ho-1
nificant differences
for

t hr ough Ho - 4 ,

in role expectation

statistically
preferences

t he p r e s i d e n t were d e t e r mi n e d by a p p l y i n g

efficient

of Concordance

sig­

hel d

Kendall's

Co­

(W) whi ch measures t he degree of

agreement between r a n k i n g j u d g e s .

Kendal l

has s t a t e d

that

when t he i t ems whi ch ar e bei ng ranked ar e known t o be measur ­
abl e a c c or di ng t o t he q u a l i t y

c onc e r ne d,

the l e g i t i m a c y o f r a n k i n g a r i s e s .

no q u e s t i o n as to

85

Thi s t e s t was used t o d e t e r mi n e whe t he r respondent s
were i n agr eement on t h e i r

rankings

the f o u r r o l e

for

alternatives

vi dual

r a nk i ngs

of t he t o t a l

group,

t he e x t e n t
Val ues of

of t h e i r

p r e f e r e n c e s of

t he p r e s i d e n t .

Usi ng i n d i ­

r e spondent s of each p r i n c i p a l

of agreement w i t h i n

that

group i s measured.

(W) may var y from 0 t o +1 w i t h +1 i n d i ­

c a t i n g compl et e agreement or concor dance.
For hypot heses Ho-5 t hr ough H o - 7 , t he e x t e n t of
agreement between groups i s assessed usi ng group r a n k i n g s
d e r i v e d from t he consensus of r esponses w i t h i n
The Spearman C o e f f i c i e n t
plied to reveal

of Rank C o r r e l a t i o n

each group.

(rho)

was ap­

t he degree of cor r espondence between two

set s of r a n k i n g s .
Val ues o f rho may var y from -1
cating p e r f e c t

tistics

concor dance.

85Maur i ce G.
(London:
d.

t o + 1 , w i t h +1 i n d i ­

Statistically

significant

K e n d a l l , The Advanced Theor y o f S t a B. L i p p i n c o t t Company, 1 9 4 3 ) , pp. 4 1 W I .

64

differences

i n r o l e p r ef e r e nc es expressed by board c h a i r ­

men and f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were det er mi ned by a p p l y i n g
t he f r equency Chi - squa r e Test o f Homogenity (Ho- 8 t hrough H a - 1 3 ) .
Statistically

si g n i fi c a nt differences

h av i or as r e p o r t e d by t he p r e s i d e n t s ,
selected var i abl es

in rol e

be­

and accor di ng t o

( Ho- 14 through H o - 2 1 ) ,

were l i k e w i s e

det er mi ned by a p p l y i ng t he f r equency Ch i - s q u a r e Test of
Homogeni t y .
The l e v e l

of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r a l l

t e s t s was s e t at

0.05.
Suppl emental

Fi ndi ngs

For some items i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ,

the f o l l o w i n g

c a l c u l a t i o n s were made:
1.

Observed Frequency

2.

Percent age of each Frequency on Tot al

3.

Means and Medi an.

A si mpl e i t em response a n a l y s i s
and per cent age of responses f o r
gory was o bt a i n e d .
representatives,

i n c l u d i n g t he number

i tems i n each response c a t e ­

Responses of board chai r men,

and p r e s i d e n t s

faculty

f o r each c a t egor y o f i t em

were examined and summarized i n o r d e r to o b t a i n a composi t e
view of t he r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s as pe r c e i v e d by t hese p r i n c i ­
pal s.
Al l
tional)

the demographic dat a

(biographical

and i n s t i t u ­

are not used i n t he pr es ent st udy but may be usef ul

in f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of these d a t a .

65

A copy of t he q u e s t i o n n a i r e and l e t t e r s
pear in Appendi ces A and B.
data and p a r t i c i p a t i n g

of t r a n s m i t t a l

ap­

A summary of i n s t i t u t i o n a l

respondent s may be found i n Appendi x 0.
Summary

The st udy was r e s t r i c t e d

to community c o l l e g e p r e s i ­

dents i n Mi chi gan in o r der t h a t
1.

a more common e x t e r n a l envi r onment would p r e ­
v a i l than was consi der ed p o s s i b l e when i n v o l v ­
i ng s u b j e c t s from sever al s t a t e s ;

2.

the e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n to be s t udi e d coul d
serve as t he sampl e;

3.

p r o x i m i t y be pr ovi ded to f a c i l i t a t e
personal i n t e r v i e w s .

The desi gn of t he r esear ch r e l a t e d

the

to t he Gross,

Mason, and McEchearn t h e o r y of Role C o n f l i c t Re s o l ut i on
and was aimed a t devel opi ng compari sons of r o l e e x p e c t a ­
ti on preferences

hel d f o r t he p r e s i d e n t

behavi or perf ormance i n c o l l e c t i v e
situations.

Further,

and hi s act ual

bargaining negot i at i on

role expectations

board chai rmen and f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n

hel d by gover ni ng
representatives

pr ovi de f o r compari sons of t hose e x p e c t a t i o n s as we l l

as

f o r compari son wi t h t he r o l e p r e f e r e n c e of the p r e s i d e n t
and wi t h hi s a c t u a l

behavior.

. I n the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r ,
of the r e sear ch ar e p r e s ent ed.

anal yses of t he r e s u l t s

CHAPTER IV
INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
I n t r o d u c t i on
I t was assumed t h a t t h e r e woul d be d i f f e r e n c e s

in

the degree of consensus on r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s w i t h i n each
sub j e c t

group and between any two groups.

presidents,

gover ni ng board chai r men,

tion repr esent at i ves

Ex p e c t a t i o n s which

and f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a ­

expressed f o r t h e i r own or t he o t h e r

p o s i t i o n serve as t he s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of
consensus of r o l e d e f i n i t i o n ;

e x p e c t a t i o n s which p r e s i d e n t s

per cei ved as bei ng hel d f o r them ser ve as t he s t a r t i n g
for analysis

of r o l e c o n f l i c t

and i t s

point

resolution.

I n t e r v i e w s were hel d wi t h 24 (96%) of the s u b j e c t
presidents,

and responses were r e c e i v e d from 23 (92%)

of the

gover ni ng board chai rmen and 19 (76%) of t he f a c u l t y o r g a n i ­
zation representati ves.

Al l

three p r i n c i p a l s

from 18 (72%) of t he sample c o l l e g e s .
potential

In a l l ,

s u b j e c t s were surveyed; an o v e r a l l

of 88 per cent

participated
66 of t he 75

response r a t e

( 88%) was e x p e r i e n c e d .

Two l e v e l s

of consensus a n a l y s i s

cr oscopi c and macr oscopi c.

are pr e s e n t e d :

mi ­

Mi c r o s c o pi c a n a l y s i s measures

the e x t e n t of agreement or di sagr eement between t he gover n­
ing board chai rman and the f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n

66

representative

67

of a s i n g l e community c o l l e g e and i t s

president.

a n a l y s i s measures t he amount of agreement o f a l l
of a l l
tion

gover ni ng board chai r men,

representatives,
First

presidents'

the r e s u l t s

utilizing

combi nat i ons

conduct ed.

thereof,

t hrough w r i t t e n

Ne x t ,

for

t he s t a t e d

Then a t e s t o f t he Role C o n f l i c t

biographical

ments and r e a c t i o n s

faculty organiza­

of t he r e p o r t e d e x p e c t a t i o n s

per f or mance ar e p r e s e n t e d .

R e s o l u t i o n Theory i s

presidents,

or between t hese t h r e e groups.

hypot hesi s a r e t e s t e d .

tions

or of a l l

Macr oscopi c

Analysis

and i n s t i t u t i o n a l

is also presented.

gai ned

of r o l e e x p e c t a ­

i n t he per sonal

data,

and/or

In a d d i t i o n ,
interview

com­

or

responses ar e p r o v i d e d .
Analytical

Procedur es

Obt a i n i ng measures of t he degree of consensus on
r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n r a nk i ng s w i t h i n

r espondent groups was ap­

proached as f o l l o w s :
1.

Kendall's

s i g ni f i ca nc e set at

Coefficient

of Concordance

0. 05, was empl oyed t o t e s t

ents

w i t h i n each o f t he t h r e e groups were i n

their

r a nk i ngs of t h e i r

natives for

Critical

mined from p u b l i s he d t a b l e s .

.

H -

12

whet her r espond­
agr eement on

p r e f e r e n c e s of t he f o u r

t he p r e s i d e n t .

Il)2 —

m2 ( N ) ( N 2 -

1)

( W) , wi t h

role a l t e r ­

val ues of W ar e d e t e r ­

The f o r mul a empl oyed i s :

68
2,

Spearman' s C o e f f i c i e n t

wi t h s i g n i f i c a n c e

set a t 0 . 0 5 ,

of Rank C o r r e l a t i o n

(rho),

was t hen empl oyed t o t e s t

whet her consensus r a nk i ngs of each group were i n agreement
wi t h t he consensus r a nk i ngs o f t he o t h e r groups.

Critical

val ues o f rho ar e det er mi ned from p u b l i s h e d t a b l e s .

The f o r m­

ul a employed i s :

rho -

When t e s t i n g
the n u l l

1 - V
(d2->n3 - n

hypot heses wi t h

form s t a t e s

K e n d a l l ' s W and Spearman' s

that there

is

"no agreement "

r ho,

i n t he

r anki n g s .
Differences
dent's

reported r o l e

leader r o l e

i n t he f r e que nc y d i s t r i b u t i o n
behavior,

preference,

of p r e s i ­

and board chai r man and f a c u l t y

were t e s t e d a t t he 0 . 0 5

level

s i g n i f i c a n c e usi ng t he C h i - s q u a r e Test o f Homogeni t y.

of
Vari­

abl es c onsi der ed were:
1.

p r e s i d e n t ' s age, p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e , ear ned degrees
hel d and academi c f i e l d of h i g h e s t ear ned d e g r e e ,
and e x p e c t a t i o n s o r i e n t a t i o n ;

2.

FYES e n r o l l m e n t s , ye ar s o f s e r v i c e t o t h i s c o l l e g e ,
and ye ar s of c o l l e g e o p e r a t i o n under a f a c u l t y
mast er agreement c o n t r a c t f o r p r e s i d e n t s , board
c ha i r me n, and f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

The f or mul a employed i s :

X2 . z . (O.- E ) 2

69
Critical

val ues o f C h i - s q u a r e ar e det er mi ned by " t t e s t "

val ues from p u b l i s he d t a b l e s .
I n t he i n t e r e s t
t i on s

o f b r e v i t y and c l a r i t y ,

t he comput a­

f o r t hese t e s t s were not r epr oduced f o r each i n s t a n c e

pr o v i d e d .
E x p e c t a t i o n s of P r e s i d e n t s '
Based upon t h e i r

knowl edge and e x p e r i e n c e a t

p a r t i c u l a r community c o l l e g e ,
tatives

Per f or mance

faculty

organization

their

represen­

and gover ni ng board chai rman were asked t o i n d i c a t e

which of t he f o u r r o l e
Spokesman, M e d i a t o r ,

al t e r n a t i v e s - - B o a r d Agent ,

Consultant--they f e l t

to be t he pr o pe r

p r e s i d e n t d ur i n g c o l l e c t i v e

b a r g a i n i n g nego­

role for

their

tiations

between t he board and f a c u l t y ,

mai ni ng a l t e r n a t i v e s

i n descendi ng o r d e r

Fol l owi ng ar e t he s p e c i f i c
t he l e v e l

Faculty

of s i g n i f i c a n c e

and t o

rank t he r e ­

of p r e f e r e n c e .

hypot heses t e s t e d ,

wi t h

set at 0 . 0 5 :

Hypothes i s 1 :

P r e s i d e n t s w i l l d i f f e r i n t h e i r r a n k i n g s of
t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s o f t he f o u r r o l e a l t e r n a ­
t i v e s f o r t he p r e s i d e n t i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n ­
i ng n e g o t i a t i o n s .

Hypot hesi s 2 :

Board chai rmen w i l l d i f f e r i n t h e i r r a n k i n g s
of t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s of t he f o u r r o l e a l t e r ­
n a t i v e s f o r t he p r e s i d e n t i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r ­
gaining n e g o t i a t i o n s .

Hypot hesi s 3 :

F a c u l t y l e a d e r s w i l l d i f f e r in t h e i r r a nk i ng s
of t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s of t he f o u r r o l e a l t e r ­
n a t i v e s f o r t he p r e s i d e n t i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r ­
gaining n e g o t i a t i o n s .

70
Hypot hesi s 4 :

In a g g r e g a t e , p r e s i d e n t s , board cha i r ma n, and
f a c u l t y l e a d e r s w i l l d i f f e r i n t h e i r r a nk i ngs
o f t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s o f t he f o u r r o l e a l t e r ­
n a t i v e s f o r t he p r e s i d e n t i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r ­
gaining n e g o t i a t i o n s .

Hypot hesi s 5 :

As gr oups, board chai rmen and p r e s i d e n t s w i l l
d i f f e r i n t h e i r r a nk i ng s o f t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s
o f the f o u r r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r t he p r e s i ­
dent i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s .

Hypot hesi s 6 :

As gr oups, board chai r men and f a c u l t y l e a d e r s
w i l l d i f f e r i n t h e i r r a nk i ngs o f t h e i r p r e f ­
er ences o f t he f o u r r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r t he
pr esi dent in c o l l e c t i v e bargai ni ng n e g o t i a t i o n s .

Hypot hesi s 7:

As gr oups, p r e s i d e n t s and f a c u l t y l e a d e r s w i l l
d i f f e r i n t h e i r r a nk i ngs of t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s
o f t he f o u r r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r t he p r e s i ­
dent i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s .

TABLE 4. 1 . - - A g g r e g a t e Ranki ngs o f Board Chai rman Rol e
Perf or mance E x p e c t a t i o n s f o r P r e s i d e n t .
Board
Agent

Faculty
Spokesman

14

0

1

8

Second Choi ce

4

1

7

7

T h i r d Choi ce

3

5

15

8

Least P r e f e r r e d

2

17

0

0

(n = 23)
Pr e f e r e n c e

Of t he t h i r t e e n
ranked a l l
as t h e i r

preferred

"Board Agent " as t h e i r
preferred

Consul t a n t

board chai rmen respondent s who a c t u a l l y

alternatives,

least

Medi a t o r

all

indicated

choice.

preference,

t he " Me d i a t o r "

role

" F a c u l t y Spokesman"

Whi l e 61 per cent

(14)

cited

o n l y one board chai r man

f o r hi s

president.

71

TABLE 4 . 2 . - - A g g r e g a t e Ranki ngs of F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e
Role Perf ormance Ex p e c t a t i o n s f o r P r e s i d e n t .
Board
Agent

Facu1t y
Spokesman

Medi a t o r

Cons ul t a nt

Pr ef er ence

7

1

0

11

Second Choice

2

1

15

1

Thi r d Choice

5

4

3

7

Least P r e f e r r e d

5

13

1

0

(n = 19)

Onl y 36 per cent
cited

"Board Agent" as t h e i r

pressed a p r e f e r e n c e f o r
of f a c u l t y
that

(7)

o f the f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
preference,

wh i l e but one e x ­

" F a c u l t y Spokesman."

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s - - 5 7 .9 per cent

t he p r e s i d e n t per f or m t he

The m a j o r i t y

(11)--preferred

" Cons ul t a n t " r o l e .

P r e s i d e n t s were asked to rank t he e x p e c t a t i o n s
p r e f e r e nc e o r d e r i n g t hey p e r c ei v ed t h e i r
f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e to h o l d ,

and

board chai rman and

and t o i d e n t i f y

the r o l e

choi ce a l t e r n a t i v e which t hey a c t u a l l y

perf ormed d ur i n g t he

c u r r e n t or most r e c e n t past c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining negot i at i ons

between t h e i r

board and f a c u l t y .

72
TABLE 4.3—Frequency of Role Choice Preferences.
Role Preference
or Behavior

(n)

Preference of
Board Chairman

(23)

14

0

1

8

Preference of
Faculty Repre­
sentative

(19)

7

1

0

11

Preference Held
by President

(24)

11

1

3

9

Actual Behavior
by President

(21)

15

0

2

4

Board
Agent

Faculty
Spokesman

Mediator

Consultant

Comparison of Ex pe c t a t i o ns of P r e s i d e n t s ,
Board Chai rmen, and F a c u l t y
R e p r e s e n t a t i ves
I n more than 1 / 3 of the i ns t ance s
presidents'

reported actual

board cha i r ma n' s
t he 22

t he

perf ormance di s a g r e e d wi t h t he

preferred expectations.

instances,

(8 of 2 0 ) ,

However,

in 16 of

t he board cha i r ma n' s p r e f e r r e d e x p e c t a t i o n

and t he p r e s i d e n t ' s

p e r c e p t i o n of t h a t e x p e c t a t i o n were i n

agreement .
In onl y 8 of 19 i ns t a n c e s were t he f a c u l t y
tive's
of t h a t

p r e f e r r e d e x p e c t a t i o n and the p r e s i d e n t ' s

representa­

perception

e x p e c t a t i o n i n agreement .
In onl y 39 per cent of t he i n s t a n c e s ,

board chai rmen

and f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were i n agreement on the p r e f e r r e d
expectation f o r

the p r e s i d e n t ' s

ing n e g o t i a t i o n s .

role

in c o l l e c t i v e

bargain­

73
TABLE 4 . 4 . —Frequency of Role Choice Perception Agreement within a
Given Community College.
Subjects in
Agreement

(n)

Board
Agent

Faculty
Spokesman

Mediator

Con­
sultant

Board Chairman
and President

(22)

11

0

1

4

16

Faculty Repre­
sentative and
President

(19)

5

0

0

3

8

Board Chairman
and Faculty
Representative

(18)

4

0

0

3

7

President,
Board Chairman,
and Faculty
Representative

(18)

3

0

0

1

4

Total

Ana l y s i s of gover ni ng board chai rmen and f a c u l t y
organization representatives'
gr aphi c and i n s t i t u t i o n a l

r esponses,

data,

utilizing

i nv ol v ed t e s t i n g

ing s p e c i f i c hypotheses w i t h s i g n i f i c a n c e

level

demo­

the f o l l o w ­
set a t 0 . 0 5 :

Hypot hesi s

8:

Board chai rmen s e r v i ng c o l l e g e s wi t h e x pe­
r i e n c e i n o p e r a t i n g wi t h a f a c u l t y mast er
agreement c o n t r a c t of f ewe r t han 3 y e a r s ,
3 year s but l ess than 6 y e a r s , and 6 or
more year s w i l l agree i n t h e i r r o l e expec­
t at i o n preference.

Hypot hesi s

9:

F a c u l t y l e a de r s se r v i ng c o l l e g e s wi t h e x ­
p e r i e nc e i n o pe r a t i n g w i t h a f a c u l t y mast er
agreement c o n t r a c t of f ewer than 3 y e a r s ,
3 year s but l ess than 6 y e a r s , and 6 or
more year s w i l l agree i n t h e i r r o l e e x p e c t a ­
ti on preference.

Hypot hesi s 10:

Board chai rmen whose y e a r of s e r v i c e to t h e i r
c o l l e g e i s 3rd or l e s s , between 4th and 6 t h ,
or 7th or more w i l l agr ee in t h e i r r o l e e x ­
pectati on preference.

74
H.ypothesi s 1 1 :

F a c u l t y l e a d e r s whose y e a r of s e r v i c e to
t h e i r c o l l e g e i s 3rd or l e s s , between 4th
and 6 t h , or 7th or more w i l l agr ee i n t h e i r
rol e expectation preference.

Hypot hesi s 1 2 :

Board chai rman s e r v i n g c o l l e g e s wi t h AY 1 97273 FYES e n r o l l m e n t s o f 0 to 1000, 1001 to
3000, and 3001 and g r e a t e r w i l l agree in
t h e i r role expectation preference.

Hypot hesi s

F a c u l t y l e a d e r s s e r v i n g c o l l e g e s w i t h AY 197273 FYES e n r o l l m e n t s o f 0 t o 1000, 1001 to
3000, and 3001 and g r e a t e r w i l l agr ee i n t h e i r
role expectation preference.

13:

Si x of e i g h t board chai r men e x p r e s s i n g a p r e f e r e n c e
f o r t he " C o n s u l t a n t "
3000 F i s c a l

r o l e ser ve

i n c o l l e g e s wi t h f ewe r than

Year Equated St udent s

( FYES) ;

all

s e n t a t i v e s who expr essed a p r e f e r e n c e f o r t he
r o l e ser ve c o l l e g e s wi t h
dents r e p o r t i n g a c t u a l

faculty

repre­

"Consul tant"

f ewer t han 3000 FYES; and a l l

per f or mance as " C o n s u l t a n t "

presi­

ser ve

c o l l e g e s wi t h f ewe r t han 3000 FYES.
TABLE 4 . 5 . - - B o a r d Chai rman P r e f e r e n c e per FYES, AY 7 2 - 7 3 .
Col l ege FYES

( n)

Board
Agent

Facu1t y
Spokesman

Medi a t o r

0- 1000

(7)

4

0

0

3

1001- 3000

( 9)

6

0

0

3

3001 and more

(7)

4

0

1

2

TABLE 4 . 6 . - - F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e P r e f e r e n c e

per FYES, AY 72- 73

Col l e ge FYES

( n)

0-1000

(7).

1

0

0

6

1001- 3000

( 7)

2

0

0

5

3001

(5)

4

1

0

0

and more

spokesman

Consultant

Co n s u l t a n t

75

The m a j o r i t y
i ng a p r e f e r e n c e f o r

(6 o f 8)
t he

t h e i r c o l l e g e board f o r
majority

(7 of 11)

o f t he board chai r men e x p r e s s ­

" C o n s u l t a n t 11 r o l e have ser ved on
seven or more y e a r s ;

o f t he f a c u l t y

i ng t he same p r e f e r e n c e

whe r e as ,

representatives

have ser ved on t h e i r

t he

express­

college

faculty

f o r from f o u r t o s i x y e a r s .

TABLE 4 . 7 . - - Bo a r d Chairman P r e f e r e n c e per Length o f S e r v i c e
as Member o f t he Co l l e g e Gover ni ng Board.
Year Se r vi ng

( n)

Board
Agent

Faculty
Spokesman

1st - 3rd

(0)

-

-

-

-

4th - 6t h

( 10)

8

0

0

2

7th or more

( 13 )

6

0

1

6

Medi a t o r

Co n s u l t a n t

TABLE 4 . 8 . — F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e P r e f e r e n c e per Lengt h of
Ser vi ce as Member of t he C o l l e g e F a c u l t y .
Year Ser vi ng

( n)

Board
Agent

Faculty
Spokesman

1st - 3rd

( 4)

1

0

0

3

4th - 6t h

(ID

3

1

0

7

7t h or more

( 4)

3

0

0

1

Medi a t o r

Consultant

For both t he board chai r men and f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ,
t he i n c i d e n c e of p r e f e r e n c e
es t

i n t hose c o l l e g e s

tract

f o r t he

"Consultant"

r o l e was g r e a t ­

a t whi ch a f a c u l t y mast er agr eement con­

has been i n e f f e c t

f o u r or more y e a r s .

76
TABLE 4 . 9 . - - Boar d Chairman Pr e f e r e n c e per Number of Years
Col l ege Operated wi t h a F a c u l t y Mast er Agr ee­
ment Co n t r a c t .
Cont r act
Years

( n)

Board
Agent

Faculty
Spokesman

Medi a t o r

Cons ul t a nt

None

2

1

0

0

1

1 - 3

4

2

0

0

2

4 - 6

8

6

0

0

2

7 and
more

9

5

0

1

3

TABLE 4 . 1 0 . - - F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Pr e f e r e n c e per Number
of Years Col l ege Operat ed wi t h a Facu1t y
Mast er Agreement Co nt r a c t ( n)

Board
Agent

Facul ty
Spokesman

Medi a t o r

Cons ul t a nt

None

2

0

1

0

1

1 - 3

3

1

0

0

2

4 -6

6

1

0

0

5

7 and
more

8

5

0

0

3

Cont r act
Years

Presidents'

p r e f e r e n c e s covered the e n t i r e

the f o u r r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e s

offered,

"Board Agent" and " Cons ul t a n t "
t w e n t y - f o u r pr e s i d e n t s
ant "

role;

however,

t h e i r a c t ua l

range of

but h e a v i l y f avor ed

al most e q u a l l y .

Nine of the

s t a t e d a p r e f e r e n c e f o r the " C o n s u l t ­

onl y 4 of the 9 r e p o r t e d

per f or mance.

that

r o l e as

77
TABLE 4 . 1 1 . - - F r e q u e n c y of Role Pr e f er ence Held by Pr esi dent .
Board
Agent

(n=24)

Faculty
Spokesman

Medi a t o r

Co n s u l t a nt

11

1

3

9

Second Choice

1

3

13

7

Thi r d Choice

5

4

8

7

Least P r e f e r r e d

7

16

0

1

Pr ef er ence

TABLE 4 . 1 2 . - - Fr equency and Per cent age of P r e s i d e n t s '
Role Perf ormance Repor t ed.
(n = 21)

Board Agent

Actual

15 = 71.5%

Role

Spokesman
0 = 0.0%

Act ual

Me d i a t o r

Co n s u l t a nt

2 = 9.5%

4 = 19.0%

No p r e s i d e n t r e p o r t e d per f or mi ng as “ F a c u l t y Spokes­
man" and onl y two r e p o r t e d a c t u a l

perf ormance as " M e d i a t o r . "

Only one p r e s i d e n t serves as c h i e f n e g o t i a t o r f o r
i n the m a j o r i t y of i ns t ance s
trator

functions

( 15 )

anot her

hi s board;

c o l l e g e a d mi n i s ­

as c h i e f n e g o t i a t o r .

Fol l owi ng are t he hypot heses to be t e s t e d ,
institutional
cance l e v e l

and p r e s i d e n t s '

biographical

data,

based on

wi t h s i g n i f i ­

set at 0 . 0 5 :

Hypot hesi s 14:

Pr e s i d e n t s s e r v i ng c o l l e g e s wi t h AY 1972- 73
FYES e n r o l l me n t s of 0 to 1000, 1001 to 3000,
and 3001 and g r e a t e r w i l l agree i n t h e i r
choi ce of r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e i n c o l l e c t i v e
bargaining n e g o t i a t i o n s .

78
Hypot hesi s 1 5 :

Pr e s i d e n t s of t he ages 53 and o l d e r , 46 to
52, and 45 and younger w i l l agree i n t h e i r
choi ce of r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e i n c o l l e c t i v e
bargaining n e g o t i a t i o n s .

Hypothesi s 1 6 :

Pr e s i d e n t s who assumed t h e i r pr es ent p o s i t i o n
p r i o r t o J u l y 1, 1967; between J u l y 1, 1967,
and June 30, 1970; and J u l y 1, 1970 or sub­
s e q u e n t l y w i l l agree i n t h e i r choi ce of r o l e
a l t e r n a t i v e i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g nego­
tiations.

Hypot hesi s 1 7 :

P r e s i d e n t s s e r v i n g c o l l e g e s wi t h e x p e r i e nc e
in o p e r a t i n g wi t h a f a c u l t y mast er a g r e e ­
ment c o n t r a c t of f ewer t han 3 y e a r s , 3
year s but l ess t han 6 y e a r s , and 6 or more
year s w i l l agree i n t h e i r choi ce of r o l e
a l t e r n a t i v e i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g nego­
tiations.

Hypot hesi s

Pr e s i d e n t s whose i mmedi ate p r i o r p o s i t i o n
was wi t h anot he r community c o l l e g e and
t hose whose was not w i l l agree i n t h e i r
choi ce of r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e i n c o l l e c t i v e
bargaini ng n e g o t i a t i o n s .

18:

Hypot hesi s 1 9 :

Pr e s i d e n t s whose h i g h e s t earned degree is
the Ed.D. or Ph.D. and t hose whose i s not
w i l l agree i n t h e i r choi ce of r o l e a l t e r n a ­
t i ves in c o l l e c t i v e bargaining n eg o t i a t i o n s .

Hypot hesi s 20

P r e s i d e n t s whose h i g h e s t earned degree i s
i n t he f i e l d of e d uca t i on and t hose whose
i s not w i l l agr ee i n t h e i r choi ce of r o l e
a l t e r n a t i v e s in c o l l e c t i v e bargaining
negot i a t i o ns .

Hypothe si s 21 :

P r e s i d e n t s whose scores on t he P r e s i d e n t ' s
Ex p e c t a t i o n I n s t r u me n t i n d i c a t e t h e i r
o r i e n t a t i o n t o be M o r a l i s t , E x p e d i e n t , or
M o r a l / E x p e d i e n t w i l l agree i n t h e i r choi ce
of r o l e a l t e r n a t i v e s i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n ­
ing n e g o t i a t i o n s .
Resul t s

Tabl es 4 . 1 3 ,
suits

Pertinent
4.14,

of t he s t a t i s t i c a l

hypothes i s .

to Hypot hesi s

and 4 . 1 5 c o n t a i n t he composi te re

analysis

f o r each of the t e s t e d

79
Resul t s of the K e n d a l l ' s
test

(H 1 t hrough H 4,

C o e f f i c i e n t of Concordance

Tabl e 4 . 1 3 )

which i n d i c a t e d t h a t t he n u l l

produced c o e f f i c i e n t s

(W)

hypotheses shoul d be r e j e c t e d

i n each i n s t a n c e .

TABLE 4.1 3.—Test Results, Respondents’ Role Preference Rankings.
Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W).
Hypothesis

Rankings Measured

(n)

wa

C ritical
Value b

1

Presidents' Group

(24)

.256

.110

Reject Ho

2

Board Chairmen's
Group

(23)

.288

.120

Reject Ho

Faculty Leaders'
Group

(19)

.324

.140

Reject Ho

Aggregate, all
Groups

(66)

.257

<.100

Reject Ho

3
4

Action

a P e r f e c t concordance = + 1 . 0 *
b

Source:
N. M. Downie
0 . 0 5 Level of S i g n i f i c a n c e
3rd e d .
Basi c S t a t i s t i c a l Methods.
and R. W. Heat h.
Harper and Row, 1 9 7 0 ) , Appendix M.
(New York :

The Spearman C o e f f i c i e n t
(H 5 t hrough H 7,

Tabl e 4 . 1 4 )

which i n d i c a t e d t h a t the n u l l
jected
jected .

i n each i n s t a n c e .

of Rank C o r r e l a t i o n

test

resulted in c o e f f i c i e n t s

( r ho)

hypotheses shoul d not be r e ­

Hypot hesi s seven

(H 7) may be r e ­

TABLE 4 .1 4 .—Test Results, Respondents' Role Preference Rankings.
Spearman's Coefficient of Rank Correlation (rho).
Hypothesis
5
6
i
7

Rankings Measured

(n)

rhoa

C ritic a l
Value b

Presidents to
Board Chairmen

(2)

.40

.950

Do Not
Reject Ho

Board Chairmen
to Faculty
Leaders

(2)

.40

.950

Do Not
Reject Ho

Presidents to
Faculty Leaders

(2)

1.00

.950

Reject Ho

aLi mi t s
tion = +1.0.

= -1.0

to + 1 . 0 ;

perfect

Acti on

positive

correla­

^ 0 . 0 5 Level of S i g n i f i c a n c e .
Source:
N. M. Downie
and R. W. Heat h.
Basi c S t a t i s t i c a l Me t h o ds .
3rd ed.
(New York:
Har per and Row, 1 970) , Append i x F.

For n u l l

h y p o t h e s i s 8 t hr ough 21

(Table 4 . 1 5 ) ,

Chi - squa r e T e s t of Homogeni ty produced r e s u l ts ( x
c a n t l y hi gh t o r e j e c t
and H 18.

t h r e e of t he f o u r t e e n :

I n each o f t he el even

hypot heses coul d not be r e j e c t e d

p

) sigm fi -

H 13,

other i nst ances,

t he

H 15,

t he n u l l

on t he basi s o f such a t e s t

r e s u14.
l t . Q7

O -J

On c e r t a i n i t e ms , or i n c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e l e v e l s ,
t h e r e was a n e a r l y p e r f e c t agreement between r espondent s of
a gi ven group and, hence, l i t t l e or no v a r i a n c e pr oduced.
High l e v e l s o f agreement w i t h i n gr oups, o f t e n r e s u l t i n g i n
sharp c o n t r a s t s between gr oups, i s not ed as bei ng i mp o r t a n t
to t h i s st u d y .

81

TABLE 4 .1 5 .—Results of Chi-square Test of Homogeneity .
Hypotheses

2
X

df

2.61

6

12.59

No

11.49

6

12.59

No

Respondent/Vari able

8

Board/Contr. Yrs.

9

Faculty/Contr. Yrs.

a

Significant
at 0.05

10

Board/Service

2.95

2

5,99

No

11

Faculty/Service

3.76

4

9.49

No

12

Board/FYES

1.34

4

9.49

No

13

Faculty/FYES

10.40

4

9.49

Yes*

14

President/FYES

4.14

4

9.49

No

15

President/Age

11.77

4

9.49

Yes*

16

President/Service

3.59

4

9.49

No

17

President/Contr. Yrs.

3.59

4

9.49

No

18

President/Experience

8.34

3

7.82

Yes*

19

President/Degree

1.26

3

7.82

No

20

President/Field

1.26

3

7.82

No

21

President/Orient.

6.30

4

9.49

No

*Reject Null Hypothesis

Review o f Role C o n f l i c t Re s o l u t i o n Model
When conf r ont e d wi t h c o n f l i c t i n g
tions,

some pr e s i d e n t s

compromi se,

behavioral

ot her s make a c l e a r choi ce

between the two ki nds o f behavi or expect ed of them.
det er mi nes

the choi ce an i n d i v i d u a l

role c o n f l i c t ?

expecta­

will

What

make i n r e s o l v i n g

82
The r o l e c o n f l i c t

r e s o l u t o n t h e o r y al l ows

of t he behav i or of p r e s i d e n t s
tion"

for sixteen

predictions

" 1e g i t i m a c y - s a n c -

combi nat i ons f o r each of t h r e e o r i e n t a t i o n

types.

By

comparing t he behav i or p r e d i c t e d on t he basi s of t he t heor y
f o r each of t hese 48 l e g i t i m a c y / s a n c t i o n s ,

orientation

types

provi ded by t he model , wi t h t he r e p o r t e d a c t ua l

b ehav i or of

p r e s i d e n t s who f a l l

i s p os s i bl e

w i t h i n t hese c a t e g o r i e s ,

it

to t e s t whet her the t h e o r y has pr ovi ded the c o r r e c t
i n each case.

The r e a d e r i s r e f e r r e d

prediction

t o Appendi x F f o r t he

compl ete Behavi or P r e d i c t i o n Model .

Moralist

Expedient

Moral-Expedient

Perceived Expectation

X Y

X Y

X Y

Legitimacy

LI

LI

LI

Negative Sanction

W S

W S

W S

A

B

C

Predicted Behavior
Key

X = Board Chairman; Y = Faculty Representative; L = Legitimate;
I = Ille g itim a te ; S = Strong; W = Weak; A = Board Agent; B Faculty Spokesman; C = Mediator

FIGURE 4 1 . —Example of Possible Outcomes of the Combinations of
Legitimacy/Sanctions/Orientations Options.

Using a f i v e - p o i n t

scale,

and wei ghi ng t he d y a me t r i -

c a l l y o ppos i t e responses "1" and i n t e r m e d i a t e responses

"0,"

each PRESIDENT'S EXPECTATION INSTRUMENT may be scored on a
potential

range from 0 t o 25 based on the t o t a l

extreme responses r e cor ded.

The a c t ua l

number of

range of scores

83
r e s u l t i n g may t hen be d i v i d e d
identifying

into t hi rds :

respondent s wi t h Expedi ent p r e d i s p o s i t i o n ;

mi ddl e t h i r d

the

t hose wi t h Mo r a l - E x p e d i e n t p r e d i s p o s i t i o n ;

the upper t h i r d

those wi t h Moral

predisposition.

and n e g a t i v e sa nct i ons p r e c e p t i o n s ,
a ct ual

the l ower t h i r d

behavior,

as wel l

and

L e g i t i ma c y

as t he p r e s i d e n t ' s

were r e po r t e d on the PRESIDENT'S PERCEPTION

INSTRUMENT.
Al t hough i t

mi ght be p o s s i b l e to i n t e r p r e t

d i c t i o n of each of the f o r t y - e i g h t
testable

hypothesis,

it

gi ven t he sample s i z e ,
most c e l l s
correctly

t he p r e ­

types s e p a r a t e l y

i s not deemed p r a c t i c a b l e

as a

because

t h e r e were not s u f f i c i e n t cases in

to a l l o w s i g n i f i c a n c e

tests

of t he pr o po r t i on s

predicted.
Resul t s P e r t i n e n t t o Rol e C o n f l i c t
Re s o l ut i on Model

Pr e s i d e n t s were c a t e g o r i z e d as " M o r a l i s t s , "
pedients,"
their

or " Mo r a l - Ex p e d i e n t s "

individual

from 1 - 6 were consi der ed
of from 7 fell

12,

on the basi s of scores on

PRESIDENT'S EXPECTATION INSTRUMENT.

recorded ranged from 1 to 18:

"Ex­

Scores

p r e s i d e n t s wi t h scores of

"Expedients,"

t hose wi t h scores

" M o r a l - E x p e d i e n t s ," and those whose score

between 13 and 18,

"Moralists."

84

5
4
f

3

2
1
0-

3—

— 5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

T7

18

SCORE
(Medi an = 9)
Fi gur e 4 . 2 . - - Fr equency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Scores on P r e s i d e n t ' s
Ex pe ct a t i ons I n s t r u m e n t .

Ex pe ct a t i ons of board chai rmen and f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n ­
t a t i v e s were deemed to be l e g i t i m a t e or i l l e g i t i m a t e
ing upon whet her or not t he p r e s i d e n t s

consi der ed such

e x p e c t a t i o n s as " r i g h t and r e a s o n a b l e . "
offered f ive a l t e r n a t i v e s

--the

"none, "

Pr e s i d e n t s were

f o r t he d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t he

s e v e r i t y of n e g a t i v e sa nct i ons
pectations:

depend­

"weak, "

f o r non- conf ormance t o e x ­

"mi l d, "

" moder at e, "

"strong,"

l a t t e r two responses were c a t e g o r i z e d as " s t r o n g , "

the o t h e r t h r e e as "weak" f o r
In ever y i n s t a n c e ,

the purposes of a n a l y s i s .

p r e s i d e n t s c onsi der ed t h e i r p e r ­

cei ved board cha i r ma n' s e x p e c t a t i o n to be " r i g h t and r e a s on­
abl e"

(i.e.

legitimate),

wher eas,

potential

n e g a t i v e sanct i ons

f o r non- per f or mance to t h a t e x p e c t a t i o n were consi der ed to
be st r ong i n a l l
si der ed t h e i r

but s i x i n s t a n c e s .

Four p r e s i d e n t s

perceived f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ' s

con­

expectations

85
not to be " r i g h t and r eas ona bl e"
a substantial

(i.e.,

illegitimate).

number of i n s t a n c e s - - t w o - t h i r d s

p r e s i d e n t s p e r c e i v e d the p o t e n t i a l
non- perf ormance to the f a c u l t y

In

o f t he t o t a l - -

n e g a t i v e sa nc t i ons f o r

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 1s e x p e c t a t i o n

to l i k e w i s e be st r ong.

TABLE 4 .1 6 .--Frequency of Presidents' Perceived Board Chairman Expecta­
tion , Legitimacy, and Sanction by Role Choice.

(n = 24)
Expectation:

Legitimacy:

Board Agent

Faculty
Spokesman

Mediator

Consultant

17

0

1

6

Yes-No

Yes-No

17-0

0-0

Strong-Weak
Sanction for
non­
performance:

14-3

Strong-Weak

0-0

Yes-No
1-0
Strong-Weak

0-1

Yes-No
6-0

Strong-Weak

4-2

86
TABLE 4 .1 7 .—Frequency of Presidents' Perceived Faculty Representative
Expectation, Legitimacy, and Sanction by Role Choice.

(n = 24)

Board Agent

Faculty
Spokesman

Mediator

Consultant

13

1

5

5

Expectation

Yes-No

Yes-No

Yes-No

Yes-No

11-2

1-0

5-0

3-2

Legitimacy

Strong-Weak
Sanction for
NonPerformance

Strong-Weak

10-3

Strong-Weak

Strong-Weak

3-2

1-0

In a l l , 12 (50%) o f the p r e s i d e n t s

2-3

expr essed a p e r ­

c e p t i o n of a l ack o f agreement between board chai rman and
faculty representative preferred

president's

role expecta­

tions .
Ret urns from a l l

three subjects

t i o n were r e c e i v e d f rom a t o t a l
t hese i n s t a n c e s ,

t he p r e s i d e n t

the p r e f e r r e d e x p e c t a t i o n s
representative
st a nc e s .

18 c o l l e g e s .

In 8 of

perceived a c o n f l i c t

of hi s

but such a c o n f l i c t

existed

representative

existed

i n onl y 4 i n ­

per cent

perceived

between the board chai rman and f a c u l t y

preferred

seven i n s t a n c e s .

between

board chai rman and f a c u l t y

I n the 10 i n s t a n c e s whe r e i n t he p r e s i d e n t

no c o n f l i c t

sixty-one

of

a t a gi v en i n s t i t u ­

expectations,

In o t h e r wor ds,
(61%)

conflict

di d e x i s t

p r e s i d e n t s were wrong i n

o f t he i n s t a n c e s

regarding t h e i r

in

87
p e r c e p t i o n o f t he presence or absence of c o n f l i c t
board chai rman and f a c u l t y

representative

between

expectations.

TABLE 4 . 1 8 . - - P r e s i d e n t s ' Pe r ce i ve d C o n f l i c t Compared wi t h
Board C h a i r ma n / F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Con­
gruence and P r e s i d e n t s ' Behavi or .
(N = 18}
A.

President
1.
2.

B.

Pe r ce i ve d C o n f l i c t :

C o n f l i c t exi st s
No c o n f l i c t e x i s t s
a.
But c o n f l i c t
expectations
behavior

4
4
between
and
2

P r e s i d e n t p e r c e i v e d no c o n f l i c t :
1.
2.

8

10

Conf 1 i c t does exi st
No c o n f l i c t e x i s t s
a.
But c o n f l i c t between
e x p e c t a t i o n s and
behavior

7
3
0

T e s t of t he Rol e C o n f l i c t
Re s o l u t i o n Theory
Pr e s i d e n t s who p e r c e i v e d an exposur e t o i n c o n g r u e n t
and i n c o mp a t i b l e e x p e c t a t i o n s
situations

i n each o f t he r o l e

were c a t e g o r i z e d ac cor di ng t o t he p e r c e i v e d l e g i t i ­

macy of t he e x p e c t a t i o n s ,

the p e r c e i v e d s a n c t i o n

t hey mi ght be exposed f o r

failure

tions,

conflict

t o which

to conf orm t o t he e x p e c t a ­

and ac cor di ng to whet her t hey were “m o r a l i s t s , "

" m o r a l - e x p e d i e n t s ," or " e x p e d i e n t s . "

By compari ng t he b e h a v i o r

88
p r e d i c t e d on t he basi s of the t h e o r y ,

f o r each of t he f o r t y -

e i g h t t ypes pr esent ed by t he model , wi t h the a c t ua l
r e po r t e d by t he p r e s i d e n t s ,

behav i or

i n each case, we may say whet her

or not t he t heor y has c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t e d b e h a v i o r .
Conflicts

between the p r e f e r r e d e x p e c t a t i o n s of board

chairman and f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

r e po r t e dl y exi st ed in

seven c o l l e g e s w i t h o u t bei ng so per c ei v ed and i d e n t i f i e d
by t h a t

college president.

However,

onl y f o r

t hose i ns t ance s

wherei n the p r e s i d e n t a c t u a l l y per c ei v ed and i d e n t i f i e d
a conflict
validity

is i t

p o s s i b l e to appl y t he r e s u l t s

of the Role C o n f l i c t

such

to t e s t the

Re s o l ut i on Theor y.

There were t wel ve i ns t ance s

i n which the p r e s i d e n t

r e p o r t e d a per c ei v ed i ncongr uency i n p r e f e r r e d e x p e c t a t i o n s ,
ten of whom served c o l l e g e s i n v o l v e d i n c o l l e c t i v e
ing n e g o t i a t i o n s wi t h t h e i r f a c u l t i e s .
pre-disposition orientation,
tive

bargain­

When the p r e s i d e n t ' s

legitimacy eval uation,

and nega­

sanct i ons p e r c e p t i o n f a c t o r s were a p p l i e d to t he model ,

behavi or p r e d i c t e d by t he t h e o r y corresponded wi t h t he r e ­
por t ed a c t ua l
dictions

behavi or i n onl y two i n s t a n c e s - - a c o r r e c t p r e ­

outcome of onl y 20 per c e n t ! !
Whi l e t he smal l

number of cases of p e r c e i v e d c o n f l i c t

r e po r t e d shoul d not be consi der ed as t o t a l l y
the l i m i t e d

success of the p r e d i c t i o n model

gests t he presence of a d d i t i o n a l
out come.

variables

representative,
in t hi s

study sug­

i n f l u e n c i n g the

89
TABLE 4 . 1 9 . - - P r e d i c t e d and Act ual
Conflict Situations.
President’ s
Orientation
Pr edisposition

Behavi or s

P r e s i d e n t ' s Pe r c e p t i o n
of Expectations of:
Board
Faculty
Chairman
Leader

i n Ten Rol e

Predicted
Be ha v i or

Act ual
Be ha vi or

1.

E

A

B

C

A

2.

M

A

D

A

A

3.

M/E

A

D

C

A

4.

M/E

D

D

A

D

5.

M/E

A

B

C

A

6.

M/E

D

A

C

C

7.

M

A

D

C

A

8.

M/E

D

A

A

D

9.

M/E

D

A

A

D

10.

M/E

D

C

B

A

Key:

A = Board Agent ; B = F a c u l t y Spokesman; C = M e d i a t o r ;
D = C o n s u l t a n t ; E = Ex p e d i e n t ; M = M o r a l ; M/E = M o r a l /
Expedi e n t .

Ot her F i n d i n g s :
Sever al

Descriptive

Comparisons

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were a v a i l a b l e

from t he sup­

p o r t i n g demographi c dat a whi ch p e r mi t s u b - gr ou pi n g o f t he
subj ect s.

Care was e x e r c i s e d

of such v a r i a b l e s
of i n d i v i d u a l s
meani ngf ul

in t h e s e l e c t i o n

to avoi d the i n a d v e r t e n t

while attempt ing

breakdown o f d a t a .

o f the l e v e l s

identification

to provide a l o g i c a l

and

90
I n t we n t y - o ne o f t he t w e n t y - f o u r community c o l l e g e s
participating

i n t he s t u d y ,

f a c u l t y ar e c u r r e n t l y

under t he p r o v i s i o n s

of a c o l l e c t i v e l y

Agreement C o n t r a c t .

In a l l

operating

n e g o t i a t e d Mast er

21 i n s t a n c e s ,

local

f a c u l t y u n i t members ser ve as c h i e f n e g o t i a t o r

full-time
for

the

f a c u 1t y .
Of those c o l l e g e s
istrator

functions

per cent

(12 of 15)

as "Board Ag e n t , "
cent

( 1)

f o r whi ch an o t h e r c o l l e g e admi n­

as c h i e f n e g o t i a t o r f o r t he boa r d,
of t he p r e s i d e n t s

13 per cent

(2)

80

r e p o r t e d per f or mance

as " M e d i a t o r , "

and 7 per

as " C o n s u l t a n t . "

TABLE 4 .2 0 .— Presidents1 Behavior per Chief Negotiator for Board.
Chief Negotiator

(n)

Board
Agent

Faculty
Spokesman

Mediator

Consultant

Another
Administrator

(15)

12

0

2

1

President

( 1)

1

0

0

0

Board Member

( 2)

1

0

0

1

Hired
Professional

( 3)

1

0

0

2

Over f i f t y
reported actual
th e i r college
l ess

per cent

(8 of 15)

of t he p r e s i d e n t s who

per f or mance as "Board Agent "

l ess

t han 3 year s

than t h r e e y e a r s .
tenure

f or mi ng as "Board Agent ; "

(n=ll),

Of a l l

have served
presi dents with

73 per cent r e p o r t e d p e r ­

of t hose wi t h

3 to 6 ye a r s

tenure

91
{ n =4 ) ,

75 per cent r e p o r t e d

per f or mi ng as "Board Agent , "

and of t hose wi t h 6 or more year s

tenure

( n=6 ) ,

67 per cent

r epor t ed per f or mi ng as "Board Agent . "

TABLE 4 . 2 1 . - - P r e s i d e n t s 1 Behavi or per Length of Se r v i c e
i n Pr esent P o s i t i o n .

Year Ser vi ng

( n)

1st - 3rd

( 1 1 ) 8

Spokesman

M ^ator

Cons ul t a nt

0

0

3

4th - 6t h

( 4)

3

0

1

0

7th and more

( 6)

4

0

1

1

In a l l

i ns t ance s

i n which the c o l l e g e has oper at ed

wi t h a f a c u l t y Mast er Agreement Co n t r a c t
years,

f o r f ewer t han 3

the p r e s i d e n t r e p o r t e d per f or mi ng as "Board Age n t . "

The i n f r e q u e n t

perf ormances as " Me d i a t o r " and " Co n s u l t a n t "

were n e a r l y e q u a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d

between c o l l e g e s whose e x ­

per i ence wi t h a n e g o t i a t e d f a c u l t y c o n t r a c t f a l l s

between

3 to 5 year s and 6 or more y e a r s .

TABLE 4 . 2 2 . - - P r e s i d e n t s 1 Behavi or per Number of Years Col l ege
Operat ed wi t h a F a c u l t y Mast er Agreement Co n t r a c t .

Cont r act Years
None
1 -

( n)

spokesman

Mddi dt or

Cons ul t a nt

0

0

1

0

1

2

0

1

1

( 3)
3

( 4)

4 - 6

7 and

(

more

7

( 10)

3
)

4

8

92
The p r e s i d e n t s '

per f or mance as "Board Agent " i s

fairly

e q u a l l y spread i n c o l l e g e s

gories.

Onl y i n t hose c o l l e g e s

of v a r i o u s

FYES s i z e c a t e ­

o f between 1001

-

3000 FYES

does t h e r e occur a n o t e a b l e f r e q u e n c y o f " C o n s u l t a n t "

per­

f ormances .

TABLE 4 . 2 3 . - - P r e s i d e n t s 1 Behavi or per FYES,
Col l e ge FYES
0 - 1000

AY 7 2 - 7 3 .

( n)

Board
Agent

Faculty
Spokesman

Medi a t o r

Co n s u l t a n t

(8)

6

0

1

1

1001

- 3000

(8)

5

0

0

3

3001

and more

( 5)

4

0

1

0

Younger p r e s i d e n t s
" Co n s u l t a n t "

behavior,

were r e s p o n s i b l e

exhibited

t he few i n s t a n c e s o f

w h i l e t he more mat ur e

f o r t he onl y r e p o r t e d

{age 53 or more)

" Me d i a t o r "

per f or mances

5
4
f 3
2

1
0 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
Age
(Median = 48)
Figure 4 . 3 . —Frequency Distribution of Presidents' Ages.

93
TABLE 4. 2 4 . - - P r e s i d e n t 1s Behavi or per His Age.
Years of Age

( n)

Board
Agent

Facu1t y
Spokesman

Medi a t o r

Consul t a nt

39 - 45

( 7)

5

0

0

2

46 - 52

( 11)

9

0

0

2

( 3)

1

0

2

0

53 and o l der

T wo - t h i r d s of t he i ncumbent community c o l l e g e p r e s i ­
dents have come to t h e i r pr e s e n t p o s i t i o n d i r e c t l y f^om ad­
m i n i s t r a t i v e assi gnment s at a n ot he r community c o l l e g e .
However, o n e - t h i r d o f a l l

p r e s i d e n t s r e po r t e d no pr evi ous

community c o l l e g e e x p e r i e nc e of any n a t u r e .
Those p r e s i d e n t s who,
tion,

in t h e i r

had served as a community c o l l e g e

the "Board Agent" r o l e
whereas,

3 t o 1 over t he

president preferred
" Cons ul t a n t "

role;

those p r e s i d e n t s who had served i n some o t h e r commu­

nity college admi ni st rat i ve c a p ac it i es ,
prior position,
that of

i mmedi ate p r i o r p o s i ­

preferred

"Board A g e n t ."

in. t h e i r

the " Cons ul t a n t " r o l e

i mmedi ate
7 to 4 over

94
TABLE 4 . 2 5 . - - P r e s i d e n t s ' Rol e P r e f e r e n c e per P r i o r
Hel d.
Pri or Position

( n)

Commun i ty
Col 1ege

( 16 )

Position

Board
Agent

Facu1t y
Spokesman

Medi a t o r

Consultant

Pr esi dent

( 4)

3

0

0

1

VP or Dean

( 9)

4

1

0

4

Ot her
Admr

( 3)

0

0

0

3

U n i v e r s i t y Admr

( 4)

2

0

2

0

Ot her
Educat i on*

( 4)

2

0

1

1

*(Includes:

Two-thi rds
ence f o r t he

University Faculty,
o t h e r P u b l i c School

Superi ntendents
Administrators)

and

of t he p r e s i d e n t s e x p r e s s i n g a p r e f e r ­

" Co n s u l t a n t "

r o l e hol d an earned D o c t o r a t e

Educat i on or Hi g he r Ed u c a t i o n .

Of t he f i f t e e n

possessi ng such d e g r e e s ,

7 others

t he "Board Agent"

In a l l ,

role.

presidents reported

presidents

stated a preference
three-quarters

h ol d i n g earned D o c t o r a t e s .

in

( 18 )

for
o f t he

95
TABLE 4 . 2 6 . - - P r e s i d e n t s 1 Role P r e f e r e n c e per Hi g h e s t Earned
Degree Hel d.
Degree and
Field

( n)

Board
Agent

Faculty
Spokesman

Medi a t o r

Co n s u l t a n t

Educat i on

( 3)

1

0

1

1

Ot h e r *

{ 3)

2

0

0

1

Educat i on

( 15 )

7

1

1

6

Ot her*

{ 3)

1

0

1

1

BA/BS,

EdD,

MA/MS

PhD

*(Includes:

So c i a l S c i e n c e , Busi ness A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
Co u n s e l i n g , and Psychol ogy)

React i on Comments
A few r espondent s a v a i l e d t hemsel ves o f t he o p p o r t u ­
n i t y t o pr o v i de comments on t h e i r
presidents'

role

in c o l l e c t i v e

of t he r o l e

choi ce a l t e r n a t i v e s

own i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

bargaining
pr ovi de d

o f t he

negotiations

or

i n t he q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

F o l l o wi n g ar e t he most r e p r e s e n t a t i v e :
Board Chai rman:

He shoul d s t a y away from n e g o t i a ­
t i on s e n t i r e l y ! ! !

F a c u l t y Leader :

What I c o n s i d e r to be hi s pr oper
r o l e and what I p r e f e r ar e two
e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t things.

Board Chai rman:

I woul d not c o n s i d e r F a c u l t y Spokes'
man, M e d i a t o r , or C o n s u l t a n t as
viable alternatives.

F a c u l t y Leader :

The S. O. B. says he i s a M e d i a t o r ,
but he behaves l i k e t he Boar d' s
"man"! ! !

96

President:

Al t hough I p r e f e r t he Co n s u l t a n t r o l e
I am a c t u a l l y a member of t he n e g o t i a ­
t i n g team.

Interpretation

o f Re s u l t s

Hypotheses
Re sul t s of t he
cat e a d e f i n i t e
ment i n r o l e
single

Kendall's

test

l a c k of s t a t i s t i c a l l y

choi ce

o f concordance i n d i ­
significant

p r e f e r e n c e s on t he p a r t

s u b j e c t group or among such s u b j e c t s

of members of any
col 1e c t i v e l y .

Comparisons o f group consensus r a n k i n g s ,
man' s t e s t of rank c o r r e l a t i o n ,
positive correlation
and between f a c u l t y
president

graphic

between p r e s i d e n t s
leaders

and f a c u l t y

Test s

statistically

usi ng Sp e a r ­

a low o r d e r of
and board chai rmen

and board cha i r me n.

However,

l e a d e r group consensus r a nk i ng s

of homogenei t y,

variables,

indicate

disagree­

empl oyi ng b i o g r a p h i c a l

produced C h i - s q u a r e val ues

significant

differences

concur .
and demo­

indicative

of

i n but t h r e e o f f o u r t e e n

i nstances consi dered.
The st udy suppor t s t he p r e d i c t i o n
reference
cantly

groups

in t h e i r

collective

i n t he ag g r e ga t e w i l l
expectations

bargaining

Role C o n f l i c t
l u t i o n Model

that

t he t h r e e

not d i f f e r

f o r t he p r e s i d e n t ' s

signifi­
role

in

negotiations.

Reso­

The t went y per cent
for president's

(20%)

p r e d i c t i b i 1i t y

per f or mance b e h a v i o r i n p e r c e i v e d

accuracy,
role

97
conflict

situations,

compares u n f a v o r a b l y wi t h r e s u l t s

pre­

v i o u s l y o bt a i ned usi ng t he model .
Gross,
of 291 t e s t s

et a l . , r e p o r t e d a c c u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n s

( 90%) , and Roberts ex per i e nc ed accur acy i n 6 2 . 5

per cent of the p r e d i c t i o n s
pectancy of

i n 264

t e s t e d wh i l e not i ng a chance e x ­

. 43.

The ex t r e me l y low p r e d i c t i o n r a t e exper i e nc ed i n t h i s
study suggests t h a t p r e d i c t i o n
have r e s u l t e d from p r e s i d e n t s
r e p o r t i n g a c t ua l

behavior,

outcomes of r o l e b e h a v i o r may
i n a c c u r a t e l y assessi ng an d / o r

expectation

legitimacy,

or sanct i ons

percei v e d .
Thi s p o s s i b i l i t y
orientation

i s advanced because,

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s were ma n i p u l a t e d ,

even when t he
t he model

failed

to p r e d i c t b ehav i or a c c u r a t e l y .
Other Fi ndi ngs
There i s a d e f i n i t e
serve as c h i e f

t encency f o r the p r e s i d e n t not to

n e g o t i a t o r dur i ng c o l l e c t i v e

t i a t i o n s wi t h t he f a c u l t y ,

which may al so be r e l a t e d

f a c t t h a t h a l f of the p r e s i d e n t s
the " Cons ul t ant "

and " Medi a t or "

Of the p r e s i d e n t s

to the

i ndi cat ed a preference f o r
roles.

coming t o t h e i r

from p r i o r community c o l l e g e e x p e r i e n c e ,
pressed a p r e f e r e n c e f o r

b a r g a i n i n g nego­

the " Co ns ul t a n t "

pr esent p o s i t i o n
half

(8 of 16)

ex­

role.

Some t endency toward b e h a v i o r o t h e r than as "Board
Agent"

i s i n d i c a t e d to be a s s o c i a t e d wi t h a l onger e x p e r i e nc e

98
of c o l l e g e o p e r a t i o n w i t h
{see T a b l e 4 . 2 2 ) ;
increases,

also,

a f a c u l t y mast er agreement c o n t r a c t ;

as t he l e n g t h of s e r v i c e

p r o p o r t i o n a l t e l y f ewe r p r e s i d e n t s

ance as "Board Agent "

{see Tabl e 4 . 2 1 ) ,

o p p o r t u n i t y to f u n c t i o n

as " Me d i a t o r "

t o t he c o l l e g e

r e p o r t perf orm­

sugge s t i ng t h a t t he

or " C o n s u l t a n t

becomes

more and more a d e s i r a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e .
These r e s u l t s

suppor t Ro b e r t s '

and l ess e x p e r i e n c e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
t he i n t e r e s t s
wi t h hi s

will

that,

over t i m e ,

increase while

t h a t younger

ar e more l i k e l y

of t he board i n n e g o t i a t i o n s

hyp ot h e s i s

tiator will

concl usi on

but ar e

t he r o l e

t o ser ve
in cont rast

of board nego­

the mi ddl e- man and c o n s u l t a n t

diminish.
Significance
The r e s u l t s

of t h i s

of

F i ndi ngs

st udy ar e s i g n i f i c a n t ,

not onl y

t hrough t he devel opment of compari sons of p r e s i d e n t s ' ,
c h a i r me n s ' ,
t i on s

role

and f a c u l t y

and p r e s i d e n t s '

vi de a basi s f o r
resolution,
studies

office,

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ' per f or mance e x p e c t a ­

practices,

but al s o because t h e y p r o ­

t he assessment o f r o l e

as we l l

of t he r o l e

board

as o f f e r i n g

conflict

a foundation

for

and i t s
further

of t he community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t .

Re s u l t s

suggest t h a t

serving

s m a l l e r c o l l e g e s whi ch have had more than t he

aver age e x p e r i e n c e
ment c o n t r a c t ,

in oper at i ng wi t h

prefer

a pri me a d v e r s a r y .

presi dent s with

of

a f a c u l t y mast er a g r e e ­

a r o l e whi ch does not

Likewise,

l onger tenure

presidents

identify

them as

coming t o t h e i r

99

office

from a communi ty c o l l e g e backgr ound,

doctoral

degree i n t he f i e l d

of e d u c a t i o n

and h o l d i n g a

p r e f e r a non­

adversary r o l e .
Perhaps most s i g n i f i c a n t ,

however ,

i s t he r e v e l a t i o n

of t he hi gh i n c i d e n c e of t he a p p a r e n t f a i l u r e

of p r e s i d e n t s

t o c o r r e c t l y assess t he presence o f r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s
Such a f a i l u r e ,
tive

i n t he presence of c o n f l i c t ,

implications

regarding e f f e c t i v e

conflict.

has s t r o n g nega­

and e f f i c i e n t

management

of a c o l l e g e .
Thi s f i n d i n g

suggest s s e r i o u s

communi cat i ons,

role

p e r f o r ma n c e ,

and n e g o t i a t i o n

"costs."

probl ems i n i n t e r n a l

president's

j ob

satisfaction,

Summary
In t h i s
findings

chapter,

t he a n a l y s i s

have been p r e s e n t e d .
1.

of

Maj or outcomes i n c l u d e d :

a marked t endancy t owar d t he concordance of r o l e

p r e f e r e n c e r a nk i ngs w i t h i n
2.

and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

subject

groups;

n o t a b l e d i v e r g e n c e by i n d i v i d u a l

r a nk i ng s

from

group consensus;
3.

a low i n c i d e n c e

t i o n agreement w i t h i n
4.

of r o l e

prior

experience;

of

59)

of r o l e

choi c e p e r c e p ­

gi ven community c o l l e g e s ;

statistically

tions

(31

significant

behavior r e l a t e d

differences

t o t he p r e s i d e n t s '

in d i s t r i b u ­
age and

100
5.
t i o n of r o l e
total

significa nt differences

in d i s t r i b u ­

p r e f e r e n c e of f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

r e l a t e d to

FYES e n r o l l me n t s of the c o l l e g e ;
6.

level

statistically

a positive correlation

and f i e l d

of st u d y ,

between the p r e s i d e n t ' s

hi s t e n u r e i n o f f i c e ,

and hi s e x ­

per i ence i n o p e r a t i o n s wi t h f a c u l t y mast er agreement c o n t r a c t s
and the p r e s i d e n t ' s

preference

f o r t he r o l e of me di a t or or

consultant;
7.

failure

of t he Role C o n f l i c t Re s o l ut i on Model

to

p r e d i c t behavi or a t g r e a t e r than 20 per cent ac cur acy;
8.

a high i nc i d e nc e

(61%) of f a i l u r e

of p r e s i d e n t s

to c o r r e c t l y assess the r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s c o n f l i c t .

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary of t he Study
There i s a l ack of e mp i r i c a l
specifics

evi dence concer ni ng the

of the r o l e of the community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t i n

collective

bargaining n e g o t i a t i o n s .

Thi s st udy sought to d i s c o v e r r o l e
tions

conflict

and r e s o l u t i o n behavi or s of t he t w e n t y - f i v e

community c o l l e g e

presidents

percep­

public

i n the S t a t e of Mi chi gan.

method i n v o l v e d was a compari son of t he p r e s i d e n t ' s

The

own

r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s wi t h t hose of members of two a s s o c i a t i v e
role-defining

groups.

The choi ce of r o l e f o r Mi c h i g a n ' s
col lege presidents

in c o l l e c t i v e

not mandated by l aw,

tions.

bargaining negot i at i ons

and one r e s u l t

may be f aced wi t h s e v e r a l - - o f t e n

is

t he p r e s i d e n t r e q u i r e s

is

t h a t t he p r e s i d e n t

conf1i c t i n g - - r o l e

In or der to per f or m e f f e c t i v e l y

hi s p o s i t i o n ,

p u b l i c community

expecta­

and to s u r v i v e i n

some method or mechanisms

to cope wi t h such c o n f l i c t .
An at t e mpt has been made t hrough t h i s study to conduct
a compari son of t he p r e s i d e n t ' s

perf ormance e x p e c t a t i o n s as

per cei ved by hi s board chai rman and f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ,

101

and as p e r c e i v e d and p r a c t i c e d

by t h a t

president.

In a d d i t i o n ,

a measure o f t he congruence of t he p r e f e r r e d b e h a v i o r a l
pectations
faculty

between and amongst groups of

leaders,

and p r e s i d e n t s ,

as we l l

ex­

board chai r men,
as w i t h i n

a single

community c o l l e g e was devel oped.
In or der t o accompl i sh t hese ends,
si gned around t he Gross,
Conflict
their

Resolution.

behavioral

and f a c u l t y
actual

and McEachern t h e o r y of Rol e

P r e s i d e n t s were i n t e r v i e w e d concer ni ng

predisposition,

leader expectati ons,

p e r c e i v e d board chai rman
role preferences,

be h a v i o r i n the most r e c e n t c o l l e c t i v e

negotiations

at t h e i r

representatives
for

Mason,

r e s e a r c h was de­

colleges.

role

bargaining

Board chai rmen and f a c u l t y

were sur veyed r e g a r d i n g

the p r e s i d e n t ' s

and

t h e i r preference

choice.

Thi s st udy has exami ned q u e s t i o n s ,

the answers to

whi ch may i n c r e a s e our und e r s t a nd i n g of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and
role theories

and of c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n

and s ur r oundi ng

community c o l l e g e s which i n t ur n may i n f l u e n c e
of t he community c o l l e g e
collective

president,

t he b e h a v i o r

particularly

dur i ng

bargaining n e g o t i a t i o n s .
Summary o f the Fi ndi ngs

An o v e r a l l

response r a t e of e i g h t y - e i g h t

was ex p e r i e nc e d from t he 75 s u b j e c t s
st udy p o p u l a t i o n .

per cent

i n t he d e s i g n a t e d

103

The purpose of t he s t a t i s t i c a l

t r e a t m e n t was to

assess t he degree o f agreement i n t he r o l e

preferences

by p r e s i d e n t s ,

representatives.

Statistical
cordance
(rho)
tion

board cha i r me n,

tests

and f a c u l t y

empl oyed were K e n d a l l ' s

Coefficient

hel d

of Con­

( W) and Spearman' s C o e f f i c i e n t o f Rank C o r r e l a t i o n

t o measure t he degree of consensus on r o l e e x p e c t a ­
rankings,

and t he Ch i - Squ a r e T es t o f Homogenei ty r e ­

gar di ng demographi c v a r i a b l e s ;

a 0.05

level

of s i g n i f i c a n c e

was e s t a b l i s h e d .
Anal yses of t he r e s u l t s
gener al

of t he r e s e a r c h

indicated

agreement i n r o l e choi ce p r e f e r e n c e between a l l

subjects surveyed;

however ,

significant

individual

differences

were not ed.
In onl y f o u r of e i g h t e e n
principal

subjects

i n s t a n c e s were a l l

of a gi ven c o l l e g e

three

i n agreement c o n c e r n ­

ing t he p r e f e r r e d

per f or mance b e h a v i o r o f t he p r e s i d e n t

dur i ng c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining n egot iat ions.

The most n o t a b l e v a r i a b l e f ound to be c o r r e l a t e d
wi t h board chai rman p r e f e r e n c e s was l e n g t h of s e r v i c e on
t he c o l l e g e
college

boar d;

for faculty

representatives,

e n r o l l me n t s was s i g n i f i c a n t ;

while for

p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e and age were p o s i t i v e l y
p r e f e r e n c e and b e h a v i o r .
or demographi c v a r i a b l e s
statistically

significant

s i z e of
presidents,

related

to r ol e

None o f t he o t h e r b i o g r a p h i c a l
tested yielded
differences.

val ues

indicative

of

104

A test

of the Role C o n f l i c t

a predictability

Re s o l ut i on Model y i e l d e d

accuracy r a t e of onl y t went y per c e n t .

Thi s

r e s u l t was c o n s i d e r a b l y below t h a t which had been exper i enced
i n pr evi ous s i m i l a r s t u d i e s and suggest s t h a t t he p r e s i d e n t s
p e r c e p t i on s or behavi or s were not a c c u r a t e l y r e p o r t e d by the
s u b j e c t or t h a t some ot he r unmeasured v a r i a b l e or v a r i a b l e s
accounts f o r

the p r e s i d e n t ' s

On the o t h e r hand,
exper i enced i n t h i s
M i l l e r and Shul l
tion

behavior.

t he e x t r e me l y low p r e d i c t i o n

st udy may wel l

indicate

c o n t e n t i o n t h a t personal

rate

suppor t of t he

expectation o r i e n t a ­

i s not a s t a b l e t r a i t

but an u n s t a b l e v a r i a b l e , f l u c t u a 88
t i n g wi t h changes i n envi r onment al c o n d i t i o n s .
Si nce t h i s

was not a l o n g i t u d i n a l

st u d y ,

no measure of such a f l u c t u a ­

t i o n was a t t e mp t e d .
Thi s r e s u l t

al so suggests suppor t f o r t he e x p l a n a t i o n

o f f e r e d by Wol fe and Snoek t h a t
subject's direct
board chai r man)

superior

t he pr essur e e x e r t e d by a

(represented in t hi s

t ends to o v e r r i d e o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and

t h a t some may respond by denyi ng or d i s t o r t i n g
or i m p l i c a t i o n s of t he sendi ngs.

choi ce of 4 2 . 4 per cent of a l l

88M i l l e r and S h u l l ,
R e s o l u t i o n , " p. 145.
■8 ^Wol fe and Snoek,

t he c o n t e n t

89

A st r ong t endency toward a " Co ns ul t a nt "
first

st udy by t he

prefernce--

r espondent s- - was

reported

" P r e d i c t i o n of Role C o n f l i c t
"Tensi ons and Ad j us t me n t , "

p.

121.

105

even though

"Board Agent " was c i t e d

Thi s d i s t r i b u t i o n

has d i r e c t l y

i n more i n s t a n c e s

( 48. 5%)

c o n t r i b u t e d t o t he l ack of

compl et e concordance of r a n k i n g s w i t h i n

the p r i n c i p a l

respond

ent groups.
In c o l l e g e s
sentatives

failed

a preference
structural

to i n d i c a t e

in a si ngl e

or more FYES,

"Consultant"

instance.

t he

suggest s;

" Co n s u l t a n t "

pref­

is

c o l l e g e s whe r e i n s t r u c t u r a l

distance

presumed to be not as g r e a t .

Board chai rman p r e f e r e n c e f o r
appears t o be p o s i t i v e l y
on t he c o l l e g e

as

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s was e nc ount e r e d i n t he

(0 to 1000 FYES)

between p o s i t i o n s

or " Me d i a t o r "

such s i z e

t he g r e a t e s t f r e q u e n c y of

er ence by f a c u l t y

faculty repre­

Thi s may r e f l e c t

d i s t a n c e between p o s i t i o n s

in c o n t r a s t ,

smaller

havi ng 3001

boar d;

related

the

t o hi s

t hose r espondent s

sevent h or l a t e r ye a r wer e,

in e f f e c t ,

" Co n s u l t a n t "

role

l e n g t h of s e r v i c e
serving

in t h e i r

evenly s p l i t

on t h e i r

p r e f e r e n c e between "Board Agent" and " C o n s u l t a n t , " w h i l e
t hose board chari men wi t h
f o u r t o one over t he

l ess

service

"Consul tant"

Most Mi chi gan p u b l i c
ar e now drawn from t he f i e l d s
among t hose c a n d i d a t e s
i n community c o l l e g e s .

role

preferred

"Board Agent

for

president.

their

community c o l l e g e

presidents

of h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n and from

havi ng p r i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
A considerable

hol d an earned d o c t o r a t e d e gr e e.

proportion

experience
(75%)

106

Mi chi gan community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s e x h i b i t
aver si on f o r s e r v i n g as c h i e f
wi t h t he f a c u l t y ,
role,

as e i t h e r

a st r ong

n e g o t i a t o r dur i ng b a r g a i n i n g

and by not ser vi ng

i n a d i r e c t ad v e r s a r y

"Board Agent" or " F a c u l t y Spokesman," the

p r e s i d e n t r e ser ves

the o p p o r t u n i t y t o f u n c t i o n as a " Medi a t or "

or " C o n s u l t a n t . "
H a l f the p r e s i d e n t s

coming t o t h e i r

pr es ent p o s i t i o n

from p r i o r community c o l l e g e ex pe r i e nc e expressed a p r e f e r e n c e
f o r t he

" Cons ul t ant "

r o l e dur i ng c o l l e c t i v e

b a r g a i n i n g nego­

tiations.
Thi s,

again,

may be a r e f l e c t i o n

of t he i n t i ma c y of a

pr evi ous s i t u a t i o n wi t h a l a c k of s t r u c t u r a l

d i s t a n c e between

community c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and f a c u l t y and the r e s u l t a n t
d e s i r a b i l i t y to ma i n t a i n an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a n o n - a d v e r s a r i a l
r e l a t i ons hi p.
Twelve of t he 21 p r e s i d e n t s

r e p r e s e n t i n g t hose c o l l e g e s

o p e r a t i n g wi t h a f a c u l t y mast er agreement c o n t r a c t
scores on the P r e s i d e n t ' s

Ex pe c t a t i o ns

r ecorded

I ns t r ume nt whi ch served

to c l a s s i f y them as m o r a l / e x p e d i e n t s - - t h o s e who c o n s i d e r both
the r i g h t f u l n e s s
of t h e i r

(legitimacy)

acti ons r e l a t i v e l y

and t he consequences

e q u a l l y and behave accor di ng to

a per c ei v ed net bal ance of t he two.

I t was from among t h i s

group of 12 t h a t t he onl y i ns t a n c e s of
sultant"

(sanctions)

behavi or were r e p o r t e d .

" Medi a t or "

and "Con­

107

Concl usi ons
The r e s u l t s
the f o l l o w i n g

of t h i s

st udy l ed t he r e s e a r c h e r t o draw

conclusions:

The study does not suppor t
president's

r o l e choi c e

can be p r e d i c t e d
if

hi s

flicting

bargaining

hi s b e h a v i o r a l

ar e known.

However,

coul d ser ve as one approach

in e d u c a t i o n a l

administration

that

t he

negotiations
pre-disposition

of l e g i t i m a c y and s a n c t i o n s

expectations

l u t i o n model

in c o l l e c t i v e

on t he basi s of

perceptions

the h y p ot h e s i s

r e g a r d i n g con­

t he c o n f l i c t

reso­

i n gr a dua t e programs

to a more c o n s c i e n t i o u s

exami na­

t i o n of t he dynamics i n v o l v e d

i n making d e c i s i o n s about r o l e

choi ce and r o l e

In a d d i t i o n t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

theory,

pe r f or ma nc e .

educational

in a d m i n i s t r a t o r

philosophy,

preparation

of t he community c o l l e g e ,
negotiations

bargaining

programs

t he s o c i a l

t he l a b o r movement,

setting

and c o l l e c t i v e

in p u b l i c h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .

reference g r o u p s - - p r e s i de n t s,

t he p r e d i c t i o n
board cha i r me n,

the a g g r e g a t e do not d i f f e r

expectations

theory,

shoul d s t r e s s

The study does suppor t

leaders--in

and r o l e

t hey hol d f o r

negotiations

t h a t t he t h r e e
and f a c u l t y

significantly

t he p r e s i d e n t ' s

role

i n the

in c o l l e c t i v e

between t he gover ni ng board and

college f a c u l t y .
Community c o l l e g e
ciently different
to w a r r a n t

special

negotiations

from o t h e r

appear t o be s u f f i ­

ar eas of c o l l e c t i v e

professional

bargaining

st udy and a t t e n t i o n .

The

108
b ar ga i ni ng process as devel oped from i n d u s t r i a l
calls

for r e de f in it io n

community c o l l e g e

exper i ences

of the r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

presidents

and assumes a r e l a t i v e l y wel l

{as wel l

of

as ot he r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s )

def i ne d di chot omy between

management and t he f a c u l t y work f o r c e .
By v i r t u e
and by t h e i r

of t h e i r

l egal

status,

behavi or as r e v e a l e d

p r e s i d e n t s t end to i d e n t i f y wi t h

t h e i r board chai r man' s e x p e c t a t i o n s .
presidents'

collective

Identification
college pr esi dent s'
negotiations w i l l

Nevertheless,

f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s as wel l

board chai r men.
of v a r i a b l e s

i n f l u e n c i n g community

r o l e choi ce d e c i s i o n s or behavi or s i n

ai d i n the under st andi ng of t hose d e c i s i ons

and behavi or s in t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
I mpli cati ons

context.

f o r Community Col l eges

Among t he i m p l i c a t i o n s a r i s i n g
this

t he

b a r g a i n i n g r o l e p r e f e r e nc e s tend to

agree wi t h those of t h e i r
as wi t h t hose of t h e i r

by t he d a t a ,

from t he r e s u l t s

of

st udy ar e t hose r e l a t e d to the need f o r under st andi ng

of i ncumbent s'

rol e expectations,

and i n s t i t u t i o n a l

role c o n fli ct

resolution,

growth and devel opment in the presence of

on- goi ng or i mpending c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining negot i at i ons

at

the community c o l l e g e l e v e l .
The r e v e l a t i o n

of a high i nc i d e nc e of appar ent f a i l u r e

on the p a r t of p r e s i d e n t s
conflict

to c o r r e c t l y

assess r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n

between board chai rmen and f a c u l t y

l e a de r s

is a finding

109

whi ch o f f e r s
the l e a s t

serious

i mplications

among whi ch i n v o l v e s

t he p r e s i d e n t ' s

t h a t assessment and hi s a b i l i t y
in b e h a v i o r a l

f o r community c o l l e g e s :

not

response to

to per f or m s a t i s f a c t o r i a l l y

t er ms.

The f a c t t h a t 61 per cent of t he p r e s i d e n t s
assessed c o n f l i c t

further

emphasi zes t he low f r e q u e n c y o f r o l e

choi ce p e r c e p t i o n agreement w i t h i n
consensus f o r t he r o l e

incorrectly

preference

a gi ven c o l l e g e .

Lack of

c o n t r i b u t e d t o t he p r e s i d e n t ' s

i n a c c u r a t e assessment of t he pr esence or absence o f c o n f l i c t
in p r e f e r e n c e s

between hi s

Had t he p r e s i d e n t

board chai rman and f a c u l t y

correctly

assessment of c o n f l i c t

perceived t h e i r

between hi s

leader.

expectations,

hi s

board chari man and f a c u l t y

l e a d e r would have been more a c c u r a t e .
Incorrect

p e r c e p t i o n of e x p e c t a t i o n s

of concur r ance on r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s
exists

an ur gent need f o r

further

and t he absence
i mpl y t h a t t h e r e

t hose r e s p o n s i b l e f o r campus l e a d e r ­

shi p to i n v e s t i g a t e ways t o c o u nt e r t he l a c k of agreement and
the probl ems whi ch may accompany t h a t c o n d i t i o n .
In g e n e r a l ,

conflict

to i mproved a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

promotes devel opment and may l ead

effectiveness

by f u r n i s h i n g

t he

p r e s i d e n t wi t h wi d e r group o p i ni o n and broadened a n a l y se s of
i ssues.

However,

desirable

control

but e s s e n t i a l

of c o n f l i c t

is

not onl y h i g h l y

t o the achi evement of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

goa l s .
Re sul t s of t h i s
the p r e s i d e n t ' s

role

st udy suggest t h a t

in c o l l e c t i v e

u nd e r s t a n d i n g of

b a r g a i n i n g shoul d be a

110
s u b j e c t f o r s e r i o u s mutual
position

c o n s i d e r a t i o n between p r i n c i p a l

i ncumbents at t i mes and pl aces o t h e r

bargaining t a b l e .

Further,

results

shoul d be communicated t o a l l

t han a t t he

o f such an u nd e r s t a n d i n g

concerned p a r t i e s

on t h a t

campus.
The q u e s t i o n may be r a i s e d :
discussions

and u n d e r s t a nd i n g s

a bl e to f i r s t

syst ems,

b e h a v i o r and r e l a t i o n s h i p s

On t he o t h e r

hand,

is c e n t r a l i z e d ,

and c o n t r o l ,

t he

mutual
gr oups,

c o n f i d e n c e and t r u s t ,
and c o n f l i c t

conditions.

f ocuses

t hrough

individual

by a u t h o r i t y

conflict

arbitration,

and

resolu­

and/or war­

approach t o o r g a n i z a ­
on el ement s

relationships

resolution

may be a d v i s ­

i n c o n t r a s t wi t h

while

"organic"

t i o n d i a g n o s i s and p r e s c r i p t i o n

mi ght such

concern i s more wi t h

t ends t o i n v o l v e s u p p r e s s i o n ,

fare.

It

ar e c h a r a c t e r i z e d

De c i s i o n - ma k i n g

sha r i ng of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
tion

be achi eved?

c o n s i d e r some basi c u n d e r l y i n g

In " mechani cal "

obe di enc e.

how, t h e n ,

within

such as

and between

bargaining

and/or

p r o b l e m- s o l v i ng .
In an e f f e c t i v e
zontal

communi cat i on i s

organization,
relatively

g e n e r a l l y open and share a l l
effort

on a l l

levels

to t r e a t

both l a t e r a l

undistorted,

relevant

facts.

and h o r i ­

peopl e ar e

There

conf1i c t - s i t u a t i o n s

s u b j e c t t o agreed upon p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g methods.

is constant

as probl ems
The o r g a n i ­

z a t i o n and i t s

p a r t s see t hemsel ves as i n t e r a c t i n g

wi t h

o t h e r and wi t h

its

There i s

envi r onment as an open syst em.

each

111
a commonly shared v a l ue of t r y i n g t o hel p each i n d i v i d u a l
or u n i t m a i n t a i n

integrity

and uni queness

i n an i n t e r d e p e n d e n t

envi r o n me n t .
P r o b l e m- s o l v i n g o f t e n
change as we l l

as t he o r g a n i z a t i o n

some o u t s i d e

and c o n s i s t s

1.

t r a n s l a t i o n of an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l pr obl em;

2.

diagnosis

3.

an i n f o r m a t i o n

4.

p r o mol gat i on and a d opt i on

5.

a pilot

6.

evaluation

7.

acceptance--or r e j e c t i o n - - o f

of

need i n t o

training

of a s o l u t i o n ;

operation;

progr am,

internal

organization's

t he new p r oce ss .
directed

r e sour ce s

probl em-sol vi ng

at

t he d e v e l o p ­

i n an e f f o r t
capability

is a highl y de s i r a bl e

to

in

s y s t e ma t i c

pl anned change.

In t erms of i t s

objectives

gram changes t he c l i m a t e
team e f f o r t ,
a l s or groups

increases

or pur poses,

of an o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

t he e f f e c t i v e n e s s

i n t he o r g a n i z a t i o n

such a p r o ­

devel ops

for

conflict

As an exampl e,

interact

wi t h one a n o t h e r ,
probl ems

management.

joint

groups coul d be i n s t i t u t e d

i mproved

w i t h whi ch i n d i v i d u ­

devel ops a more dynamic approach t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
and pr o v i d e s

an

sear ch and dat a r e t r i e v a l ;

l o n g - r a n g e d e v el opme nt ,

process f o r

of:

of r e s u l t s ;

ment of an o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s
i mprove t h a t

agent f o r

the pr obl em;

or e x p e r i me n t a l

An i n - s e r v i c e

facing

involves

boa r d,

administrator,

to i n v e s t i g a t e

and f a c u l t y

t he p o s s i b l e b e n e f i t s

112
and p r o j e c t e d

cost s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t he i n t r o d u c t i o n

new i n s t r u c t i o n a l

program i n t o t he c u r r i c u l u m .

of a

Such an accom­

modati on would ser ve t o promote i mproved communi cat i ons and
to e l i m i n a t e

speculation

conce r ni ng o t h e r s '

que s t i on w h i l e r e du c i n g p o t e n t i a l
Among t he e s s e n t i a l
zational
strategic

position

feels

for

successful

organi­

i s t h a t some one or group in a

t he need f o r

The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

on t he

conflict.

conditions

devel opment e f f o r t s

positions

in-service

i mprovement .
training

approach i n ­

cl udes:
1.

some t ype of i n d o c t r i n a t i o n whi ch ser ves to
p r epa r e p a r t i c i p a n t s f o r subsequent a c t i v i t i e s ;

2.

some ki nd of d y a g n o s t i c

3.

some t ype of group probl em s o l v i n g , c o n c e n t r a t i n g on probl ems t h a t i n t e r f e r wi t h t he e f f e c t i v e ­
ness of the o r g a n i z a t i o n .

In g e n e r a l ,
change:

insecurity,

there

ar e t h r e e

laziness,

sur v ey ;

factors

traditionalism.

which may be i n v o l v e d ar e r o u t i n i z a t i o n
tive

reticence,

financial

which

insufficiency,

inhibit

Ot he r f a c t o r s

of f u n c t i o n s ,

execu­

or empl oyee r e s i s t ­

ance.
Re s i s t a nc e t o change may be reduced

if:

a.

t he program c l e a r l y has t he wh o l e h e a r t e d suppor t
of top o f f i c i a l s in t he o r g a n i z a t i o n ;

b.

p a r t i c i p a n t s vi ew change as r e d u c i n g r a t h e r t han
i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r c u r r e n t burdens or pr obl ems;

c.

p a r t i c ip an t s feel that
ar e not t h r e a t e n e d ;

their

autonomy and s e c u r i t y

113

d.

p a r t i c i p a n t s have j o i n e d i n t he d i a g n o s t i c
e f f o r t s l e a d i n g them t o concur on t he basi c
probl ems and t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e ;

e.

p a r t i c i p a n t s experience acceptance, support,
t r u s t , and c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s wi t h
one a n o t h e r .

A community c o l l e g e ' s
shoul d

i nclude

devel opment program

i nv ol v e me nt o f board members,

top a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

and f a c u l t y

empl oyees and f a c u l t y .
t he s t r a t e g y

internal

leaders

t he p r e s i d e n t ,

in a d d i t i o n

to o t h e r

Wi t hout t he su p po r t of t hese gr oups,

for effective

change i s a p t t o m i s - c a r r y .

The program must suppl y t he nec essar y m o t i v a t i o n
r e i n f o r c e m e n t t o encourage t he d e s i r e d changes
perceptions,
zational

relationships,

attitudes,

p o l i c y must be c o n s i s t a n t w i t h

to t hr ough t he program.
establishing

par amet er s

gram whi ch ar e w i t h i n

and

in values,

and b e h a v i o r s ;

organi­

t he changes a s p i r e d

Caut i on shoul d be e x e r c i s e d

in

f o r measur i ng t he success of t he p r o ­

t he c o n t r o l

of t he o r g a n i z a t i o n

and

t he p a r t i c i p a n t s .
Approaches t o
ar e ve r y s i m i l a r
r e a d i ng

in-service

t e c hni que s

to t hose used i n t r a i n i n g / l e a r n i n g

assi gnment s,

lectures,

strations,

interviews,

simulation

(e.g.,

in-basket,

laboratory

(e.g.,

T-grouping,

ships,

or t e a m - b u i l d i n g

television

conferences,
games,

and f i l m s ,

discussions,

situations
demon­

case s t u d y ,

programmed i n s t r u c t i o n ) ,

sensitivity

training),

intern­

j o b - r o t a t i o n , and coachi ng.
Fi nal

evaluation

analysis

t o d e t e r mi n e

of t he t e c hn i qu e s empl oyed i n v o l v e s
( 1)

if

t he d e s i r e d change i n v a l u e s ,

114

perceptions,

relationships,

experienced,

and ( 2 )

if

attitudes,

there

goals.

Lack of consensus on r o l e

other's

have been

i s a demonst r abl e r e l a t i o n s h i p

to achi evement of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

community c o l l e g e ,

and b e h av i or s

and f a i l u r e

expectations

of a pr es i de nt

expectations ac cu ra t el y,

reveals

w i t h i n a gi ven
to percei ve

an absence o f an un­

d e r s t a n d i n g of t h a t p r e s i d e n t ' s

pr oper r o l e d ur i n g n e g o t i a ­

tions

communi cat i on among t he p r i n ­

and a minimum of e x p l i c i t

cipals

concer ni ng t h a t

role.

Appendi x D p r ovi de s a l i s t
(W)»

indicating

c o l l e g e s wi t h

of concordance c o e f f i c i e n t s

both hi gh or low concor dance.

Of t he f o u r c o l l e g e s whi ch have t he l owest val ues f o r W
(colleges

E,

I,

M,

Q) ,

c u r r e n t l y o p e r a t i n g wi t h
Thi s suggest s t h a t

two ar e among t hose whi ch ar e not
a f a c u l t y mast er agreement c o n t r a c t .

t hese c o l l e g e s

g r i p s wi t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n

have r e a l l y

of t he p r e s i d e n t ' s

not come to

pr oper

role

in

negot i a t i o n s .
At t he o t h e r ext reme
institutions
collective

(colleges

6,

among t hose havi ng t he l o n g e s t

b a r g a i n i n g and whose p r e s i d e n t s

varied educational

administrative

community c o l l e g e s .

It

t au g ht t hese p r e s i d e n t s ,

pr ocess.

H,

their

ar e t h r e e

have e x t e n s i v e

experiences

board c ha i r me n,

0),

h i s t o r y wi t h

may bo surmi sed t h a t

the val ue o f consensus r e g a r d i n g
negotiation

A,

and

i n and out of
e x p e r i e n c e has

and f a c u l t y

various

roles

l eaders
i n t he

115

Ot her s mi ght be w e l l - a d v i s e d

to avail

t hemsel ves of

t he o p p o r t u n i t i e s - - i n wha t ev er form t he y occu>
reach consensus
Re s u l t s
doctoral

degree

in t h e i r
further

to a t t e mp t to

own i n s t i t u t i o n s .
suggest t h a t

in the f i e l d

presidents

of e d u c a t i o n ,

hol di n g a

s e r v i n g l ong t e n u r e s

i n s m a l l e r c o l l e g e s whi ch have c o n s i d e r a b l e e x p e r i e n c e

in

o p e r a t i n g wi t h a f a c u l t y mast er agreement c o n t r a c t p r e f e r
adversa r i al

r o l e s d ur i n g c o l l e c t i v e

Thi s con c l us i on

bargaining

l eaders

f a c u l t y mast er agreement c o n t r a c t ,
t he
It

" Co n s u l t a n t "

appears t h a t

that

of l ong t e n u r e ,

s e r v i ng c o l l e g e s wi t h f o u r or more y e a r s '

ence f o r

negotiations.

i s c o n s i s t a n t wi t h t he f i n d i n g s

board chai rmen and f a c u l t y

t he i n c i d e n c e of p r e f e r ­

there

i s a need to c r y s t a l i z e

In a d d i t i o n ,

leaders

there

i s an a p p a r e n t

role.

voi d mi ght be p a r t i a l l y

by t he c o l l e g e

voi d i n

the p r e p a i a -

t o serve i n t he c o n s u l t a n t or me d i a t o r

an a c t i v e

part

istrative

and n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l

and f a c u l t y

required

t he y may best be per f or med.

president

If--as

t he board

to engage i n an annual

t i o n of t he
Thi s

role

One way t hr ough whi ch such a

f ocusi ng on t he f u n c t i o n s

and how, and by whom,

and t hose

experience with a

need coul d be reduced or e l i m i n a t e d woul d be f o r

"retreat"

for

r o l e was g r e a t e s t .

e x p e c t a t i o n and p e r c e p t i o n .

and f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n

non-

i n r e v i e wi n g

revealed

filled

t he p e r i o d i c
staff

if

presidents

evaluation

by t h e i r

took

of admi n­

supervisors.

by t he d a t a - - p r e s i d e n t , board c h a i r ma n ,

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e groups a l l

have a marked t endency

11 f>
to p r e f e r t he c o n s u l t a n t

role

remai ns as to why f a c u l t y
thrust

local

for presidents,

organizations

shoul d c o n t i n u e t o

f a c u l t y u n i t members i n t o

t he r o l e o f c h i e f

negot i at oi — t h a t of a p r i ma r y a d v e r s a r y
tiations

t he qu e s t i o n

i n t he l o c a l

pr ocess.
I t may be t h a t

t hese f a c u l t y

a w h o l e - - h a v e not

and purpose

of c o l l e c t i v e n e g o t i a t i o n s means t o t h e i r

Once a g a i n ,

board members,
faculty

a "retreat"

the p r e s i d e n t

l eaders

fully

organizations--or

c o l l e g e s as

tutions.

nego­

their

anal ysed what t he f u n c t i o n

or

"workshop"

insti­

involving

and o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

i s suggest ed a t a t i me when meani ngf ul

and
dis­

cussi on would not be cl ouded by heat and smoke o f a c t i v e
negot i a t i o ns .
Eq ua l l y as u n c l e a r
colleges

is

that

in

havi ng o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

negotiator for

t he boa r d,

identify

role

their
Aga i n,

consideration

the f i f t e e n
functioning

so many p r e s i d e n t s

b e h a v i o r as t h a t

and u nd e r s t a n d i n g of v a r i o u s

be achi eved

o t h e r t han a t t he

bargaining

the answer

may be p r o f f e r e d :

to e f f e c t

internal

r esour ces

p r o b l e m- s o l v i n g
The r o l e
dicated

at

as c h i e f
still

of Board Agent .

t he q u e s t i o n may be r a i s e d :

ing program d i r e c t e d

(12)

community

how mi ght mutual
participants
table?

roles

And, a g a i n ,

an i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n ­

the devel opment of t he o r g a n i z a t i o n

i n an e f f o r t

to i mprove t he o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s

capability.
preferences

that manyregard

s

expr essed by t he p r e s i d e n t s

t hemsel ves

in a p o s i t i o n

in­

as t o t a l

117

institutional

l e a d e r and t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t s o l e l y
or an e d u c a t i o n a l

manager i al

technician

presidents

pl aced emphasi s on bei ng i n a n o n - a d v e r s a r i a l

r o l e as e i t h e r c o n s u l t a n t
i ng board and f a c u l t y .
ness on t he p a r t

to,

leader.

as a

or me d i a t o r bet ween,

Thi s may ver y wel l

of t hese c h i e f e x e c u t i v e s

and t o devel op and p r a c t i c e

a new s t y l e

Accor di ng t o Har l and C l e v e l a n d ,
U n i v e r s i t y of H a w a i i ,
t ance of d e c i s i o n s

executives

i mp o r ­
re­

managed i n new ways by new

have t o be b i g g e r and more

of real

power and w i t h more

e x e c u t i v e s must c o n s e qu e n t l y

of t hose c o n s u l t e d

ar e i mpressed wi t h

t oward more con-

90

responsibility,

t h i n g done and f i n d i n g
in l a t e r a l

p r e s i d e n t o f t he

administration

of o p e r a t i o n .

With wi d e r d i s p e r s i o n

widen t he c i r c l e

of l e a d e r s h i p .

a l r e a d y e v e r y ki nd of o r g a n i z t i o n

i s moving away from v e r t i c a l

sha r i ng of r e a l

t o a c c e p t change

The f u t u r e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e nv i r onme nt hol ds

i n c l u s i v e t han ever w h i l e

styles

a readi­

t o be made by f u t u r e e x e c u t i v e s w i l l

promi se t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i l l

sultative

indicate

t he g o v e r n ­

growth i n t he number and p u b l i c

q u i r e new ki nds of o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,
ki nds of peo pl e .

H a l f t he

i n making d e c i s i o n s .

t he d i f f i c u l t i e s

Top

o f g e t t i n g a ny­

t hemsel ves spendi ng more o f t h e i r

t i me

consultations.

Ex e c ut i v e s accustomed to more v e r t i c a l modes or
nar r ower ranges of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . . . ar e o f t e n
s u r p r i s e d a t t he way t h e i r opt i on s are narrowed by
9 0 Har l and C l e v e l a n d , "The De c i s i o n Ma k e r s , "
The Cent er Magazi ne ( S e p t e mb e r / O c t o b e r , 1 973 ) , p. 11 and 12.

118

l a t e r a l bargaining
ordinates . .

and agreement s among t h e i r

Cl e v e l a n d goes on to p r e d i c t
will:

(1)

be more i n t e l l e c t u a l ,

that

d e c i s i o n s made;

(2)

executives

capabl e o f p l ungi ng

t he compl ex s t a f f work where t he o p t i o n s
t he r e a l

future

sub­

into

ar e anal ysed and

be l ow- ke y p e o p l e ,

likely

to c a l l

talent

f o r many- si ded consensus t han f o r t w o - s i d e d d e b a t i n g ,

and ( 4 )

a meet i ng and a c t by consensus;

increasingly

have t he opt i mi sm of

t he doer ,

(3)

justified

mi n a t i o n t o o r g a n i z e a f u t u r e wi t h a d i f f e r e n c e .
The a u t o c r a t i c
style

appraoch i s

show more

by a d e t e r 92

si mpl y not an a p p r o p r i a t e

f o r an academi c i n s t i t u t i o n - - w h e t h e r on t he p a r t of

t he c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
ganization.

or f a c u l t y

There ought to be ample o p p o r t u n i t i e s

members of t he o r g a n i z a t i o n
toward goal

gov er ni ng boar d,

to c o n t r i b u t e

or­

for all

significant

i mputs

s e t t i n g and the s o l v i n g of t he i n s t i t u t i o n ' s

p r o b l e ms .
5ugge s t i o n s

for

F u r t h e r Research

Based on t he dat a c o l l e c t e d
from t he s t u d y ,

t he f o l l o w i n g

the ar ea of community c o l l e g e
Research
flict

resolution,

selection

into

and t he c o n c l us i on drawn

areas o f a d d i t i o n a l

in p a r t i c u l a r

tenure

13.

92 I b i d . , p.

14 and 15.

shared a u t h o r i t y ,

predictability,

ar e suggest ed.

91 I b i d . , p.

in

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ar e i n d i c a t e d .

l ocus of power,

position

research

con­

and successor

119

St udi es f o c u s i n g on t he p r e s i d e n t ' s
perceive c o n f l i c t
two l e v e l s
faculty)

and t h e p r e s i d e n t ' s

of t he o r g a n i z a t i o n

(e.g.,

role

college presidents'

o f t he v a r i a b l e s

role

as a l i n k

to
between

g ov er ni ng board and

ar e a l s o f e a s i b l e and d e s i r a b l e

a t t he i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

failure

as i s r e s e a r c h aimed

i n f l u e n c i n g community

d e c i s i o n and b e h a v i o r i n c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining negot i at i ons.
St udi es

r e g a r d i n g t he d e c i s i o n - ma k i n g pr ocesses em­

pl oyed i n community c o l l e g e s

and t he communi cat i on o f c o l l e g e

goal s ar e needed.
B e n e f i t s may accr ue t o e x e c u t i v e devel opment as f i n d ­
i ngs of such s t u d i e s mi ght e x e r t an i mpact on both t he p r e ­
s e r v i c e and i n - s e r v i c e
mi ni s t r a t i on .

training

programs i n e d u c a t i o n a l

ad-

APPENDICES

120

APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE

121

president ' s expectations instrument

P r e s id e n t

Community C o lle g e

AM - absolutely o u t

PSN ' Preferably should act

PS - preferably should

'

absolutely must not

f.'t.fN - may o r may not

" A * a CLomuftAXtj college pfie&ldent, what o b lig a tio n * do you beet
th a t you. have, to do ott not to do the fiolZowtng thing*? .
F o r each o f th e f o llo w in g ite m s , c i r c l e th e a b b r e v ia t io n w h ic h most a c c u r a t e ly
re p r e s e n ts y o u r c h o ic e :

1.

Make recommendations for the appointment, promotion, or dismissal of

subordinates on the baBis of merit alone.
m

2.

MMN

PS

PS

MMN

A*®

PSN

AMN

PS

PSN

AMS

f o r th e d e c is io n s o f y o u r s u b o r d in a te s .
MMN

Keep a w a tc h fu l eye on th e p e r s o n a l l i f e
AM

6.

PS

A ccept f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
AM

5.

™

C a rry o u t d e c is io n s o f y o u r b o a rd w hich you b e l i e v e t o be unsound.
AM

lj.

MMN

Urge p e o p le whom you r e s p e c t t o run f o r p o s it io n s on th e b o a rd o f t r u s t e e s
AM

3.

pS

MMN

PSN

AMN

o f y o u r s u b o r d in a te s .
PSN

AMN

C o o p erate w i l l i n g l y w it h re s e a rc h e rs who a r e a tte m p tin g t o advance know­
le d g e i n th e f i e l d o f c o lle g e management.
AM

7.

PS

MMN

PSN

AMN

R efuse t o recommend th e d is m is s a l o f a f a c u l t y member th e p u b lic w ants
d is m is s e d i f you a r e co n v in c e d t h a t th e p u b lic c o m p la in t i s

in v a lid .

123

8.

Have on p a p e r a lo n g ra n g e develo pm ent p l a n .
AM

9.

Am

ps

v a c a n t f a c u l t y p o s it io n s .
MMN

PSN

AMN

ps

MMN

PSN

AMN

PS

MMN

PSN

AMN

PS

MMN

PSN

AMN

PSN

AMN

H e lp y o u r f a c u l t y t o g e t h ig h e r s a l a r i e s .
AM

ih.

in f i l l i n g

E s t a b lis h r e g u l a r ch a n n els o f com m unication w it h l o c a l news m e d ia .
AM

13.

AMN

G iv e a h e lp in g hand t o b o a rd members vho a r e coming up f o r r e - e l e c t i o n .

AM
12 .

PSN

Take d i r e c t io n s fro m i n d i v i d u a l b o a rd members.
AM

11.

MMN

G ive c o n s id e r a tio n t o l o c a l v a lu e s o r f e e l in g s r e g a r d in g r a c e , r e l i g i o n ,
n a tu ra l o r ig in ,

10.

ps

PS

MMN

Encourage t h e fo r m a tio n o f l o c a l l a y co m m ittees t o c o o p e ra te w it h b o a rd
co m m ittees f o r th e purpose o f s tu d y in g c o lle g e p ro b le m s .
AM

15.

Take a d e f i n i t e

PS

MMN

PSN

AMN

s ta n d a g a in s t any u n re a s o n a b le demands w h ic h may come

fro m l o c a l ta x p a y e r s .
AM

16.

PSN

AMN

PS

MMN

PSN

AMN

H e lp th e b o a rd r e s i s t demands by t h e f a c u l t y f o r h ig h e r s a l a r i e s .

AM
18.

MMN

A v o id in v o lv e m e n t w it h f a c t i o n a l groups in t h e com m unity.
AM

17.

PS

PS

MMN

PSN

AMN

I n d e v e lo p in g th e a n n u a l b u d g e t, g iv e g r e a t e r c o n s id e r a tio n t o c o s t
f a c t o r s th a n t o e d u c a tio n a l needs.
AM

19.

PS

MMN

C o n s u lt w it h s t a f f members about f i l l i n g

PSN

AMN

v a c a n t a d m in is t r a t iv e

p o s it io n s .

AM

PS

MMN

PSN

AMN

124
20.

" P la y up t o " i n f l u e n t i a l l o c a l c i t i z e n s
AM

21.

PS

MMN

(s ta te o f fic e r s ) .
PSN

AMN

D efen d y o u r f a c u l t y memberd fro m a t t a c k vhen t h e y a tte m p t t o p re s e n t
th e p ro s and cons o f v a r io u fi c o n t r o v e r s ia l s o c ia l and p o l i t i c a l is s u e s .
AM

22.

PS

MMN

PSN

AMN

S ecure o u ts id e h e lp fro m " e x p e r ts " when program changes a r e b e in g
c o n s id e re d .
AM

23.

MMN

PSN

AMN

O c c a s io n a lly compromise w it h l o c a l p re s s u re g ro u p sAM

2k.

PS

PS

MMN

PSN

AMN

Take a n e u t r a l s ta n d on any is s u e on w h ic h th e community seems t o be
e v e n ly s p l i t .
AM

25.

PS

MMN

PSN

AMN

Work on com m ittees sponsored b y t h e s t a t e d e p a rtm e n t o f e d u c a tio n ,
l e g i s l a t u r e , a n d /o r p r o f e s s io n a l o r g a n iz a t io n s .
AM

PS

MMN

PSN

AMN

p r e s id e n t ' s personal data instrument

______ Community College

___

1.

Y o u r b i r t h d a t e : _______________________

2.

D a te you assumed y o u r p r e s e n t p o s it io n :

3.

What was y o u r im m ed iate p r i o r p o s it io n :

1+.

President

What ( o t h e r ) p r i o r community c o lle g e e x p e rie n c e have you had?
A d m in is tr a tiv e :
Y ears
I n s t r u c t i o n a l : _________________________________________________ Y ears
Y ears

5.

Have you had any a d d i t i o n a l A d m in is t r a t iv e a n d /o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l
e x p e rie n c e s ?
If

________ Yes

NO

'y e s ', le v e l o r t i x l e :

Years_
Y ears
Y ears

6.

What earn e d deg re es do you now h o ld ?
Level

F ie ld

In s titu tio n

Y e ar G ra n te d

BA/BS___________ ___________________

_____________________

MA/MS

_____________________ ___________________

_

________________

EdD/PhD_________ __________________ _

_____________________ ____________________

OTHER

_____________________

._

125

_________

p r e s id e n t ' s perception instrument

Community College

l)

(B )

(B )

2

5

k

(B )

(C )

(D )

Do you f e e l t h a t f o r t h e f a c u l t y o r g a n iz a t io n l e a d e r t o h o ld such an
e x p e c t a t io n f o r h is p r e s id e n t i s r i g h t and re a s o n a b le ?
NO

S h ould yo u n o t p e rfo rm i n a c c o rd w it h y o u r f a c u l t y o r g a n iz a t io n l e a d e r 's
c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a in in g n e g o t i a t io n s , w hat d e g re e o f n e g a tiv e r e a c t io n
w ould such a p e rfo rm a n c e in d u c e on t h e p a r t o f y o u r f a c u l t y o r g a n iz a t io n
le a d e r?
1

8)

3

Based upon y o u r e x p e rie n c e h e re a t t h i s com m unity c o l l e g e , w hat r o l e do
you p e r c e iv e y o u r f a c i l i t y o r g a n iz a t io n l e a d e r e x p e c ts you t o assume
d u r in g c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a in in g n e g o t ia t io n s betw een y o u r b o a rd and f a c u lt y ?

YES
7)

(D )

NO

(A )
6)

(C )

S hould you n o t p e rfo rm i n a c c o rd w it h y o u r b o a rd c h a irm a n 's e x p e c t a t io n
d u r in g c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a in in g n e g o t i a t io n s , w hat d e g re e o f n e g a tiv e
r e a c t i o n w ould such a p e rfo rm a n c e in d u c e on t h e p a r t o f y o u r b o a rd chairm an?
1

5)

(D )

Do you f e e l t h a t f o r t h e b o a rd c h a irm an t o h o ld such an e x p e c t a t io n f o r
h is p r e s id e n t i s r i g h t and re a s o n a b le ?
YES

b)

(C )

Based upon y o u r e x p e rie n c e h e r e a t t h i s community c o l l e g e , w hat r o l e
do you p e r c e iv e y o u r b o a rd c h a irm a n e x p e c ts yo u t o assume d u r in g c o l l e c t i v e
b a r g a in in g n e g o t ia t io n s betw een y o u r b o a rd and f a c u lty ?
(A )

3)

President

Based upon y o u r p e r s o n a l b a c k g ro u n d , t r a i n i n g * and p h ilo s o p h ic a l p o s i t i o n ,
v h a t do you c o n s id e r t o be y o u r p r o p e r r o l e as p r e s id e n t d u r in g c o l l e c t i v e
b a r g a in in g n e g o t ia t io n s betw een y o u r b o a rd and f a c u lt y ?
(A )

2)

_

2

3

b

5

Based on t h e c u r r e n t o r most r e c e n t p a s t c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a in in g n e g o t ia ­
t io n s betw een th e b o a rd and f a c u l t y a t t h i s c o l l e g e , w h ic h r o l e d id you
a c t u a l l y p erfo rm ?
(A )

(B )

(C )

126

{D)

BOARD CHAIRMAN EXPECTATION INSTRUMENT
Community College
Based upon y o u r e x p e rie n c e a t t h i s

Respondent (T)

community c o l l e g e ,

w hat do y o u , as c h a irm en o f y o u r Board o f T r u s t e e s ,
c o n s id e r t o he th e p r o p e r r o l e o f th e c o lle g e p r e s id e n t
d u r in g c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a in in g n e g o t ia t io n s betw een y o u r
f a c u l t y o r g a n iz a t io n and t h e B oard o f T ru s te e s ?
( I f y o u r f a c u l t y does n o t now b a r g a in c o l l e c t i v e l y ,
assume t h a t n e g o t ia t io n s w i l l be con ducted d u r in g th e
e n s u in g y e a r . )
P le a s e r a n k th e f o llo w in g a l t e r n a t i v e s b y i n d i c a t i n g y o u r p r e fe r e n c e
as " 1 " , second c h o ic e as ”2 " , t h i r d c h o ic e as
3 , and l e a s t p r e f e r r e d
as " It" .

(A )

BOARD AGENT
s e rv e s p r i m a r i l y as an a g e n t o f t h e b o a r d , e i t h e r as th e
c h i e f n e g o t i a t o r o r aB t h e p erso n w it h t h e m a jo r r e s p o n s i­
b ility

(B )

f o r a s s e r t io n o f th e b o a r d 1b p o s it io n i n n e g o t ia t io n s ;

FACULTY SPOKESMAN
is

i d e n t i f i e d as spokesman f o r t h e p r o f e s s io n a l i n t e r e s t s

o f th e f a c u l t y ;
(C )

MEDIATOR
f u n c tio n s as an a g e n t o f m e d ia tio n w it h t h e board and f a c u l t y .
C onduct b s e s s io n s w it h r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s o f b o th groups in th e
i n t e r e s t o f a c h ie v in g a s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s o l u t io n o f d i f f e r e n c e s ;

(D )

CONSULTANT
a c t s as a p r im a ry re s o u rc e p erso n f o r b o th g ro u p s , p r o v id in g
in fo r m a t io n on r e q u e s t w hich may be u t i l i z e d
and r e c o n c il i n g l o c a l is s u e s .

127

in c la r if y in g

FACULTY LEADER EXPECTATION INSTRUMENT
c o -u n ity C ollege

B e .jo n a .n t (F)

Based upon y o u r e x p e rie n c e a t t h i s community c o lle g e *
w hat do y o u , as head o f y o u r f a c u l t y o r g a n iz a t io n ,
c o n s id e r t o be t h e p ro p e r r o l e o f t h e c o lle g e p r e s id e n t
d u r in g c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a in in g n e g o tia t io n s betw een y o u r
f a c u l t y o r g a n iz a t io n and t h e Board o f T ru s te e s ?

f l f v o u r f a c u l t y doeB n o t now b a r g a in c o l l e c t i v e l y , assume
t h a t n e g o t ia t io n s v i l l he co n d u cted d u r in g t h e e n s u in g y e a r . )
th e f o llo w in g a l t e r n a t i v e s by i n d i c a t i n g y o u r p r e fe r e n c e
" c o n f c t o i c e as8 " 2 " . t h i r d c h o ic e as " 3 " , and l e a s t p r e f e r r e d

Is
as ’V .

(A )

BOARD AGENT
s e rv e s p r i m a r i l y as an a g e n t o f th e b o a r d , e i t h e r as th e
c h i e f n e g o t ia t o r o r as t h e perso n w it h th e m a jo r r e s p o n s i­
b ility

(b )

faculty

is

f o r a s s e r t io n o f t h e b o a rd ’ s p o s it io n i n n e g o t ia t io n s ;
spo kesm a n

i d e n t i f i e d as spokesman f o r th e p r o f e s s io n a l i n t e r e s t s

o f th e f a c u l t y ;
____ (C )

MEDIATOR
f u n c tio n s as an a g e n t o f m e d ia tio n w it h th e b o a rd and f a c u l t y .
Conducts s e s s io n s w it h r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s o f b o th groups in t h e
i n t e r e s t o f a c h ie v in g a s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s o l u t io n o f d i f f e r e n c e s ;

(D )

CONSULTANT
a c ta as a p rim a ry re s o u rc e person f o r b o th g ro u p s , p r o v id in g
in f o r m a t io n on r e q u e s t w h ic h may be u t i l i z e d
and r e c o n c il i n g l o c a l is s u e s .

128

in c la r ify in g

INSTITUTIONAL DATA INSTRUMENT
Community College

1.

How many F i s c a l Y e a r E q u ated S tu d e n ts (FYES) w e re
Academic Y e a r 1 9 7 2 -7 3 (AY 7 2 - 7 3 )?

2.

Is th e

f a c u l t y c u r r e n t l y o p e r a t in g

________ YES
3.

re p o rte d fo r th e

___________________________ FYES
u n d e r a M a s te r Agreem ent C o n tra c t?

_________ HO

How many such ( a n n u a l) c o n tr a c t s have t h e r e been n e g o tia te d ? ___________
D a te o f o r i g i n a l ?

U.

Respondent

___________________

A re o t h e r th a n f a c u l t y group s c u r r e n t l y o p e r a t in g

u n d e r a M a s te r

Agreem ent C o n t r a c t , o r i n t h e p ro c e s s o f b a r g a in in g c o l l e c t i v e l y ?
________ Y E S ________NO
5.

Whos e rv e s

as c h i e f

n e g o tia to r

f o r t h e board?

________ Board member
P r e s id e n t
O th e r A d m in is t r a t o r
O u ts id e P r o f e s s io n a l
C o lle g e A t to r n e y
O th e r:
6.

Who s e rv e s aB c h i e f n e g o t i a t o r f o r t h e f a c u lt y ?
________ F a c u lt y member
O u ts id e

’ u n io n 1 o f f i c i a l

O th e r:
7*

D a te th e c h a irm a n became a member o f t h i s

8.

D a te t h e f a c u l t y o r g a n iz a t io n l e a d e r became a member o f th e f a c u l t y o f
t h is

c o lle g e ? _____________________________

129

c o lle g e board?

APPENDIX B
COVER LETTERS FOR QUESTIONNAIRE

130

Dear Mr. President:
Thank you f o r a g r e e in g t o be in c lu d e d i n th e P r e s id e n t 's R o le
S u rv e y .
E n clo sed you w i l l f i n d c o p ie s o f two b r i e f q u e s tio n n a ir e s :
a
" P r e s id e n t 's E x p e c ta tio n s In s tru m e n t" and a " P r e s id e n t 's P e rs o n a l
D a ta In s t r u m e n t" .
P le a s e co m p lete b o th forms p r i o r t o o u r sch ed u led
I n t e r v ie w m e e tin g , a t w hich tim e I w i l l p ic k them up.
Your c o o p e r a tio n and p a r t i c i p a t i o n

a re g r e a t l y a p p r e c ia te d .

S i n c e r e ly ,

C u r t is S. M u rto n , J r .

131

D e a r Board Chairm an:
As chairm an o f yo u r co lleg e's Board o f T ru s te e s , you a re being
requested to p artic ip ate in a survey study concerning M ichigan
com m unity colleges involving board ch a irm e n , faculty organization
lead ers, and college presidents.
P lease answ er the single question you w ill find on the enclosed fo rm
and re tu rn the form in the p re-a d d re ss ed , postage-paid envelope
provided. Note that a ranking, 1 to 4 , is requested.
V o u r response is im portant and I look forw ard to including it in the
survey re s u lts . Thank you fo r yo u r cooperation and p artic ip atio n .
S in c e re ly ,

C u rtis S . M u rto n , J r .
D octoral Candidate
M ichigan S tate U n ive rsity

132

D e a r Faculty Leader:
A s head of yo u r co lleg e's F aculty O rg an ization ,you a re being
requested to p artic ip ate in a survey study concerning M ichigan
com m unity colleges involving board ch a irm e n , faculty organization
le a d e rs , and college p residents.
Please answer the single question you w ill find on the enclosed fo rm
and re tu rn the fo rm in the p re-ad d ressed , postage-paid envelope
provided. Note th at a ranking, 1 to 4 , is requested.
V o u r response is im portant and I look forw ard to including it in the
survey re s u lts . Thank you for y o u r cooperation and p artic ip atio n .
S in c e re ly ,

C u rtis S . M u rto n , J r .
Doctoral Candidate
M ichigan S tate U n iv e rs ity

APPENDIX C . - - I n s t i t u t i o n a l Data Summary f o r Sample Colleges,
Community
College
Bay De Noc
Delta

Faculty
M. A.
Yes
No

Total
Years
2

Other
M. A.

Negotiator*
Board Faculty

No

P

F

-

Yes

A

1972-73**
FYES

Parti ci pating
Respondents*

652

P-B-F

-

4,638

P-B-F
P-B-F

Genesee

Yes

7

Yes

A

F

5,199

Glen Oaks

Yes

6

Yes

A

F

486

P-B

Gogebic

Yes

7

No

A

F

570

P

Jackson

Yes

7

No

A

F

2,258

P-B-F

Kalamazoo

Yes

4

No

B

F

2,419

P-B-F

Kellogg

Yes

9

Yes

A

F

2,195

P-B-F

Kirtland

Yes

5

No

A

F

504

P-B-F

Lake Michigan

Yes

8

Yes

A

F

1,607

P-B

Lansing

Yes

4

No

A

F

4,711

-B

Macomb

Yes

7

Yes

A

F

9,539

P-B-F

Mid Michigan

Yes

5

No

A

F

474

P-B-F

Monroe

Yes

5

Yes

A

F

1,079

P-B-F

Montcalm

Yes

5

No

N

F

567

P-B-F

Muskegon

Yes

9

Yes

N

F

2,263

-

-

576

F

P-B
P

North Central

No

-

Northwestern

No

-

Yes

A

-

1 ,627

P-B-F

No

Oakland

Yes

7

Yes

A

F

8,717

P-B-F

St. Cl ai r

Yes

3

Yes

C

F

1,943

P-B-F

Schoolcraft

Yes

9

Yes

A

F

3,725

P-B-F

SouLhwesLern

Yes

6

No

A

F

834

P-B-F

Washtenaw

Yes

7

Yes

A

F

2,291

P-B-F

Wayne

Yes

2

Yes

A

F

7,140

P-B

West Shore

Yes

3

No

B

F

538

P-B-F

*B=Board Member; P=President; A=0ther Administrator; N=0utside Professional
Negotiator; C=College Attorney; F=Faculty Member.
**Final Enrollment Report on Appendix A - l :
Colleges. Bureau of Budget, Spring 1973.
134

Enrollments, Community/Junior

APPENDIX D. - - C o n c o r d a n c e
Col 1ege
A

W*
.91
CO

B

(W) W i t h i n

Colleges.
2d2
41
35

C

. 73

33

D

.64

29

E

.11

5

F

. 56

25

G

.91

41

H

.91

41

I

. 20

9

J

.56

25

K

.42

19

L

. 73

33

M

. 20

9

N

. 38

17

0

.91

41

P

. 73

33

Q

. 17

21

R

.73

33

*Perfect

Concordance = + 1 . 0

135

APPENDIX E . - - C o n s e n s u s

Rol e Ra n k i n g by C o l l e g e s .

Col 1ege

Board
Agent
(A)

Faculty
Spokesman
(B)

Me d i a t o r
(C)

Co n s u l t a n t
(D)

A

1

4

2

3

B

3

4

2

C

1

4

3

2

D

1

4

2

3

E

3

4

1

2

F

3

4

2

1

G

1

4

2

3

H

3

4

2

1

I

4

4

3

1

J

2

4

1

3

K

3

4

2

1

L

1

4

3

2

1*1

4

2

3

1

N

1

4

3

2

0

3

4

2

1

P

1

4

2

3

Q

4

3

2

1

R

1

4

3

2

136

'

1

APPENDIX F. —Predicted Behaviors of Presidents in 48 Types of
Role Conflict.
Types of Role Conflict
Expectation Perception:
Board Chairman
Faculty Leader
Legitimate? Sanctions? Legitimate? Sanctions?

Predicted Behavior
Orientation Predisposition

Yes

S

Yes

S

c

C

C

Yes

w

Yes

S

c

B

B

Yes

s

Yes

w

c

A

A

Yes

w

Yes

w

c

C

C

Yes

s

No

S

A

C

A

Yes

w

No

S

A

B

C

Yes

s

No

A

A

A

Yes

w

No

w
w

A

A

A

No

s

Yes

S

B

C

B

No

w

Yes

s

B

B

B

No

s

Yes

B

A

C

No

w

Yes

w
w

B

B

B

No

s

No

s

D

C

C

No

w

No

s

D

B

B

No

s

No

D

A

A

No

w

No

w
w

D

D

D

M = Moralist
E = Expedient
M/E = Moral-Expedient

S = Strong
W = Weak

137

A
B
C
D

=
=
=
=

Board Agent
Faculty Spokesman
Mediator
Consultant

APPENDIX G.—Composite Results of Selections on the President's
Personal Orientation Predisposition Expectations
Instrument.
Item
Number

Expectations f {%}
AM(1)

PS (2)

MMN(3)

1/

15 (62.5)

8 (33.3)

1 ( 4.2)

0

0

1.47

2/

1 ( 4.2)

1 ( 4.2)

8 (33.3)

7 (29.2)

7 (29.2)

3.75

3/

10 (41.7)

5 (20.8)

4 (16.7)

5 (20.8)

0

2.17

4/

13 (54.2)

10 (41.7)

1 ( 4.2)

0

0

1.50

5/

1 ( 4.2)

1 ( 4.2)

3 (12.4)

7 (29.2)

3.96

6/

4 (16.7)

15 (62.5)

5 (20.8)

0

0

2.04

7/

20 (83.3)

2 ( 8.3)

1 ( 4.2)

0

1 (4.2)

1.33

8/

12 (50.0)

11 (45.8)

1 ( 4.2)

0

0

1.54

9/

1 ( 4.2)

9 (37.5)

7 (29.2)

2 ( 8.3)

5 (20.8)

3.04

10/

0

0

7 (29.2)

3 (12.4)

14 (58.4)

4.29

11/

0

1 ( 4.2)

6 (25.0)

6 (25.0)

11 (45.8)

4.13

0

1 ( 4.2)

0

0

1.08

0

1 ( 4.2)

2.58

PSN(4)

12 (50.0)

AMN(5)

X

12/

23 (95.8)

13/

2 { 8.3)

8 (33.3)

13 (54.2)

14/

4 (16.7)

8 (33.3)

9 (37.6)

3 (12.4)

0

2.46

15/

10 (41.7)

9 (37.5)

5 (20.8)

0

0

1.79

16/

8 (33.3)

8 (33.3)

6 (25.0)

2 ( 8.4)

0

2.08

17/

1 ( 4.2)

0

22 (91.6)

0

1 ( 4.2)

3.00

18/

0

1 ( 4.2)

10 (41.7)

10 (41.7)

3 (12.4)

3.63

0
-> (12.4)

1 (4.2)
o
L. ( 8.4)

1.67
3.00

19/

14 (58.4)

6 (25.0)

3 (12.4)

20/

2 ( 8.4)

3 (12.4)

14 (58.4)

21/

14 (58.4)

7 (29.2)

3 (12.4)

0

0

1.67

22/

4 (16.8)

10 (41.7)

10 (41.7)

0

0

2.25

23/

1 ( 4.2)

4 (16.7)

15 (62.5)

3 (12.4)

1 ( 4.2)

2.96

24/

0

1 ( 4.2)

20 (83.4)

3 (12.4)

0

3.08

25/

7 (29.2)

15 (62.5)

2 ( 8.3)

0

0

1.79

Totals

167 (27.8)

143 (23.8) 177 (29.5)

138

59 ( 9.8)

54 ( 9.1)

2.48

APPENDIX H . - - R e q u e s t t o use M a t e r i a l s .
Oct ober

15,

1973

Dr. Neal Gross, Dean
Gr aduat e School o f Educat i on
U n i v e r s i t y of Pe nn s y l v a n i a
3700 Wal nut S t r e e t
P h i l a d e l p h i a , PA.
19174
Dear Dr.

Gross:

I am c u r r e n t l y wor ki ng on my d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n a t M i c h i ­
gan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and am w r i t i n g t h i s l e t t e r f o l l o w i n g
my t e l e ph on e c o n v e r s a t i o n wi t h your s e c r e t a r y t h i s mor ni ng.
My d i s s e r t a t i o n concerns a st udy of r o l e c o n f l i c t r e s o l u ­
t i o n by community c o l l e g e c h i e f e x e c u t i v e s i n c o l l e c t i v e
bargaining s i t u a t i o n s .
The t h r e e r e f e r e n t groups bei ng con­
s i d e r e d ar e t he p r e s i d e n t s , board cha i r me n, and f a c u l t y
o r g a n i z a t i o n l e a d e r s i n each o f t he autonomous p u b l i c com­
muni t y c o l l e g e s i n Mi c h i g a n .
I would a p p r e c i a t e r e c e i v i n g y our per mi ss i on to adapt and
use your " E x p e c t a t i o n s f o r S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s Per f or mances"
i n s t r u me n t and t he f o u r p r e d i c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e b e h a v i o r s
f o r t he purpose of t e s t i n g your Rol e C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n
model i n t he s e t t i n g d e s c r i b e d above.
I w i l l , of course,
be p l e as e t o acknowl edge tin? p r i ma r y source of t he i t e ms .
Thank you f o r your c o n s i d e r a t i o n
Sincerely,
( Si gn e d )

Curtis

S.

Mu r t on,

Jr.

C u r t i s S. Mur t on, J r .
409 Cot t age S t r e e t
C l a r e , Mi chi gan 48517

139

and e a r l y

reply.

APPENDIX I . - - P e r m i s s i o n

to use M a t e r i a l s .

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Philadelphia
Gr aduat e School
Neal

Gross,

19104

of Educat i on
Dean

Oct ober 17,

Dear Mr.

1973

Murt on:

I hereby g r a n t you per mi ss i on t o adapt and use t he
i n s t r u me n t s from Ex p i o r a t i ons i n Rol e Ana 1ys i s s p e c i f i e d
i n par agr aph t h r e e of your l e t t e r of Oct ober 15, 1973.
Best wi shes f o r

success i n your d i s s e r t a t i o n .
Sincerely,

(signed)

NG: g j s
Mr. C u r t i s S. Mur t on, J r .
409 Cot t age St reet .
C l a r e , M i c h i g a n 40617

140

Neal

Gross

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

141

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
Ba r n a r d,

Chest er I .
Cambri dge:

O r g a n i z a t i o n and Management .
Harvar d U n i v e r s i t y Pr e s s , 1952.

.
Funct i ons of t he E x e c u t i v e .
U n i v e r s i t y Pr e ss , 1962.

Cambri dge:

Har var d

Biddle,

Bruce J . , and Thomas, Edwin J . , e d i t o r s .
Rol_e
Theor y:
Concepts and Re s e a r c h .
New York:
John
Wi l e y and Sons, I n c . , 1966.

Blocker,

Cl yde E. ; Plummer, Rober t H.
and Ri c h a r d s o n ,
Ri char d C . , J r .
The Two- Year C o l l e g e :
A So c i a l
Synt hesi s .
Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . :
Prentice-Hal1 ,
I n c . , 1 965.

Bo u l d i n g , E l i s e , e d i t o r .
C o n f l i c t Management i n Organi za, tions.
Ann Ar bor :
Foundat i on f o r Research i n
Human B e h a v i o r , 1961.
B o u l d i n g , Kennet h.
"Two P r i n c i p l e s o f C o n f l i c t , " and
"A Pure Theor y of C o n f l i c t Ap p l i e d t o O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
Power and C o n f l i c t i n Organi z a t i o n s .
E d i t e d by
Rober t L. Kahn and t l i s e B o u l d i n g , New Yor k:
Basi c
Books, I n c . , 1964.
Cleveland, Harlan.
T h ^ u J _ u j:^ i^ c u tlv e .
New York:
Harper & Row P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . ,
\ u / .
Cohen
Cohen,

A r t h u r M. and Roueche, John E. I n s t i t u t i on a! Admi_n^ t h u r ^ . ^ FH| | r at i nna1 Leader :
The J u n i o r . M l i a e
President.
Washi ngt on, D. C. :
Ameri can A s s o c i a t i o n
o f Juni or Col l eges , 1 969.

Corson,

John J.
Governanc_e_ o f _ C o 1.1 eges and U n i v e r s i t i e s.
New Yo r k : " M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company, I n c . , 1960.

Downi e,

N. W. and Heat h, R. W.
3rd E d i t i o n .
New York:

Fdwards

Basi c S t a t i s t i c a l Het h.qds.
Ha r per and Row, 1970.

Al l e n Louis.
S t a t i s t i c a l Met hods f o r t he B e h a v i o r a l
’S
s cciieenncceess..
2nd ed.
New York:
H o l t , R i n e h a r t , and
Wi nst on, 1967.

142

143
Etzioni,

Amitai.
Modern O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
Englewood C l i f f s ,
N. J . :
P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1964.

Getzels,

J. W.
" A d m i n i s t r a t i o n as a So c i a l Pr o c e s s . "
Admi ni st r a t i v e Theory i n E d u c a t i o n .
Andrew W,
Halpin, e d i t o r .
Chi cago:
U n i v e r s i t y o f Chi cago,
1 958.

Gross,

Kahn,

Neal ; Mason, Ward S. ; and McEachern, Al ex ander W.
E x p l o r a t i o n s i n Rol e A n a l y s i s .
New York:
John
Wi l ey and Sons , I n c . , 1 958.
Rober t L. and B o u l d i n g , E l i s e , e d i t o r s .
C o n f l i c t in O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
New York:
I n c . , 1964.

PowerajQd
Basi c Books,

; Wo l f e , Donal d M. : Qui nn, Rober t P . ; Snoek, J.
D i e d r i c k ; and Ro s e n t h a l , Rober t A.
Or gam z a t i onal_
Stress:
St udi es in Rol e C o n f l i c t and A m b i g u i t y .
New York:
John Wi l ey and Sons, I n c . , 1964.
Kendall,

Maur i ce G.
London:
J.

The Advanced Theor y of S t a t i s t i c s .
B. L i p p i n c o t t Company, 1943.

Rank C o r r e l a t i o n Me t h o ds .
2nd E d i t i o n .
VorlTI
Haf ner P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1 955.
K e r l i n g e r , Fred N.
New York:

New

Foundat i ons o f Be h a v i o r a l Re s e a r c h .
H o l t , R i n e h a r t , and Wi nst on, 1 9 6 / .

Lazarus,

Ri char d S.
P a t t e r n s o f AdJ _ u ^ iient and Human
Effectiveness.
New York:
Mc Gr a w- Hi l l Book Company,
l~96<r

Linton,

Ral ph.
The St udy of Man.
Cent ur y Company, 1936.

New York:

D.

Ap p l e t o n -

L i v i n g s t o n , F r e d e r i c k R.
" C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g and t he
'
School Boar d. "
P u b l i c Workers and P u b l i c Uni ons.
Sam Z a g o r i a , e d i t o r .
Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . :
P r e n t i c e - H a l 1 , I n c . , 1 972.
Morgan,

Don.
Per spec t i v e s of the Commu n i t y cQ1 ^ 9 e Pr esi ­
dency .
San F r a n c i s c o :
J o s s e y - Ba s s , 1970.

Mo r t o r a n a , S. V. and Hu n t e r , P a u l i n e , F . , e d i t o r s .
Admin i s t e r i n g t h e Community Co l l e g e i n a Changi ng Wor_ ld .
B u f f a l o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y of New Yor k, 1 966.

1 44

Moskow, Mi chael H. ; Loewenberg, J. Joseph; and K o z i a r a ,
Edward C.
C o l l e c t i v e Ba r g a i n i n g i n P u b l i c Empl oy­
me n t .
New York:
Random House, 1970.
Par sons,

Talcott.
The So c i a l
Free P r e s s , 1951.

Prator,

Ral ph.
The Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t .
Washi ngt on, D. C. :
Cent er f o r Ap p l i e d Research i n E d u c a t i o n , 1963.

Sanford,

R. N e v i t t .
" I n d i v i d u a l C o n f l i c t and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
Interaction."
Power and C o n f l i c t i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
Rober t L. Kahn and E l i s e Bo u l d i n g , e d i t o r s .
New
York:
Basi c Books, I n c . , 1964.

Sarbin,

Theodore R.
"Rol e T h e o r y . "
Handbook of So c i a l
Psychol ogy.
Edi t e d by Gardner L i n d z e y , V o l . I .
Cambri dge, Mass. :
Addi son- Wes1ey P u b l i s h i n g Co . ,
I n c . , 1 954.

Savage,

W i l l i a m W.
I n t e r p e r s o n a l and Group R e l a t i o n s
Ed uc a t i on a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
Gl e n v i e w, 1 1 1 . :
Foresman and Company, 1968.

Shaw,

Syst em.

Gl encoe,

111.:

The

in
Scott,

Lee C.
"The Devel opment o f S t a t e and Feder al Laws. "
P u b l i c Workers and P u b l i c U n i o n s .
Sam Z a g o r i a ,
Editor.
Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . :
Prentice-Hal1 ,
I n c . , 1 972.

Siegel,

Si dney .
No n - P a r a me t r i c S t a t i s t i c s f o r t he Be h a v i o r a l
Science.
New York:
McGr a w- Hi l l Book Company, 1956.

Stieber,

Jack.
" C o l l e c t i v e Ba r g a i n i n g i n t he P u b l i c S e c t o r . "
Chal l enges to C o l l e c t i v e Bargai ni n g .
Ll oyd Ul man,
Ed i t o r .
Englewood Cl i f f s , N. J . :
Prentice-Hal1 ,
I nc . , 1 967 .

S t o g d i l l , Ralph M.
I n d i v i d u a l Behavi or and Group A c h i e v e ­
me n t .
New York-: Oxf ord U n i v e r s i t y Pr e s s , "1959 .
St o k e ,

Har ol d W.
The Ameri can Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t .
Harper and B r o t h e r s , 1959.

Zagoria,

New York:

Sam, e d i t o r .
P u b l i c Workers and P u b l i c U n i o n s .
Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . :
P r e n t i c e - H a l 1 , I n c . , 1 972 .

145

Per i odi c a l s
Boyd, W i l l i a m B.
" C o l l e c t i v e Ba r g a i n i n g i n Academe:
Causes
and Consequences. "
L i b e r a l Educati on, LVI I {October,
1971), 306-318.
Getzels,

J. W. ,
ality."

and Guba, E. G.
"Rol e C o n f l i c t and Pe r son­
Jour nal o f P e r s o n a l i t y , XXIV ( 1 9 5 5 ) , 7 4 - 8 5 .

_________ and _________ .
t i v e Pr o c e s s . "

" S o c i a l Be ha v i o r and t he A d m i n i s t r a ­
School Re v i e w, LXV ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 4 2 3 - 4 4 1 .

Gi a n o p u l o s , John.
" C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining:
What P a r t Shoul d
Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t s P l a y ? " .
C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y
B u s i n e s s , XLIX ( Sept embe r , 1970) , 71 - 7 2 , 102.
_________ .
"Beyond t he Bread and B u t t e r I s s u e s . "
Col 1ege J o u r n a l , X L I I ( Mar ch, 1 9 7 2 ) , 18.
Hawk,

Junior

Ray.
"A P r o f i l e o f J u n i o r C o l l e g e P r e s i d e n t s . "
J u n i o r C o l l e g e J o u r n a l , XXX, No. 6 , 3 4 0 - 3 4 7 .

Kershen,

Ha r r y .
"Who Shoul d N e g o t i a t e f o r t he Boar d?".
Jour nal o f C o l l e c t i v e N e g o t i a t i o n s i n t he P u b l i c
Sect o r , I ( November, 1 9 7 2 ) , 3 4 7 - 3 5 2 .

L a u l i c h t , Jerome.
"Rol e C o n f l i c t , The P a t t e r n V a r i a b l e
Theor y, and Scal ogram A n a l y s i s . "
Social F or c e s ,
X X X I I I ( Mar ch, 1 9 5 5 ) , 2 5 0 - 2 5 4 .
L e w e l l e n , James R. and St ur baum, W i l b e r t .
"Power and Con­
f l i c t i n Ed u c a t i o n a l N e g o t i a t i o n s . "
Jour nal of
C o l l e c t i v e N e g o t i a t i o n s i n t he P u b l i c S e c t o r , 11
(Spring, 1973), 135-145.
Li pham,

James M.
"Organizational
Admi ni strati ve Behavior."
R e s e a r c h , XXXIV ( O c t o b e r ,

C h a r a c t e r i n Ed u c a t i o n :
Revi ew o f E d u c a t i o n a l
1964), 43 5- 454.

Miller,

D e l b e r t C. and S h u l l , Fremont A . , J r .
"The P r e :
d i c t i o n o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Rol e C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n s . "
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Sci ence Q u a r t e r l y , V I I ( Se p t e mbe r ,
1962), 143-160.

Moskow, Mi chael H. The scope of C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g i n
Hi gher E d u c a t i o n . "
Wi sconsi n Law R e v i e w , MCMLXXI,
No. 1, 3 3 - 5 4 .

146

O'Brien,

Gordon E.
The Jour nal
45-63.

"Leadership in O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S e t t i n g s . "
o f A p p l i e d Be h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e , V, No. 1,

Rocha,

Joseph R . , J r .
" C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g Trends i n t he
Publ i c S e c t o r . "
Jour nal o f C o l l e c t i v e N e g o t i a t i o n s
i n t he P u b l i c S e c t o r , I I (Wi n t e r , 1 973) , 7 7 - 9 6 .

Sands,

C. D a l l a s .
"The Rol e o f C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g i n
Hi qhe r E d u c a t i o n . "
Wi sconsi n Law Revi ew, MCMLXXI,
No. 1, 1 5 0 - 1 7 6 .

Simon,

H e r b e r t A.
"The Job o f a C o l l e g e P r e s i d e n t . "
Educational Record, X L V I I I ( W i n t e r , 1 9 6 7 ) , 68- 78.

S t o u f f e r , Samuel A.
"An A n a l y s i s of C o n f l i c t i n g S o c i a l
Norms, "
Ameri can S o c i o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , XI V (Decem­
b e r , 19491^
Toby,

Jackson.
So c i a l

"Some V a r i a b l e s i n Rol e C o n f l i c t A n a l y s i s . "
F o r c e s , XXX ( Mar ch, 1 9 5 2 ) , 3 2 3 - 3 2 7 .

Thompson, V i c t o r A.
" H i e r a r c h y , S p e c i a l i z a t i o n , and Or g a n i z a
tional C o n flict."
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Sci ence Q u a r t e r l y ,
V ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 485-521.
Upt on,

John H.
"Rol e C o n f l i c t and F a c u l t y Conf i dence i n
Leadership."
J u n i o r C o l l e q e J o u r n a l , XLI ( F e b r u ­
a r y , 1 971 ) , 28- 31 .

Wo l f e ,

Donal d M. and Snoek, J. D i e d r i c k .
"A St udy o f Ten­
si ons and Adj ust ment s Under Rol e C o n f l i c t . "
The
Jour nal o f So c i a l I s s u e s , X V I I I ( J u l y , 1 9 6 2 ) ,
102- 121.

Wollett,

Donal d H.
"The S t a t u s and Trends o f C o l l e c t i v e
N e g o t i a t i o n s f o r F a c u l t y i n Hi g h e r E d u c a t i o n . "
Wi sconsi n Law Revi ew, MCMLXXI, No. 1, 2 - 3 2 .
Pu b l i s h e d Documents

Candau,

Eckel,

Pierre.
Recent Trends i n C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g .
F i n a l Re p o r t .
O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Economic Cooper a­
t i o n and Devel opment .
P a r i s , 1972.
Howard.
De v e l o p i n g and T e s t i n g Resear ch I n s t r u me n t s
f o r Rol e A n a l y s i s o f E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
F i n a l Re p o r t .
N a t i o n a l Ce nt e r f o r Ed u c a t i o n a l Re­
search, and Devel opment .
Washi ngt on, D. C. :
H . E . W. ,
December 31, 1969.

147

Ferrari,

Howe,

Mi chael
College:
1 970 1s .

R. and B e r t e , Neal R.
Ameri can J u n i o r
Le a de r s hi p and C r i t i c a l I ssues f o r t he
n . p . ; n . p . , 1 969 .

Ray.
"The I mpact of C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g on Commu­
nity Colleges."
Paper Pr e se nt e d a t Wayne S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y D r i v e - I n Co n f e r e nc e , A p r i l 5, 1968.

M o r t o r a n a , S. V.
The Community C o l l e g e i n M i c h i g a n , Revi sed
E d i t i o n , June 1957.
S t a f f Study Number 1, J. D.
Russell, D ir e c t o r .
The Survey o f Hi gher Educat i on
in Michigan.
Roberts,

George, F.
"Rol e Choi ce of C h i e f School O f f i c e r s
in C o l l e c t i v e N e g o t i a t i o n s . "
Paper Pr esent ed a t
t he Ameri can Educ at i on Research A s s o c i a t i o n 55t h
Annual M e e t i n g , Febr uar y 4 - 7, 1971.

S t o g d i l l , Ral ph M.
"Rol e P e r c e p t i o n and F u l f i l l m e n t i n Re­
search."
Research i n Ed u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
Stephen P. He n c l e y , e d i t o r ,
n.p.:
University
Counci l f o r Ed u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , J a n u a r y ,
1 962.
S w e i t z e r , Rober t E . , e t a l .
Rol e E x p e c t a t i o n s and Pe r ce p­
t i o n s of School P r i n c i p a l s .
C o o p e r a t i v e Research
P r o j e c t No. 1329, 0E, U. S. H. E. W. Research
F o u n d a t i o n , Oklahoma S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
Stillwater,
Okl ahoma, J a n u a r y , 1963.
Thompson, J. D.
"A Model f o r Vi ewi ng O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Con­
flict."
Research i n Ed u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
Stephen P. He n c l e y , e d i t o r ,
n.p.:
University
Counci l f o r E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t a r t i o n , J a n u a r y ,
1 962.
Urich,

Wi ng,

Ted.
The Rol e o f t he School P r i n c i p a l i n C o l l e c t i v e
Negotiations.
F i n a l Re p o r t .
H. E. W. n . p . :
Purdue
U n i v e r s i t y , August , 1970.
Dennis R. W.
The P r o f e s s i o n a l P r e s i d e n t :
A Decade
of Community J u n i o r C o l l e g e C h i e f E x e c u t i v e s .
T o p i c a T Paper Number 28.
n.p.:
U n i v e r s i t y of
C a l i f o r n i a , J a n u a r y , 1972.

148
Unpubl i shed M a t e r i a l s
Coe, Al an C.
"A Study o f t he Procedur es Used i n C o l l e c t i v e
Ba r g a i n i n g wi t h F a c u l t y Unions i n P u b l i c Co l l e ge s
and U n i v e r s i t i e s . "
Unpubl i shed Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n ,
Mi chi gan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1972.
Graham,

Kl aus,

Robert G.
"The J u n i o r Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t ’ s Job:
An A n a l y s i s of Pr e c e i v e d Job Per f or mance and P o s s i ­
ble I nf l ue n ci ng V a r i a b l e s . "
Unpubl i shed Ph. D.
D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, 1965.
Loren E.
"Rol e E x p e c t a t i o n s o f Local J u n i o r C o l l e g e
P r e s i d e n t s and Local J u n i o r Co l l e g e Board Members
i n Cl ass 1 J u n i o r C o l l e g e D i s t r i c t s i n Downst at e
Illinois."
Unpubl i shed Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n ,
I l l i n o i s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1969.

Mi chi gan Community Co l l e ge A s s o c i a t i o n .
" Successi on o f
Ch i e f Ex ec ut i ve s at M i c h i g a n ’ s Community C o l l e g e s . "
Occasi onal Re p o r t , F a l l , 1972.
_________ .
"An An a l y s i s of 19 72 - 73 F a c u l t y C o n t r a c t s i n
Mi chi gan Community C o l l e g e s . "
M. C. C. A. Research
S e r i e s , Vol . 73, No. 1, F e b r u a r y , 1973.
Nel son,

Lawrence 0.
"Rol e E x p e c t a t i o n s f o r S e l e c t e d C o l l e g e
and U n i v e r s i t y P r e s i d e n t s . "
Unpubl i shed Ph. D.
D i s s e r t a t i o n , Mi chi gan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1960.

Osborne,

John R.
"A Study of t he C r i t i c a l Requi r ement s o f
a Pu bl i c J u n i o r Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t . "
Unpubl i shed
Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , East Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
1 969 .

Prisco,

F r e d e r i c k R. J r .
" E x p e c t a t i o n s of P r e s i d e n t s , B o a r d
Members, and F a c u l t y N e g o t i a t o r s f o r t he Rol e of
■ t he New Jer sey Count y-Communi t y C o l l e g e P r e s i d e n t
in Facul t y- Board N e g o t i a t i o n s . "
Unpubl i shed Ed. D.
D i s s e r t a t i o n , The S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o f New J e r s e y ,
1971.

Shannon, W i l l i a m G.
"The Community Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t :
A
Study of the Rol e of P r e s i d e n t of t he P u b l i c Commu­
n i t y Junior Col l e ge . "
Unpubl i shed Ed. D. D i s s e r t a ­
t i o n , Col umbi a U n i v e r s i t y , 1962.

149
Stamm,

Har l an C.
"The Rol e E x p e c t a t i o n s of 18 C a l i f o r n i a
Community J u n i o r Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t s Compar at i ve
t o Three Re f er ence Gr oups. "
Unpubl i shed Ed. D.
D i s s e r t a t i o n , New Mexi co S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1968.

Stout,

Fern D.
"A Comparison o f Rol e Pe r c e p t i o n s of
S e l e c t e d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s i d e n t s and T h e i r Ref er ence
Gr oups. "
Unpubl i shed Ed. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y
o f New Mex i co, 1962.

Upt on,

John H.
" R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Rol e Ex p e c t a t i o n s
of F a c u l t y and T r u s t e e Groups f o r t he Community
J u n i o r Co l l e g e P r e s i d e n t and S e l e c t e d V a r i a b l e s . "
Unpubl i shed Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f
M i c h i g a n , 1969.

Urich,

Ted.
"A Q- S o r t A n a l y s i s of t he S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s Rol e
i n C o l l e c t i v e N e g o t i a t i o n s as Pe r ce i ve d by School
Personnel. "
Unpubl i shed Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f I owa, 1967.

W i l l i a m s , Dougl as F.
"A St udy o f t he O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Pr o­
cedures f o r C o l l e c t i v e N e g o t i a t i o n s i n F i f t e e n
S e l e c t e d Mi chi gan Community C o l l e g e s . "
Unpub­
l i s h e d Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas,
1 970.