INFORM ATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm cop y of th e original d o cu m en t. While
the m o st advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this d o c u m e n t
have been used, the quality is heavily d e p e n d e n t upon th e quality of the original
subm itted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided t o help you understand
markings or patterns which m ay appear on this reproduction.
1 . T h e sign or " ta rg e t" for pages apparently lacking from th e d o c u m e n t
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible t o obtain th e missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into th e film along with adjacent pages.
This m ay have necessitated cutting th ru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure y o u com plete co ntinuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black m ark, it
is an indication th a t the ph oto graph er suspected th a t th e cop y may have
moved during exp o su re and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of th e page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a m ap, draw ing or chart, etc., was p a rt o f th e material being
photographed the ph o tog rap her followed a definite m eth o d in
"section ing " th e material. It is custom ary t o begin photoing a t the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to co ntinu e 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
com plete.
4. T he m ajority of users indicate t h a t th e textual c o n te n t is of greatest value,
however, a so m ew h at higher quality reproduction could be m ade from
" p h o to g ra p h s " if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of " p h o to g ra p h s " m ay be ordered a t additional charge by writing
the O rder D epartm ent, giving the catalog n u m b er, title, au th o r and
specific pages y o u wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE:
received.

Som e

pages m ay

have in distinct print. Filmed as

Xerox University Microfilms
300 N orth H oeb R ond
A nn A rbor, M ichigan 4S106

I

I

I

I

75-14,684
ABBETT, W illiam Smith, 1942AN ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL AND PREFERRED PATTERNS
OF FACULTY ACTIVITY IN THE COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY.
Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , Ph.D ., 1974
Education, adm inistration

Xerox University Microfilms,

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

AN ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL AND PREFERRED PATTERNS
OF FACULTY ACTIVITY IN THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

by

William S. Abbett

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in p a rtia l fulfillment of the requirem ents
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1974

ABSTRACT
AN ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL AND PREFERRED PATTERNS
OF FACULTY ACTIVITY IN THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
by
William S. Abbett

Increasing demands for educational and fiscal accountability have,
in recent y e a r s , emphasized the need to critically evaluate program
p r io ritie s in higher education.

Fundamental to this evaluative process

is the problem of developing effective means to a sse ss the disposition
of faculty to various institutional p ro g ram s.

Since a p rogram may be

generally defined as an organized se t of activities designed to achieve
predeterm ined goals, it appears reasonable to approach this problem
from the perspective of institutional goals (through goal preference
assessm ent) or through careful analyses of attitudes toward organiza­
tional activities.
Considering the interpretiv e problems associated with goal p re f­
erence as se ss m e n t, this study was predicated on the need to explore
activity analysis as a means to identify faculty perceptions of institu­
tional p rogram s.

The central purpose of the study was to compare

actual and p r e f e rr e d patterns of faculty effort within an academic o r­
ganization.

The population consisted of all faculty m em bers associated

with the College of Engineering at Michigan State University.
study was based upon four operational assumptions:

The

William S. Abbett

1.

Since institutional program s may be defined as organized
sets of activities, it was assumed that perceptions of
these program s could be evaluated in te rm s of the specific
activities from which they a re comprised.

2.

It was suggested that the value or "importance" of a
p ro g ra m -re la te d activity could be defined quantitatively
as an amount of professional re so u rc e s devoted to that
activity.

3.

Recognizing that all organizational resources including
facility a re finite in nature, it was assumed that an evalu­
ation of the "importance" of a single activity m ust neces­
sa rily be weighed against the "importance" of all other
ac tiv itie s.

4.

Finally, it was assumed that organizational activities and
program s a r e the re s u lt of a complex interaction between
individual needs and organizational expectations.

Thus,

it was deemed essential to consider the evaluation of ac­
tivities from both an individual and organizational
perspective.
With these assumptions in mind, an instrum ent defining thirty cate­
gories of p ro g ra m -re la te d activity was developed and distributed to the
sample.

Respondents were asked to provide percentage estimates of

(1) actual individual effort,

(2) p re fe r re d individual effort, (3) perceived

organizational effort, and (4) p re fe rre d organizational effort for each
of the activity categ ories.

Percentage distributions were employed to

achieve an understanding of the "relative value" of each activity in
term s of professional re s o u rc e s.

Since percentage distributions

William S. Abbett
assumed finite reso u rce availability, the procedure roughly simulated
the p ro ce ss of p rio rity asse ssm e n t which naturally occurs within an
organization.
An ANOVA of repeated m e a su re s and a Tukey post hoc procedure
were used to determine whether differences existed between actual and
p r e f e r r e d effort at both individual and organizational levels.

As a r e ­

sult of the analysis, the following conclusions were drawn;
1.

There was no evidence to suggest that the combined indivi­
dual effort p re fe re n c e s of faculty m em bers differed from
the p attern of faculty effort which actually occurs within
the college.

It appeared then, that if assignments were

made solely on the basis of individual faculty needs and
i n te r e s ts , the resultant p attern of professional reso u rce
allocation over prog ram s could not be significantly dif­
ferent than that which was currently in effect.

Z.

The analysis also failed to describe significant differences
between perceived and p r e f e rr e d patterns of organizational
effort.

This finding was p articu larly significant in that it

evaluated facility attitudes toward the p rio rity stru c tu re
which exists within the College of Engineering.

Since no

significant differences were found, it appeared that the
faculty as a whole was content with the p rio rity stru c tu re
which they perceived to exist within the College.
3.

In comparing individual effort patterns (actual and p r e ­
ferred ) with organizational effort patterns (perceived and
p re fe rre d ), the following four observations were made;
(a) the comparison of actual individual with perceived

William S. Abbett

organizational effort suggested that facility perceptions of
the actual p a tte rn of professional reso u rce allocation are
generally accurate;

(b) in comparing actual individual with

p r e f e r r e d organizational effort, i t appears that the faculty's
perception of an ideal pattern of re so u rc e distribution is
not significantly different from that which cu rre n tly exists;
(c) the analysis of p r e f e r r e d individual and perceived o r­
ganizational effort suggested that if faculty were assigned
according to th e ir personal in te re s ts and needs, the r e ­
sultant pattern of reso u rce allocation would not be signifi­
cantly different from that which they feel curren tly exists;
(d) the resu lts of the com parison of p r e f e r r e d individual
with p r e f e r r e d organizational effort suggested that the
combined individual p re fe re n c e s of the faculty generally
agreed with their preferen ces for organizational activity.
Exceptions to these observations were noted in ce rta in activities.
Substantive in te rpretation of th ese exceptions, however, was not
attempted as the response ra te achieved precluded accuracy in estab­
lishing organizational m e a su re s composed of the combined actual and
p r e f e r r e d effort of individual faculty.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

C hapter
I.

II.

III.

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

1

In tro d u c tio n ....................................................................................................
Background and Need for Study
. . . . . . .
Theoretical A s s u m p tio n s ................................................................
P urpose of the S t u d y .......................................................................
Objectives of the Study........................................................................
D e f i n i t i o n s ..........................................
Scope of the S t u d y ...............................................................................
Limitations of the S t u d y ................................................................
Organization of the S tu d y ................................................................

1
2
5
9
10
11
12
12
13

REVIEW OF RELATED L IT E R A T U R E ....................................

14

In tro d u c tio n ....................................................................................................
Organizational P rio r ity A s s e s s m e n t .............................
Goal S t u d i e s ......................................................................................
Problem s of I n t e r p r e t a t i o n
Faculty Activity A n a ly s is ................................................................
Summary
..................................................

14
14
14
20
23
28

DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ........................................................................

30

In tro d u c tio n ....................................................................................................
P o p u l a t i o n .......................................................................
I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n ......................................................................................
Description of the Annual R e p o r t .........
31
Description of the Faculty Effort F o r m . .
.
Description of the Revised Effort
F o rm
P re testin g the Revised Effort F orm . . . .
Data Collection P r o c e d u r e s ..........................................................
T reatm ent of the D a t a ........................................................................
Objectives and H y p o t h e s e s ...........................................
Analysis of the D a t a .................................................................
Summary
...............................................................................
IV.

30
30
31

.

33
35
40
41
43
43
45
47

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA........................................................................

48

I n tro d u c tio n ....................................................................................................
Statement of O b j e c t i v e s ...................................
Review of Design and General Findings
. . . .

48
48
49

ii

Chapter

V.

Page
Hypotheses T e s t i n g ..............................................................................
Objective I
.............................................................................. .
Objective I I ......................................................................................
Objective I I I .............................. .................................................
Objective I V ......................................................................................
Obj ective V ......................................................................................
Obj ecti ve V I ......................................................................................
S u m m a r y ...........................................................................................................

53
53
55
55
58
60
62
64

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...........................................................

67

Need and P u r p o s e ..............................................................................
O b j e c t i v e s ....................................................................................................
D e s i g n ..................................................................................................................
F i n d i n g s ....................................................................................
Conclusions
........................................................
Recommendations for F u rth e r R esearch . . . .

67
68
69
70
72
77

APPENDICES
Appendix
A.

Annual Report of Faculty Activities and the
Faculty Effort F o r m ..........................................

80

Revised Faculty Effort F o r m ..................................................................

93

SELECTED B IB L IO G R A P H Y ......................................................................................

95

B.

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table
3. 1

3. Z

Page
Examples of P ro g ra m Output Approximations
Used in the College of Engineering Annual
Report of Individual Faculty Activities
. .

.

.

.

34

P ro g ra m Areas and Activity Categories as
Defined in the Revised Effort F o r m ....................................

37

3. 3

Summary of Faculty R e s p o n s e .................................................................

43

4. 1

Sum mary of Analysis of Variance on Subjects,
Activity A reas, and Effort M e a s u r e s ....................................

50

Summary of Analysis of Variance of Simple
Main Effects of Effort M easures by Activity
Area
..................................................................................................................

5Z

Tukey P o st Hoc Comparisons of Actual Individual
Effort and P r e f e r r e d Individual E f f o r t .............................

54

Tukey P o st Hoc Comparisons of Perceived
Organizational Effort and P r e f e r r e d
Organizational E f f o r t ...............................................................................

56

Tukey P o st Hoc Comparisons of Actual Individual
Effort and Perceiv ed Organizational Effort
. . .

57

Tukey P o st Hoc Comparisons of Actual Individual
Effort and P r e f e r r e d Organizational Effort
. . .

59

Tukey P o B t Hoc Comparisons of P re f e r r e d
Individual Effort and Perceiv ed Organizational
E f f o r t ..................................................................................................................

61

Tukey Post Hoc Comparisons of P re f e r r e d
Individual Effort and P r e f e r r e d Organizational
E f f o r t ..................................................................................................................

63

Summary of Hypotheses T e s t i n g ..........................................................

66

4. Z

4. 3

4 .4

4. 5

4. 6

4.7

4. 8

4. 9

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

F ig u re
1.1

Page

A T heoretical Description of Organizational
Activity
...............................................................................................................

v

8

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Introduction
Over the past sev eral y e a rs, colleges and universities have experi­
enced increasing demands for educational and fiscal accountability.
Institutional budgets, which once were approved with little question,
are now carefully scrutinized and often drastically reduced.

Indeed,

few adm inistrators would argue that continued support of higher educa­
tion is becoming increasingly conditional.

This realization has em­

phasized the need for institutions to define and develop effective means
to allocate and manage available resources in support of institutional
goals.
The p rim a ry reso urce of any college or university is its faculty.
Like all professional organizations, institutions of higher education
depend largely, if not entirely, upon their professional academic staffs
in achieving institutional objectives.

In addition to being the key con­

trib utors to the outcomes of higher education, faculties a re also the
m ost costly of all institutional resources having salaries which often
represent from sixty to eighty percent of operating budgets [4:63].
Considering the unique importance and high cost of faculty, it is appar­
ent that the development of effective tools for resource management
will heavily depend upon an understanding of the nature and effects of
faculty activity.

2

Background and Need for Study
To achieve a b e tte r understanding of the nature of professional
activity,

a significant number of institutions have initiated o r intensi­

fied efforts d irecte d at investigating faculty workloads.

Generally,

these efforts have been designed to answer the following questions:
1.

What types of activities are perform ed by faculty m em ­
b ers in support of institutional objectives ?

2.

How do faculty m em bers divide th e ir time between these
activities ?

3.

What are the re su lts or effects of these activities in term s
of achieving institutional objectives? [24:l]

The answ ers to these questions, provided through careful analyses
of faculty activ itie s, yield information which may be used in a variety
of management functions including long range planning, p ro g ram review
and evaluation, budgeting, and re s o u rc e utilization analysis [24:16],

A review of the l ite r a tu re concerning faculty activity analysis sug­
gests that m a jo r efforts have been devoted to the identification and
m ea su rem e n t of actual activity p attern s.

.Little or no concern, how­

e v e r, has been given to the development of techniques designed to a s s e s s
the p r e f e r r e d o r valued activity patterns of faculty m em bers.

In fact,

m o st studies of faculty activity imply the need to design methods of data
collection which elicit responses devoid of personal or value judgment.
Yet, an understanding of how faculty m em bers value various activities
would provide additional information which would be useful, if not
c r i t ic a l , to many adm in istrativ e decisions.
Consider, for example, the question of faculty assignments within
an academic institution.

C le a rly , college and university p ro fesso rs

3
a re m u lti-ta s k professionals who may reasonably be expected to p e r ­
form a variety of responsible functions within the un iversity (e. g. ,
teaching,

r e s e a r c h , public s e r v ic e ,

advising, com m ittee work, etc. ),

Yet, it is equally im portant to recognize that m ost faculty display vary­
ing and constantly changing attitudes tow ard given institutionally assigned
resp o n sib ilitie s.

Staffing p ro ce d u res which fail to consider these atti­

tudes frequently r e s u lt in faculty being asked to p e r f o r m ta sk s which
are totally alien to th e ir p erso n al and pro fessio n al i n te r e s ts .

Such

assig nm ents, if c a r r ie d to an e x tre m e , often form the basis of conflict
which may ultim ately effect the perfo rm an c e of an en tire academic unit.

A continuous evaluation of faculty p re fe re n c e s toward various activities
could se rv e to identify possib le a re a s of conflict between individual and
institutional needs before problem s a r is e .
In addition to monitoring faculty perceptions of th e ir ro le within the
institution, information derived from an analysis of actual and p r e ­
f e r re d activity patterns could significantly aid a d m in is tra to rs in p ro g ram
planning and management.

System atic planning within organizations is

a p ro ce ss which typically consists of four distin ct p h ases:
cation of organizational goals,
m e a su ra b le objectives,

(1) specifi­

(2) tra n sla tio n of goals into sets of

(3) identifying and organizing sets of activities

(pro gram s) to achieve stated objectives, and (4) evaluating r e s o u r c e s in
te rm s of p ro g ra m req u irem e n ts [2 0:28].

Considering th e ir importance

to p r o g r a m development, implementation, and m aintenance, it is
esse n tia l to carefully consid er faculty perceptions of the organization
throughout the planning p ro c e s s .
F requently, these perceptions are a s se ss e d through surveys de­
signed to identify faculty opinion regarding the various goals a n d /o r

4
objectives of the institution.

Faculty perceptions of institutional out­

com es, as a s s e s s e d through th ese techniques, could be supplemented
by an analysis of actual and p r e f e r r e d activity p atte rn s .

Using this

approach, a faculty m e m b e r 's perception of the im portance of an in sti­
tutional p ro g ra m could be evaluated in te rm s of his or h er willingness
to personally p articip ate in the activities associated with the program .
This added information would obviously be operationally significant in
examining the re s o u rc e s available to m eet " d esire d " institutional
objectives.
It m ust be recognized, however, that individual faculty m em bers
who p erceive a given objective or goal as valuable may not wish to
p a rticip ate in the activities associated with its achievement.

In other

words, a faculty m e m b e r 's perceived professio nal role may signifi­
cantly differ from his or h er perception of the institutional role.

Much

of the information c u rre n tly available on faculty perceptions of the in­
stitution has been obtained through various goal p re fe re n c e surveys.
Examples of these surveys may be found in Gross and Grambsch [10],
Uhl [34], Thomas [31], Stead [28], and Hintz [14],

Generally they con­

s i s t of statem ents describing various goals an d /o r objectives of the
institution.

Faculty m e m b e r s ,

and often o th e rs, a r e then asked to

a s c rib e levels of actual (current) and ideal (p referred) im portance to
each of the goal sta te m e n ts.

Subsequent analysis of the resu lta n t data

provides a d m in istra to rs with information which may be used in estab­
lishing p r io ritie s for p ro g ram development and re s o u rc e allocation
[34:4].

A careful review of various goal p re fe re n c e studies (presented in
detail in Chapter II) rev eals th re e fundamental weaknesses which tend

5
to lim it th e ir usefulness.

F irs t,

the p rocess of defining institutional

goals or objectives is a difficult one often leading to over-generalizatio n
and misconception.

Secondly, implied in the design of these studies is

the assumption that organizational goals can and should be evaluated
independently of one another.

Unfortunately, this assumption does not

recognize the constraint of finite organizational re s o u rc e s and thus is
not consistent with the actual p ro ce ss of determining organizational
p rio rities.

Finally, it is difficult to tra n s la te perceptions of a goal's

" im p o rta n c e ," as identified in goal p refe ren c e studies, into quantitative
m e a s u re s of the re so u rc e s needed for its achievement.
An extension of activity analysis to include m e a su re s of (1) p e r ­
ceived organizational activity,

and (2) p re f e r r e d organizational activity

could se rv e to supplement goal pre ference studies by responding to
many of the concerns cited above.

More specifically, such an analysis

would add to an understanding of the disposition of faculty toward the
organization by evaluating:
1.

faculty perceptions of specific goal directed activities (or
p ro g ram s) r a th e r than ab stra ct goal statem ents,

2.

faculty perceptions of organizational activities defined in
te rm s of finite ra th e r than infinite re s o u rc e availability,

3.

faculty perceptions of organizational p ro c e sse s defined in
te rm s of a quantitative m e a su re of activity r a th e r than a
qualitative m e a su re of importance.

T heoretical Assumptions
As was mentioned above, m ost r e s e a r c h directed at assessing
faculty attitudes toward academic organizations has implicitly followed
an approach to organizational analysis which focuses upon the prim acy

6
o£ goals within the institution.

This "goal model" of organizational

analysis, as Etzioni [9:16] describes it, assum es that all structu red
activity existing within an organization is directed at achieving ce rtain
predeterm ined goals.

F ro m this persp ectiv e, then, organizational

evaluation o r study becomes little m ore than a pro cess of identifying
and determining the degree to which goals were achieved.

In discussing

the "goal model" for organizational analysis, Etzioni describes its
fundamental weakness:
. . . it tends, though not invariably, to give organizational
studies a tone of social c r itic is m r a th e r than scientific analy­
sis. Since m ost organizations m ost of the time do not attain
their goals in any final sense, organizational monographs a re
frequently detoured into lengthy discussions about this lack of
success to the exclusion of m o re penetrating types of analysis.
Low effectiveness is a general c h a ra c te ris tic of organizations.
Since goals, as symbolic units, are ideals which are m ore
attractiv e than the reality which the organization attains, the
organization can almost always be reported to be a failure.
While this approach is valid, it is only valid from the p a r ­
tic u la r viewpoint chosen by the r e s e a r c h e r . [9:16]
Thus, the value of the goal model for organizational analysis is
wholly dependent upon the ability of the analyst to prec isely describ e the
goals of the organization.

In considering the collegiate organization,

this task is confounded by the range of goals attributed to higher educa­
tion and a lack of concensus on the c r i t e r i a for evaluating th eir
achievement [32:23],
To overcome this weakness, it is n e c e ssa ry to approach the prob­
lem of organizational analysis from the perspectiv e of means (or r e ­
sources) r a th e r than ends (or goals).

Etzioni re f e r s to this alternative

approach as the "syste m model" for organizational analysis.

In de­

scribing the model he states:
Rather than comparing existing organizations to ideals of what
they might be, (the system model) a s s e s s e s their perform ances
relative to one another. . . It constitutes a statem ent about the

7

relationships (or activities) which m u st exist for an organi­
zation to operate. [9tl7]
The "sy stem model" is thus concerned with establishing an under­
standing of the nature of the organization through a
of its various pro ce sses or activities.

careful examination

Viewed from this prospective,

the problem of identifying faculty perceptions of the institution is one
of assessing their perceptions of the organizational activities in which
they are engaged.
This study is , then, directed at evaluating p rio ritie s within an
academic organization through an examination of the activity patterns
of faculty.

Unlike traditional activity analysis, it is designed to con­

s id e r perceptions of both actual and p r e f e r r e d activity from an individual
and organizational perspective.

Implied in this approach is a concep­

tual fram ew ork which d escrib es organizational activity as the re s u lt of
a complex interaction between individual needs and organizational ex­
pectations.

This fram ew ork is described in p art in a theory of organi­

zations advanced by Getzels and Guba [30:167-183],

According to these

th e o r is ts , all organizations a re essentially composed of two dimensions
of phenomena.

The f i r s t dimension consists of the "institution" which

is made up of the expectations and roles directed at achieving the goals
of the organization.

The second dimension is that of "the individuals"

o r m em bers each having unique personalities and needs.

Though con­

ceptually independent, the two dimensions a re functionally interactive.
It is this interaction (illustrated in Figure 1. 1), which c re a te s a third
or "transactional" dimension which manifests its e lf in the activity or
goal behavior.
concludes:

In describing the "transactional" dimension Sweitzer

8

FIGURE 1. 1
A Theoretical Description of Organizational Activity

EXTERNAL. ENVIRONMENT

INSTITUTIONAL
DIMENSION

ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS
------------------------

PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL ROLE
OR ACTIVITY EXPECTATION

--------------------------------------

ACTUAL ACTIVITY OR GOAL
BEHAVIOR

zz

INDIVIDUAL
ACTIVITY
EXPECTATION
----------- 7K-----------

INDIVIDUAL
NEEDS

TRANSACTIONAL
DIMENSION

INDIVIDUAL
ACTIVITY
EXPECTATION
*--------

INDIVIDUAL
ACTIVITY
EXPECTATION

INDIVIDUAL
NEEDS

INDIVIDUAL
NEEDS

------------- j- --------------

* ---------

Z

EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

{Adapted from Sweitzer [30:168])

INDIVIDUAL
DIMENSION

9
This 'tra n sac tio n a l' dimension is a blend of the other two dimen­
sions and is composed of the elements of group, clim ate and
intensions.
The t e r m was used to communicate the assumption
that the p ro c e ss within a social sy stem (or organization) may
be seen as a dynamic tran sa ctio n between roles and p erso nality ,
and that the phenomenon of behavior includes both the sociali­
zation of personality and the personalizatio n of ro le s .
[30;l68]
F ro m this p erspective, an evaluation of organizational behavior or
activity m u st of n ecessity address questions of the interactio n of in sti­
tutional and individual needs.

In doing so, it becomes essential to con­

s id e r m em ber perceptions of organizational expectations for behavior
o r activity in light of individual i n te r e s ts and needs.

The p re s e n t study

re p re s e n ts an attem pt to consider the "transactio nal" dimension of an
academic organization through an examination of the perceptions faculty
m em bers hold toward various organizational activities.

P urp o se of the Study
The ce n tral purpose of this study is to identify and com pare actual
and p r e f e r r e d p attern s of faculty effort within an academic organization,
namely, the College of Engineering at Michigan State University.

More

specifically, th irty categories of p r o g ra m - r e la te d faculty activity are
identified and described.

Each faculty m em ber is asked estim ates of

the following:
1.

Actual Individual Effort:

an estim ate of how an individual

faculty m em ber divides his or her tim e between the various
categories of activity
2.

P r e f e r r e d Individual Effort:

*
an estim ate of how each facul­

ty m em ber would ideally divide his or her time between
the various categories
3.

P erceived Organizational Effort:

an estim ate of each

faculty m e m b e r's perc eption of how the college divides

10

total faculty tim e among the various categories
4.

P re f e rr e d Organizational Effort:

an estimate of each

faculty m em b er's perception of how the college should
divide total faculty tim e between the various categories
of responsibility.
Statistical comparisons of the resultant effort patterns will be made to
determine whether differences exist between actual and p refe rred ac­
tivity at both individual and organizational levels.

Objectives of the Study
Since the study rep re se n ts an exploratory attempt to extend the
scope of faculty activity analysis, no experimental or directional hypo­
theses a re generated.

The study i s , however, designed to meet the

following six objectives:
1.

to determine whether differences exist between actual in­
dividual effort and p re fe rre d individual effort in the various
categories of responsibility,

2.

to determine whether differences exist between perceived
organizational effort and p re fe rre d organizational effort
in the various categories of responsibility,

3.

to determine whether differences exist between actual in­
dividual effort and perceived organizational effort in the
various categories of responsibility,

4.

to determine whether differences exist between actual in­
dividual effort and p re fe rre d organizational effort in the
various categories of responsibility,

5.

to determine whether differences exist between p refe rred

11
individual effort and perceived organizational effort in the
various categories of responsibility,
6.

to determ ine whether differences exist between p r e f e r r e d
individual effort and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort in
each of the various categories of responsibility.

Null or non-directional hypotheses constructed to m eet the above objec­
tives a re p resented in Chapter 111.

Definitions
Operational descrip tio ns for many of the t e r m s associated with the
study a r e p resented below:
Organization:

a social unit delibera tely constructed and recon­

stru cted to seek specific goals.

In the p re s e n t study the

"organization" shall be defined as the College of E ngineer­
ing at Michigan State University.
P ro g ram :

an organized se t of activities designed to achieve

specified goals or objectives.
F acu lty :

the academic staff (excluding deans, d ir e c to r s ,

and

chairmen) of the College of Engineering at Michigan State
University.
Categories of Responsibility:

a s e t of specifically defined areas

of faculty activity which a re supportive of college p ro g ra m s.
E ffo rt:

the workload of a faculty m em b er over a designated

period of time.
P a tte r n of Activity:

the amount of effort expended by an indi­

vidual or group of faculty m em b ers over various categories
of responsibility.

12

Scope of the Study
As was e a r l ie r mentioned;, this study rep re se n ts an attempt to ex­
tend the scope of p ro g r a m - re la te d activity analysis.

F ro m an opera­

tional standpoint, then, it was deemed important to identify, aB a unit
of study, a rep re se n ta tiv e academic organization which (1) had system ­
atically defined its p ro g ram s in te rm s of th e ir component activities,
(2) displayed adm inistrative support for, and experience with, faculty
activity analysis, and (3) was in te reste d in exploring the pragm atic
application of the proposed analysis.

Considering its past experience

and acceptance of faculty activity analysis as a viable management tool,
the College of Engineering at Michigan State University was selected as
the organizational unit of study.
Since the study is limited to an examination of the unique program related activities associated with the college, caution m ust be exercised
in generalizing the re su lts beyond the unit of study.

Limitations of the Study
In addition to that describ ed in the previous section, other m ajor
limitations of the study a r e p resented as follows:
1.

The study does not consid er v ariab le s such as academic
rank, departmental affiliation, tenure,

age, or sex which

may be related to faculty perceptions of activity p attern s.
2.

Organizational subgroups namely the adm inistrative,
student affairs, an d /o r the profesional-technical staff,
a re not included in the study.

13

3,

A survey type study, p articu larly one which employs a
newly developed instru m e n t, has c e rta in well documented
limitations which m u st be considered in the in terpretation
of the data.

4.

Since less than 100% re tu rn of the questionaire can be anti­
cipated, conclusions cannot be p re c ise ly generalized beyond
those who complete the questionaire.

Organization of the Study
A review of the relevant lite ra tu re is p resented in the following
chapter.

The third chapter includes a description of the population,

data collection p ro c e d u re s, and sta tistic a l design.
resultant data is p resented in Chapter IV.

An analysis of the

Finally, the summary and

conclusions of the study, as well as recommendations for furth er r e ­
se arc h , are discussed in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction
As stated in Chapter I, the central purpose of this study is to a sse ss
faculty perceptions of organizational p r io r itie s through an analysis of
professional activity p attern s.

This chapter is intended to provide

additional background for the study by examining various techniques
used to identify and m easure:

(1) faculty perceptions of organizational

p r i o r i t i e s , and (2) the nature and extent of professio nal activity within
academic organizations.

Organizational P rio rity A ssessm ent
The evaluation of faculty attitudes toward institutional p rio ritie s is
a problem which has attracted considerable attention in recent y ea rs.
In attempting to address this problem , m ost r e s e a r c h has employed an
approach to organizational analysis which focuses upon institutional
goals as the central variable of study.

This "goal model" for organiza­

tional analysis, as Etzioni te r m s it, assum es that all stru ctu re d activity
existing within an organization is directed at achieving c e rta in p r e ­
determ ined outcomes or goals [9:16],

F ro m this perspectiv e then, the

p ro ce ss of establishing p r io ritie s for organizational activity m ust, of
necessity, begin with a careful evaluation of institutional goals.

Goal Studies
P erh ap s the m ost widely acclaimed and comprehensive examination

15

o£ university goals was conducted by Gross and G rambsch [10].

In this

study, adm inistrators and faculty fro m sixty-eight universities were
asked to respond to a listing of forty -seven goal statem ents developed
by the r e s e a r c h e r s .

Each statem ent was categorized as either an out­

put or support goal of the organization.

Output goals were defined as

those ends "which immediately, or in the future, are reflected in some
product,

se rv ic e ,

skill, or orientation which will effect so c ie ty ." [10;13]

Support goals, on the other hand, were identified as those activities
intended to keep the organization functioning effectively [10:9].
Faculty and adm in istrato rs included in the sample were asked to
indicate th e ir perceptions of the actual and p r e f e r r e d importance of
each goal within their institution.

Comparisons of these perceptions

were made to determ ine the degree of goal congruence existing within
the organization.

The significance of goal congruence is sum m arized

by Gross and Grambsch in the following:
In general, we would assum e that where th e re is a high degree
of congruence between perceived and p r e f e r r e d goals, a state
of harmony and content will exist.
Conversely, where what is
differs m arkedly from what the staff feels should be, a state of
dissatisfaction, tension, and even conflict will exist. [ 10:36]
In comparing rankings of the mean sc o re s obtained from the p e r ­
ceived and p r e f e r r e d m e a su re s of im portance, the authors noted con­
sid erable congruence in response and, "by inference,

a high degree of

satisfaction among faculty and ad m in istrato rs that goals w ere receiving
proper attention. " [10:110]

Dissonance between perceived and p r e f e r r e d

im portance was, however, found to exist in the output goals relating to
student production and in ce rta in support goals concerned with m aintain­
ing the financial base of the institution [10:111],
Though not tested sta tistica lly , it is in teresting to note that the
mean responses fo r " p re f e r re d im portance" exceeded those of "perceived

16

im portance" in forty of the fo rty -s e v e n goal statem ents [10:28-29].
This could lead one to conclude that faculty and adm in istrato rs generally
feel that institutions should place m o re emphasis on n e a rly all goals
considered.
In addition to providing insight into faculty and adm inistrative p e r ­
ceptions of institutional goals, the work of Gross and Grambsch served
to stimulate fu rth e r inquiry into goals a s se ss m e n t in higher education.
In 1969, the Danforth Foundation [22] reported the re s u lts of a study
which used a shortened and revised form of the Gross and Grambsch
inventory.

The study was designed to a s s i s t fourteen sm all lib eral arts

colleges in identifying th e ir goals.
of a d m in istra to rs,
tutions.

Included in the sam ple w ere groups

faculty, and students from each of the subject in sti­

While there w ere significant differences between the th ree

groups regarding perceived and p r e f e r r e d im portance of various goals,
all tended to agree on the directio n of d esire d change [22:5].
In 1970, Thomas [31] conducted a study at Michigan State University
involving a sample of student personnel w orkers and graduate students.
Using the Gross and Grambsch study in stru m e n t, he sought to compare
the goal perceptions of this group with the resp onses of faculty and ad­
m in is tra to r s obtained by Gross and Grambsch in 1968.

Thomas found

that the student personnel w orkers placed a higher emphasis on studentoriented goals than did the fa c u lty -a d m in istra to r group of the national
survey [31:111-115].

Since Thomas sought to com pare groups which

were distant in both size and tim e , the re s u lts of his study m ust be in­
te rp re te d with caution.
One y e a r after Thomas' study was published, Stead [28] reported
the resu lts of a second goals study conducted at Michigan State University.

17

Like Thomas, Stead used a slightly modified v ersio n of the Cross and
Grambsch in stru m e n t.

The purpose of his study, however, was to

determ ine whether differences existed between the goal perceptions and
p re fe re n c e s of various groups associated with the university.

Included

in the sample w ere undergraduate and graduate students, faculty,
m in i s t r a to r s , and t r u s t e e s .

ad­

Stead found the g re a te s t goal congruence

occurring within the faculty, a d m in istra to r, and graduate student
groups.

The responses of undergraduates and t r u s te e s reflected the

g re a te s t differences between perceived and p r e f e r r e d rankings.

In

addition. Stead noted that all groups felt that nearly every goal should
be given g r e a t e r emphasis than was the ca se in p ra c tic e [28:145-146],
Though

congruence of opinion regarding the perceived and p r e ­

f e r r e d im portance of various institutional goals was a consistent find­
ing of m ost of the studies outlined above, c e rta in qualifications m ust
be made in in terpretin g this resu lt.

In each of the studies, goal con­

gruence was s ta tis tic a lly identified through a p ro ce ss of m e a n -s c o r e
rankings of goal statem ents.

Rankings of perceived importance were

c o rre la te d with those of p r e f e r r e d im portance to establish the existence
of congruence between the two m e a s u re s .

Unfortunately, the rank o rd e r

co rrela tio ns employed fail to evaluate actual mean sc o re differences
between the two m e a s u r e s for each goal.
Though not evaluated sta tistic a lly , an inspection of the mean
scores and variances obtained in the studies suggest the existence of
divergent opinion both between, and within, groups regarding the im ­
portance of various goals.

F u r t h e r , though not em piric al, evidence of

differing goal perceptions is m anifest in frequent conflicts between con­
stituent groups.

Students, faculty, taxp ay ers, and le g isla to rs demand

that higher education respond to th e ir respective concerns.

In far too

18

many cases however, the concerns of one group greatly differ from
those of another.

Since each group is involved in the support of higher

education, each has a right to p articipate in determining institutional
goals.

The problem , then, as Lawrence puts it:

Though recognizing the validity of the statem ent, 'he who pays
the piper calls the tune, 1 the university is caught on the horns
of a dilemma. What do you do when two people who pay the
pip er call different tu nes? [17:3]
Divergence of opinion regarding the m ission of higher education
occurs not only between constituent groups, but within them.
study of academic departm ents, D ress el,

In th e ir

Johnson, and Marcus [8] con­

clude that faculty opinion regarding institutional goals is often d iv erse,
obscure, and generally confusing:
Not only do departm ents vary in th e ir m issio n s, but individuals
within departm ents also have specific objectives which do not
n e c e s s a rily coincide with those of the departm ent, or of the
university. Faculty objectives may, in fact, be highly personal
and even unrelated to the discipline. Confusion is added to this
pictu re by the fact that there is little agreem ent as to what the
m issions should be for the different units.
. . . Some p ro fe s so rs
even argue that departm ental or university objectives exist
only as vague composites of individual faculty objectives.
In
the extrem e, this means that in the name of academic freedom,
each faculty m em ber m ust be perm itted to do his own thing.
[8:71]
The problem of identifying organizational goals within academic in­
stitutions is thus confounded by diverse and often conflicting opinion.
In attempting to reso lv e this problem , Cyphert and Gant [6] employed
the Delphi method of concensus formation in identifying goals for the
School of Education at the University of Virginia.

The Delphi technique

is d escribed by Cyphert and Gant as follows:
Traditionally the method for achieving consensus is a round
table discussion among individuals who a rriv e at a group po si­
tion.
There a re a number of objections to this procedure.
The final position, usually a com prom ise, is often derived
under the undue influence of ce rta in psychological facto rs,

19
such as specious persu asio n by the group m em ber with the
g r e a te s t supposed authority o r even m erely the loudest voice,
an unwillingness to abandon, publicly expressed opinion, and
the bandwagon effect of m ajority opinion. In contrast, with
the Delphi Technique an attempt is made to overcome these
facto rs by not bringing particip ants together in one place and
by not reporting individual opinions. ThiB eliminates com­
m ittee activity and replaces i t with a carefully designed p r o ­
gram of sequential interrogations (with q u e s tio n a ire s) in te r ­
sp e rse d with information and opinion feedback. [6:272]
In th e ir study of the School of Education, the r e s e a r c h e r s employed
a Delphi method involving four successive questionaires.

The f i r s t in­

volved asking a sample consisting of faculty, ad m in istra to rs, political
le a d e rs ,

and school teachers to suggest "prim e ta rg e ts on which the

School of Education should concentrate its re s o u rc e s during the next
decade." [6:273]

F ro m the suggestions received,

ments were formulated.

sixty-one goal sta te­

The second questionaire contained a random

listing of the sixty-one item s and asked the sample to rate each item on
a five point scale.

The third questionaire differed from the second in

that i t reported both the group concensus and the respondents p r io r
rating for each item .

The respondent was then asked to r e - r a t e the

items in light of additional information concerning the opinion of the
total sample.

P articipants who wished to rem ain outside of the concen­

sus were asked to state p rim a ry reasons for doing so.

The fourth and

final questionaire was constructed to re p o rt the concensus achieved on
the previous instrum ent, the p articip an t's previous respon ses,
lis t of the m a jo r "dissenting opinions" for each item.

and a

The ratings ob­

tained on the final questionaire were thus based "upon the respondents'
own values and a knowledge of m ajority and m inority views. " [6:273]
In comparing response patterns of both groups and individuals over
the successive questio naires, Cyphert and Gant observed a movement
toward g re a te r concensus both between and within groups.

They

20
concluded that the Delphi technique could se rv e as an important tool in
identifying and formulating consensus on institutional goals [6:273].
A m ore comprehensive examination of the potential of the Delphi
technique was undertaken by the National L aboratory for Higher Educa­
tion [34].

In this study, th ree successive questionaires (along with r e ­

sponse feedback) w ere forwarded to samples of students, faculty,
m in is tr a to r s , tr u s t e e s ,

ad­

alumni, p a re n ts, and community leaders

associated with five subject institutions.

The questionaires were s tr u c ­

tured sim ila r to that used in Gross and Grambsch [10] in that respond­
ents were asked to rate the c u rre n t and p r e f e r r e d importance of each
goal appearing on the instrum ent.

An analysis of the resu lts revealed

that a convergence of opinion occurred between groups at each subject
Institution,

These findings led the r e s e a r c h e r s to conclude:

The instrum entation and technique used in this study to a s se ss
the p re s e n t and p r e f e r r e d goals of five c o lle g e s .. . were su c c e s s ­
ful. . . Not only was the importance of goals a s se ss e d , but in
m ost goal a re a s where some difference of opinion existed,
agreem ent was achieved.
This is not to imply that attitudes
were changed; they may o r may not have been.
Possible changes
in opinion occurred because participants were given an oppor­
tunity, through feedback, to consider dimensions of problems
which they have not previously considered. F o r whatever
reason, the different groups came to a much g re a te r agreement
as to what the p re s e n t goals of the institution a re and what they
should be. [34:49]

Problem s of Interpretation
Each of the studies described above sought to identify organizational
p rio ritie s through an evaluation of institutional goals.

According to Uhl

[34], the ability to identify goals is the fundamental p re re q u is ite to the
development of efficient methods for re s o u rc e allocation.
O n c e ... goals have been established, m easurable objectives can
be se t and strate g ie s for obtaining them devised.
By evaluating
each strategy in te rm s of re s o u rc e s needed and possible out­
com es, a plan of action can be determined. Since a chosen

21

strategy is linked to a m ea su rab le objective, it will be possible
to evaluate how well the plan of action attains the objective.
[34:3]
Unfortunately, m ost of the techniques employed to a s s e s s goals typically
display th ree fundamental weaknesses which tend to lim it th e ir useful­
ness in the above p ro c e ss .
F i r s t , the task of defining institutional goals is an extrem ely dif­
ficult one, often resulting in over-generalizatio n.

The frequently used

Gross and Grambsch [10] instrum ent, for example, employs statem ents
such as:
1.

to p r e p a re students specifically for useful c a r e e r s

2.

to a s s i s t students to develop objectivity about them selves
and th e ir beliefs and hence examine those beliefs c ritic ally

3.

to produce a student who is able to p e rfo rm his citizenship
responsibilities effectively [10:141],

Though carefully constructed, these and sim ila r state m ents, in and of
them selves,

a re operationally meaningless.

item two in the l is t p resen ted above.

Consider for example,

What is c r itic a l thinking?

How

can it be achieved by the institution and how does the institution know
when it is achieved?

These a re difficult questions which tend to stim u­

late d isag reem en t and controversy p articu larly among faculty.

Yet, if

a goal is to be meaningful to the organization, an operational under­
standing of the means by which it is achieved and evaluated m ust be
attained.
A second weakness commonly observed in g o a l-a s s e s s m e n t tech­
niques is the implied assumption that a goal can and should be evaluated
independently of all other goals associated with the organization.

This

assumption is clearly illu stra te d in the design of each of the goal studies

22

e a r l i e r described.

Respondents were asked to ascrib e a level of im ­

portance to a num ber of goal statem ents.
was rated independently of all other ite m s.

Each item , or statement,
Using this technique, it

was th eoretically possib le to achieve equally high ratings fo r all pos­
sible goal statem ents presen ted.

Unfortunately, organizations having

finite re so u rc e s a r e lim ited in th e ir ability to effectively engage in all
possible goal-directed activities.

A dm inistrators and thus faced with

the task of determining p r io r itie s for various institutional goals.

Nor­

mally, this p ro c e ss re q u ire s a careful evaluation of each goal in term s
of all others available.

Information which does not consider the r e l a ­

tive im portance of goals, such as that provided through goal p reference
stu dies, may be of lim ited value in supporting this p ro c e s s .
The th ird m a jo r weakness apparent in each of the goal prefe ren c e
studies cited above is the difficulty in translatin g perceptions of "im ­
portance" into adm inistratively significant t e r m s .

The p ro c e ss of e s ­

tablishing p ro g ram p rio ritie s re q u ire s a careful examinagion of available
re s o u rc e s in t e r m s of d o lla rs, fac ilitie s, tim e, an d /o r other quantitative r
m e a su re s .

Regretably, th ere is little evidence to suggest the existence

of a d ir e c t c o rre la tio n between perceptions of importance and any of
these m e a s u re s .

Some im portant goals may, in fact, be effectively

achieved through relatively low-cost p ro g ra m s.

An in strum ent which

could define levels of importance as quantitative m e a su re s of p ro fes­
sional re s o u rc e s would be extrem ely useful to the adm inistrative p ro ce ss.
An extension of professio nal re s o u rc e or activity analysis to in­
clude m e a su re s of actual and p r e f e r r e d p ro g ra m -r e la te d activity could
serv e to supplement goal p re fe re n c e studies by responding to many of

23
the concerns cited above.

More specifically, such an analysis would

provide the following information:
1.

perceptions of specific goal-directed activities o r p r o ­
gram s r a th e r than a b s tra c t goal statem ents

2.

perceptions defined as quantitative m e a s u re s of activity
r a th e r than quantitative m e a su re s of importance

3.

perceptions of organizational p rio ritie s defined in te rm s
of finite r a t h e r than infinite re s o u rc e availability.

Faculty Activity Analysis
Traditionally, activity analysis in higher education has been con­
cerned with the problem of identifying how faculty m em bers spend th e ir
time.

As early as 1929, Reeves and Russell describ ed the problem as

follows:
The evaluation of faculty load is an extremely difficult prob­
lem.
Teaching*
and other professional duties vary tr e m e n ­
dously from institution to institution and from individual to
individual within a given institution. In fact, the factors in­
volved in determining total faculty load a r e so numerous and
so varied as to alm ost preclude p re c is e determ ination by any
mechanical method. No thoroughly scientific method of m e a ­
suring faculty load is now available.
Existing m e a s u re s are
u n satisfacto ry and incomplete.
The answers a re not yet in.
Yet, as a p ra c tic a l n ec essity , some method of m easuring and
adjusting faculty load even though only approximate m u st be
employed. [24]
Three decades la te r the American Council on Education, in sum ­
m arizing a national conference on ’’faculty workload, " echoed the con­
cerns of Reeves and Russell by claiming that the development of an
effective means to identify and accurately m e a su re faculty activity "is
both im possible and im perative. " [2:92]
The need to resolve the problem s associated with the evaluation of
faculty re s o u rc e s was accentuated during the 1960's.
Romney [24]:

According to

24

The urgent planning problems facing the leadership of higher
education at that tim e involved obtaining an indication of the
quality and amount of resources needed to cope with the anti­
cipated expansion and changing mix of enrollments. Inter­
national competition to explore space as well as federal
emphasis on basic scientific re s e a rc h . . . further accelerated
these concerns. . .
Commensurate with increasing public in­
vestments in higher education during this period were in­
creasing demands for accountability. . . Accordingly,
adm inistrators developed various devices to capture the
information necessary to answer questions of faculty utilization.
[24:13]
The most predominant technique employed during this period was
the faculty time survey.

Generally, these surveys consisted of identi­

fying how the tim e of an individual or group of faculty was allocated over
specified lists of activities.

According to Romney, the justification for

such inquiries rested on two basic assumptions:
1.

That certain kinds of activities somehow are related to
the quality of the learning environment created by the
institution

2.

That mixes of faculty workloads influence the costs of
producing the learning environment. [24:13]

Faculty time studies, therefore, have been generally viewed as
tools to investigate the impact of faculty activity on both the quality and
cost of education.

Perceived in this light, the data obtained from such

studies may be used, in conjunction with evaluations of other institu­
tional re so u rc e s, to support various administrative decisions.
Romney [24], for example, suggests that activity analysis is a
necessary ingredient to the management functions of long-range planning,
program review and evaluation, budgeting, and resource utilization
analysis.

Cannell [3], Stecklein [29], and Hauck [ l l ] agree that activi­

ties data may be effectively used to evaluate the appropriateness of
faculty assignments.

Hill [13], however, perceives activity analysis as

a means to identify problems of individual and/or organizational morale.

25

Doi [7] even suggests that data obtained fro m such analyses can se rv e
to stimulate the development of m o re efficient instructional techniques.
P erhaps the m ost significant r e s u lt of the analysis of activity pat­
te rn s has been the development of a m o re comprehensive understanding
of the various components of faculty workload.

Traditional m e a s u re s ,

such as c r e d i t- h o u r s , contact-ho urs, and student cre d it-h o u rs have
been proven unreliable as single indicators of instructional load.

The

evaluation of activities data has suggested the need to consider other
variable s which significantly effect the workload of a faculty m em ber.
Sheets [27], for example, identifies nine components of instructional
load including:

(1) type of c la s s .

number of c la sse s p e r day.

(2) number of students in c la s s .

(3)

(4) arra ngem ent of hours within the day.

(5) experience of the faculty m e m b e r, (6) number of different p r e p a r a ­
tions,

(7) amount of c le r ic a l assista n ce available,

(8) professional

im provem ent req u ired , and (9) number of non-teaching assignments.
More comprehensive listin g s, including non-instructional load com­
ponents, may be found in M iller [19] and Isaacs [15].
In addition to identifying the components of load, analyses of ac­
tivities data has also suggested the existence of quantitative relatio n­
ships between th ese various components.

F u rth e r analysis of these

relationships has resu lte d in the development of m athem atical models
describing faculty workload.

Examples of these models (or workload

formulae) may be found in Hauck [ l l ] . Hill [13], Sheets [27], and
Ratzmann [21].
Recent emphasis on developing system s of p ro g ram planning and
budgeting in higher education has encouraged r e s e a r c h e r s to explore
the relationship of faculty activity to institutional p ro g ram objectives.

26
The University of California at Berkeley [35], for example, surveyed
its faculty to determ ine the amount of effort being allocated to support
various institutional objectives.

In addition to providing information on

the amount of tim e being spent in different types of activities, faculty
were asked to indicate the degree to which th e ir effort contributed to
the general p ro g ram are as of the institution.

As a r e s u lt of the survey,

the r e s e a r c h e r s concluded that a single activity may contribute to, or
simultaneously effect, se v era l institutional objectives.
The complex relationship between activity and output has m ore r e ­
cently been addressed by the National C enter for Higher education
Management Systems (NCHEMS).

According to Romney [24], the cen­

tr a l objectives of the faculty activity project at NCHEMS a re to d escribe
"the relationship of faculty to the outcomes of higher education and the
faculty role as it rela te s to the mix of re so u rc e s that are combined to
produce these outputs, i. e. , the production function of higher educa­
tion. 11 [24:62]

To describ e this "production function, 11 NCHEMS has, to

date, developed instrum entation and standardized analytical procedures
to a s s i s t institutions in defining the effect of faculty reso u rce s upon
the achievement of institutional objectives [18].
The scope of activity analysis has thus evolved from a singular
examination of the nature of faculty responsibility into a se t of analytical
procedures which may be used to describ e the production process of an
institution.

Increasing adm inistrative acceptance and application of

these techniques has, however, generated a considerable amount of
controversy among academicians.

Veblen [36], for example, sum ­

m arize s the views of many faculty by suggesting that activities analysis
and other management techniques are inconsistent with achieving aca­
demic excellence.

27

Men debate on the high necessity of a businesslike organization
and control of the university, its equipment, personnel, and
routine. . . In this view, the university is conceived as a busi­
ness house dealing with m erchantable knowledge, placed under
the governing hand of a captain of erudation, whose office is to
tu rn the means in hand to account for the la r g e s t feasible out­
put. . . (Such a university) puts a prem ium on m ediocrity and
profunctory work, and brings academic life to revolve about
the office of the Keeper of the Tape and Sealing Wax. [36:76-77]
Even those who support the use of activity analysis caution against
its excessive or unwise use [26].

Lawrence [17] suggests, for example,

that important outputs and relate d activities are generally difficult to
identify and near impossible to accurately m e a su re .

Activity and out­

put analysis, th e re fo re , may tend to denigrate the m ost important ac­
tivities in favor of those which a re easily m easured.

Concurring with

this observation, Rourke and Brooks conclude that "excessive reliance
upon quantitative c r i t e r i a in any institution with purposes as intangible
as education is the m ost foolhardy kind of adm inistrative delusion. 11
[25:10]
Quantification of activity may also tend to obscure questions r e ­
lating to the quality of endeavor.

Within a professional organization,

such as a university, where personnel a re the m ost significant re so u rc e
effecting output, such questions are c ritic a l to evaluations of produc­
tivity.

The importance of qualitative evaluation within a professional

or "labor intensive" organization is sum m arized by Toombs [33]:
(The university) is not only labor intensive but also 'quality in­
tensive. ' That is to say, the way in which education is c a r r ie d
out has qualities that m ust be p re se rv e d .
How it is done, what
happens between input and output, is at the hea rt of the m atter.
E a rl Cheit and others have used the analogy of the symphony
o r c h e s tra , also a labor intensive and quality intensive organ­
ization.
The o r c h e s tr a is limited in how many engagements it
can play p e r week before its re p e rto ire d e te rio ra te s and p e r ­
formance declines. It cannot play fa s te r or louder.
The
number of m em bers cannot be i n c r e a s e d . . . to yield m ore out­
put. In short the quality of the p ro ce ss itself, not just the
outcome, is a p art of 'production. 1 [33:29]

28
Implied in Toombs' analogy is the need to extend p ro fessio n al r e ­
source analy ses to c o n sid e r questions of quality as in trin sic to educa­
tional productivity.

When, for exam ple, does the quantity of activity

begin to intrude upon the quality of the educational p r o c e s s ?
ing only those quantitative aspects of the p r o c e s s ,

E m phasiz­

activity a n a ly sis,

as

it is p r e s e n tly con stru ed, leaves such c r i t ic a l questions unanswered,
The in te r p re ta tio n of activities data is fu rth e r complicated by ques­
tions re lating to the re la tiv e value of various p ro fe s sio n a l activities [24],
A re, for exam ple, teaching activities m o r e ' ’valuable" to the institution
than those activ itie s asso c ia ted with r e s e a r c h o r public s e r v i c e ?

O r,

is a faculty m e m b e r who r e p o r ts fifty hours of pro fessio n al activity
each week m o re valuable to the organization than one reporting forty
h o u rs?

To answ er th e s e and oth er evaluative q uestio ns, it is essen tial

to r e la te specific activity m e a s u re s to the valued goalB and objectives
of the institution ( i . e . ,

the p r io rity s t ru c tu re ) [17].

Without this r e ­

lationship, activity m e a s u r e m e n t may become no m o r e than a meaning­
le s s e x e rc is e .

Sum m ary
As was stated e a r l i e r ,

the c e n tra l purpose of this study is to ex­

tend the scope of activity analysis as a m eans to identify p r i o r i t i e s
within academic organizatio ns.

This c h a p ter was intended to provide

background for the study by examining:

(1) various analytical techniques

used to identify and m e a s u r e perceptions of organizational p r i o r i t i e s ,
and (2) the c u r r e n t " s ta te of the a r t ” of faculty activity analysis
higher education.

As a r e s u lt of this review ,

relating to the need fo r this study w ere made:

in

a num ber of observations

Most e m p iric a l attem pts to identify and m e a s u r e p e r c e p ­
tions of organizatio nal p r i o r i t i e s have focused p r i m a r il y
on institutional goals.

Assuming th at all organizational

activity is goal d ire c te d , th e s e studies have approached
the p ro b le m of p r i o r i t y a s s e s s m e n t through evaluating
various p ercep tion s of in stitutional goals.

A ca refu l review of th ese goal studies re v e a ls th r e e sig­
nificant lim itatio ns which tend to lim it t h e i r u se fu ln e ss.
F irs t,

the p r o c e s s of defining goals often r e s u lts in o v e r ­

gen e raliza tio n and m isconception.

Secondly, the designs

of m o st goal studies fail to recognize the c o n s tra in t of
finite organizatio nal r e s o u r c e s and thus is not con sistent
with r e a l i s t i c p r o c e s s e s of determ ining institutional
p rio rities.

F in ally , it is difficult to t r a n s l a t e perceptions

of a g oal's "im p o rtan c e" into a quantitative m e a s u r e of
the r e s o u r c e s needed fo r its achievement.
Recognizing th ese lim ita tio n s , it was concluded that a
r e a l is ti c a s s e s s m e n t of institutional p r i o r i t i e s m u st, of
n e c e s s ity , include an evaluation of perceptio ns and a tti­
tudes toward the d istrib u tio n of p ro fessio n al r e s o u r c e s .
Evaluations of p ro fessio n al r e s o u r c e s in higher education
have, however, been lim ite d to the identification and
m e a s u re m e n t of actual activity p a tte r n s .

The application

of th e s e techniques to p r io r ity a s s e s s m e n t r e q u i r e s that
the traditio nal scope of th e i r inquiry be expanded to include
a qualitative consideratio n of valued or p r e f e r r e d activity
p a tte rn s .

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Introduction
The central objective of this study, as p resented in Chapter I, is
to com pare actual and p r e f e r r e d pattern s of faculty activity at both an
individual and organizational level.

This chapter provides m o re de­

tailed descriptions of the population to be studied, the Instrum entation,
procedures employed in collecting data, and the s ta tistic a l techniques
used in the analysis.

Population
The sample fo r the study consists of all faculty associated with the
College of Engineering at Michigan State University.

Members of the

adm inistrative staff, including the dean, a s s is ta n t deans, d ire c to r of
r e s e a r c h , departm ent chairm en,
sented in the sam ple.

and academic advisors are not r e p r e ­

In o rd e r to employ the p a ra m e tr ic s ta tis tic a l

design, described la te r in this chapter, it is assumed that the sample
has been p erfectly drawn from a theo retical population which displays
all of the c h a ra c te r is tic s of the sample.
The rationale for this assumption is provided by Cornfield and
Tukey [5] who suggest that selection techniques, no m a t t e r how p r e c i s e ,
never produce samples which exactly reflec t the c h a r a c te r is tic s of an
actual population.

The Cornfield-Tukey argument concludes that a

true population may only be defined in te rm s of the unique c h a ra c te ris tic s

31
of the sample.

Thus, the u s e r of r e s e a r c h is obligated to determ ine

the extent to which re s u lts may be generalized.

Instrum entation
As was mentioned in Chapter I, the College of Engineering has,
for a number of y e a r s , collected data on faculty activity to support
various management functions.

Much of this information has been

ob­

tained through the use of a questionaire (see Appendix A) which is
routinely adm in istered to the faculty each y e a r.

Though constructed

to m ee t the unique needs of the College, the questio naire, or Annual
Report, has been widely used as a model for data collection in the a re a
of faculty re s o u rc e analysis [8:194-2 06],
tives of the study,

In o rd e r to m eet the objec­

an addendum to the Annual R e p o rt, namely the

Faculty Effort F o rm (see Appendix A), was revised in consultation
with the college adm in istratio n and rep re se n ta tiv e s of the faculty.

Description of the Annual Report
E ssentially, the Annual Report is designed to obtain detailed de­
scriptions of individual activity p erform ed in support of the five m ajo r
p ro g ram areas of the College.

Each of the p ro g ra m a re a s is defined in

te rm s of component activities within the form as follows;
In stru ctio n :

includes all effort dedicated to the teaching of students,

whether the teaching effort is form al o r informal.
the following categ o ries:

It is distributed into

(a) reg u la r on campus c la ssro o m teaching,

(b) off-campus p ro g ra m s adm inistered by the university involving in­
struction for c re d it,

(c) off-campus pro g ram s adm inistered by the

university, but not for c re d it,

(d) advising,

(f) relate d developmental activities.

(e) thesis directio n, and

32
R e se a rc h and Scholarly Activity:

consists of all effort dedicated

p rim a rily to the discovery and application of new knowledge.

Excluded

are any activities for which the m a jo r purpose is the training of students
o r the improvement of instruction, both of which should be accounted
for under "Instruction. "

Consulting or other activity for which indivi­

duals receive m o re than token payment from an outside source is also
excluded.
Public S e rv ic e :

is com prised of the following activities:

ation of information bulletins;

prepar­

contacts with professional organizations

(offices held, committee assignm ents, etc, ); editor of a professional
publication; d irecto rsh ip or planning chairmanship of conferences;
participation in conferences;

s e m in a rs ,

colloquia;

radio and TV p r e ­

sentations; talks o r papers before se rv ic e clubs and high schools;
community se rv ic e and activities; public relations work with outside
agencies o r institutions for courtesy and good will; campus visito r
pro g ram s;

student society or fra te rn a l organization advising.

Committee and Adm inistrative S e r v ic e s :

consists of all effort de­

voted to m anagerial and supervisory tasks (except course supervision)
perform ed for the departm ent, college, or university as a whole but
supported by the department.
P rofessio nal Development:

includes any p ersonal accomplishments

designed to maintain and im prove one's general professional compe­
tence.

Such activities include sch olarships, fellowships, grants,

leaves, tr a v e l,

special su m m er p ro g ram s and activities, added deg re es,

honoring awards or m em berships granted.
After reviewing the definitions above, faculty m em bers a re asked
to respond to a s e r ie s of questions concerning individual activities

33
perform ed in each of the five p ro g ram a re a s .

With few exceptions,

the questions a re structured to elicit responses which describe p e r ­
formance in te rm s of selected m ea su res which approximate the p ro ­
ductivity or output achieved in a given activity area.

In describing an

instructional p ro g ra m activity such as teaching, for example, the
faculty m em ber is asked to lis t the number of student credit hours r e ­
sulting from his or h e r teaching ra th e r than simply indicating courses
or subjects taught.

Other examples of output approximations employed

in the Annual Report are illu strate d in Table 3. 1.
It should be noted that each output approximation is either directly
expressed or may be converted to a quantitative representatio n of p r o ­
ductivity.

Results obtained from an individual faculty m e m b e r's report

may, th ere fo re , be equated and combined with the repo rts of other
faculty to obtain an approximation of group or organizational produc­
tivity.

Such information, combined with other data may also se rv e as

a fundamental component in analyses of productivity within the
organization.

Description of the Faculty Effort F orm
As indicated above, the Annual Report is designed to provide in­
formation regarding the c h a ra c te r and amount of productivity achieved
in college p ro g ra m a r e a s .
A, Annual Report pp.

Attached to the Annual Report (see Appendix

12-13) is a Faculty Effort F o r m .

This form is

stru ctured to obtain estim ates of the amount of time an individual faculty
m em ber devotes to various activities associated with the five p ro g ram
areas.
E ssentially , the Faculty Effort F orm consists of a listing of
eighteen key words or statem ents which r e p re s e n t specific activities

34

TABLE 3. 1 - - Examples of P ro g ra m Output Approximations
Used in the College of Engineering Annual
Report of Individual Faculty Activities

P ro g ra m

Output Approximations

Instruction

Undergraduate Student Credit Hours
Graduate Student C redit Hours
Off-Campus Undergraduate Student
C redit Hours
Non-Credit Course Enrollm ent
Number of Undergraduate Advisees
Number of Graduate Advisees
Number of Graduate Committees
Number of Theses Completed
Number of New Courses Developed
Number of Instructional Techniques
Employed

Research and Scholarship

Research P ro je c ts Directed
Amount of Outside R esearch Fund­
ing Received
Proposals Completed
Gifts and Grants Received
Publications Completed

Public Service

Contacts with P ro fessio nal Societies
Contacts with Service or Community
Organizations
Contacts with Governmental Agencies
Contacts with Student Organizations

Committees and Administrative
Service

P ro g ra m s Organized or Adminis­
tere d
Committee Assignments

Professional Development

Scholarships an d /o r Fellowships
Received
Conferences or Workshops Attended
Advanced Degrees Completed
Travel

35

associated with a faculty appointment in the College of Engineering.
Each of the activity statements appears on the form under the p ro g ram
category to which it corresponds.

After completing and carefully r e ­

viewing responses to the Annual R eport, facility m em bers are instructed
to complete the Faculty Effort F o rm by providing estim ates of the p e r ­
centage of tim e devoted to each of the listed activities.

The resultant

percentage distribution d escrib es a pattern which illu s tra te s the r e l a ­
tive amount of individual activity perform ed in each p ro g ram over a
calendar year.

Since faculty m em bers may be viewed as organizational

re s o u rc e s, the patterns of individual activity obtained from the form may
be combined to re p r e s e n t an estim ate of how faculty re so u rc e s are al­
located in support of college p ro g ram s.

Description of the Revised Effort F o rm
Viewed as a single in strum ent, the Annual Report and the Faculty
Effort F o rm provide useful information regarding both the distribution
of faculty activity over college p rog ram s and the re su lts or effects of
this activity defined in te rm s of quantitative approximations of produc­
tivity.

The scope of the information derived from the instrum ent, how­

ever, is limited to descriptions of actual individual activity.

In o rd e r

to m eet the objectives of this study, it was n e c e s sa ry to either design
a new instrum ent or extend the scope of the Annual Report and Faculty
Effort F orm to include additional m e a su re s of activity.

To maintain

consistency with data collection procedures already existing in the
college and at the suggestion of the college adm inistration, the la tte r
course was chosen.
After a thorough examination of the s tru c tu re of both the Annual
Report and the Faculty Effort F o r m , it was concluded that the data

36
essential to the study could be obtained through a careful revision of
the Faculty Effort F o r m .

A copy of the revised Effort F o rm used in

the study is p resen ted in Appendix B.
The rev ised Effort F o rm is designed to estim ate actual, perceived,
and p r e f e r r e d activity p attern s of individual and groups of faculty with­
in the College of Engineering.

More specifically, it provides subject

faculty m em bers with a listing of th irty statements representin g cate­
gories of faculty activity.

Each of the categories is constructed to

relate specifically to the various p ro g ram s associated with the central
goals of the college ( e . g . , instruction, r e s e a r c h and scholarship,
public se rv ic e ,
development).

committee and adm inistrative s e rv ic e ,

and professional

A listing of the activity categories and p rog ram a re a s

is presented in Table 3.2.

Following the suggestion of Richardson

[23:108-114], the instructional p ro g ram a r e a , which norm ally receives
the l a r g e s t proportion of faculty r e s o u rc e s within an academic organ­
ization, is divided into six su b -p ro g ra m a re a s to achieve g r e a te r cla rity
in re s u lts .
In reviewing Table 3 .2 , i t is obvious that other groupings of ac­
tivities with p ro g ram s a re possible.

Indeed, other activity and program

categories may logically be defined.

The functional activity and p r o ­

gram relationships, as defined in the revised Effort F o r m , are those
which are commonly used in the College of Engineering.
appear in the Annual R eport.

They also

Since the revised Effort F o rm was de­

signed to be included as an addendum to the Annual R eport, it was de­
cided to specify pro gram and activity relationships as they appear in
that document.
After reviewing the categories of activity, subjects are asked to
provide estim ates of the following:

TABLE 3.2 - - Program Areas and Activity Categories as Defined in the Revised Effort Form

Program/Sub-Program
Instruction
On-Campus Teaching

Activity Category Item

!• Teaching undergraduate courses designed for college majors
Teaching undergraduate courses designed for non-college
majors
3. Teaching 800-900 level courses designed for college majors
4. Teaching 800-900 level courses designed for non-college
majors

Off-Campus Teaching

5.

Teaching off-campus undergraduate courses
Teaching off-campus graduate courses

Other Off-Campus or
Evening College Programs

7.

Teaching non-credit courses

8.
9.

Formal and informal undergraduate advising
Formal and informal graduate advising (including Ph. D, com­
mittee activity)

Academic Advising

Thesis Direction
Associated Instructional
Activities

10.
11.

Directing M.S. Theses
Directing Ph. D, Theses

12.

Developing new courses for majors
Developing new courses for non-majors
Implementing new teaching-learning techniques
Evaluating existing courses within the curriculum
Other related activity

14.
15.
16.

Table 3,2 (Continued)

Program/Sub- Program
Research and Scholarship

Activity Category Item
17,
18.
19.

.

20
21.
22.

23.

Conducting research supported by Department
Conducting research supported by Division of Engineering
Research
Conducting research supported by Off-Campus Agency
Developing research proposals supported by Department
Developing researcE proposals supported by Division of Engin­
eering Research
Attraction of other gifts and grants
Preparation or editing of manuscripts, papers and/or articles

Public Service

24.

Professional participation in community and/or professional
organizations

Committee and Administrative
Service

25,
26.

Participation in Departmental committees
Participation in College committees
Participation in University committees
Management and/or supervisory activities

27.

28.
Professional Development

29.

Improvement of general professional competence including
scholarships, fellowships, grants, leaves, travel, special
summer programs, personal study, etc.

39
1.

Actual Individual Activity:

how an individual faculty m em ­

b er divides his or h er effort between the various categories
of responsibility
2.

P r e f e r r e d Individual Activity:

how the faculty m em ber

would ideally divide his or h er effort between listed
categories of activity
3.

P erceived Organizational (College) Activity:

the faculty

m e m b e r's perception of how the college divides total
faculty effort among the various activities
4.

P r e f e r r e d Organizational (College) Activity:

the faculty

m e m b e r's opinion as to how the college should divide
total faculty effort between the categories
Estim ates a re expressed in percentage of effort devoted to each of
the thirty categories of activity (with the total effort in a single activity
pattern to equal 10,0%).

The use of percentage effort as an expression

of activity is consistent with the assumption that all organizational r e ­
sources, including faculty r e s o u r c e s ,

are finite in nature.

This assum p­

tion is p a rtic u la rly im portant to any re a lis tic a s se ss m e n t of p rio ritie s
as it forces the a s s e s s o r to consider the value of an organizational ac­
tivity in t e r m s of all other activities.

The in strum ent, th ere fo re , is

designed to sim ulate the process of p rio rity asse ssm e n t by requiring
the faculty respondent to consider the trade-offs between the stated
categories of activity.
As was mentioned e a r l i e r , the revised Effort F o rm is designed to
be used with the Annual Report of faculty activities.

Before responding

to the Effort F o r m , the facility m em ber is asked to review his or her
responses to the Annual R eport.

Since the re p o rt provides relatively

40

complete descriptions of each college activity category, the review
process is suggested to provide m o re p re c ise definitions of the activity
statements appearing on the revised Effort F o rm .

Pretesting the Revised Effort F o rm
Since the Faculty Effort F o rm used in this study represented a
significant departu re from previously used activity analysis in strum ents,
it was considered n e c e s sa ry to conduct a p r e te s t to strengthen the con­
struct validity of the instrum ent.

The pretesting considted of two dis­

tinct phas es.
F i r s t , a draft of the in strum ent along with a general description of
the purposes of the study were p resented in meetings of both the Ad­
m inistrativ e (Department C hairm en's) Group and Advisory (Elected
Faculty) Council of the College.

In addition to obtaining approval to

conduct the study, suggestions regarding the construction of items on
the form were received.

Following these meetings, the dean and de­

partm ent chairm en were contacted on an individual basis.

As a result

of these meetings and la te r interviews, a number of changes were in­
corporated in the d raft instrum ent.
The second phase of the p r e te s t involved administering the draft
instrum ent to a sample of five faculty m em bers consisting of one full
p ro fe sso r, two associate p r o f e s s o r s , one assista n t p ro fe s s o r,
specialist.

and one

The faculty m em bers were asked to complete the Effort

Form noting any questions or difficulties they encountered on a separate
sheet.

After completing the form , four of the five faculty m em bers

were interviewed regarding th e ir reactions to the form.

The fifth,

who was unable to schedule a personal interview, was contacted by
phone to discuss his reaction.

41

The interviews were stru ctu re d to concentrate on the construct
validity of the instrument.

A system of random probing was used to

assist in revising the activity statem ents.

Each individual was asked

to relate his perception of the activity represented in a given item to
determine whether the item was conveying the p re c ise definition in­
tended.

Individuals were also asked to explain differences in th e ir r e ­

sponses to the four activity patterns (actual, p r e f e r re d , perceived
organizational,

and p r e fe r re d organizational activity) for selected ac­

tivity categories.

This was done to determ ine whether the activity

pattern descriptions were initiating intended response patterns.

F rom

the information obtained, m inor changes were made in several activity
pattern descriptions,

and the general directions for the form.

The

size of the p r e - t e s t sample (which was dictated by the sm all size of
the population) and the nature of the instrum ent precluded any a p r i o r i
test for sta tistical reliability.

Data Collection P rocedu res
Approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Dean of the
College, the Administrative or Department C hairm an's Group,

and the

College Advisory Council (an advisory group consisting of elected
faculty rep resen ta tives from each department).

In approving the study,

the latter group expressed concern regarding the confidentiality of c e r ­
tain information obtained through the revised Effort F orm (namely data
on p re fe rre d activity patterns).

Their concerns were magnified by the

fact that the revised Effort F o rm was proposed as an addendum to the
Annual Report which is used in management and personnel decisions within
the College.

In light of this concern, the following procedures were

used in collecting the data:

42
1.

The revised Effort F o rm was attached to the Annual
Report F o rm and copies were distributed to the faculty
on December 27, 1973.

Following standard procedures

used in the College, all facility were required to com­
plete an Annual Report F o rm and Column A (see Appendix
C) of the Effort F o rm .

The remaining columns on the

form w ere noted as optional.
2.

Faculty m em bers were asked to re tu rn completed Annual
Reports and Effort F o rm s to th e ir respective departmental
s e c r e ta r ie s on or before January 15, 1974.

3.

The departm ental s e c r e ta r ie s were in structed to forward
a reproduction of the entire Effort F o r m , without names
directly to the author.

A reproduction of Column A in the

Effort F orm was attached to the Annual Report and f o r ­
warded to the department chairm an and dean for normal
processing.

Original copies of the Effort F orm were r e ­

turned to the faculty.
4.

The follow-up of non-respondents was made through the
departm ental s e c r e ta r ie s .

The response rates resulting from this procedure are presented
in Table 3. 3.

As indicated in the table, the total number of Effort

Form s received was extremely high (97. 7%).

This was expected, how­

ever, since completion of the actual activity p a tte rn (Column A on the
Effort F o r m ) was required as p a r t of the Annual R eport.
faculty m e m b e rs ,

representing 17. 7% of the sample,

plete the Effort F orm beyond Column A.

A total of 16

chose not to com­

It should be noted, however,

that 8 of the 16 non-participating respondents did complete Column B

43

(P re fe rre d Individual Activity) but did not wish to respond to the organ­
izational activity s c a le s .
to be unusable.

Two fo rm s o r 2.2% of the sample were judged

A total of 70 r e s p o n s e s , or 77. 7% of the sam ple, were

included in the analysis.
TABLE 3.3 - - Summ ary of Faculty Response

Number

P ercentage of Sample

Total Sample

90

100. 0

Total Responses Received

88

97. 7

2

2. 2

16

17. 7

2

2. 2

70

77. 7

Total Non-Respondents
Non- P articipatin g
Respondents
Unusable Responses
Usable Responses (Total
N in the Analysis)

T re atm en t of the Data
Objectives and Hypotheses
As was indicated in Chapter I, the study is designed to m eet the
following six ce n tra l objectives:
1.

to determ in e whether differences exist between actual in­
dividual and p r e f e r r e d individual effort in each activity
category

2.

to d eterm ine whether differences exist between perceived
organizational and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort in each
activity category

3.

to determ in e whether differences exist between actual in­
dividual and perceiv ed organizational effort in each activity
category

44

4.

to determ ine whether differences exist between actual in­
dividual and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort in each activity
category

5.

to determ ine whether differences exist between p r e f e r r e d
individual and perceived organizational effort in each of
the activity categories

6.

to determ ine whether differences exist between p r e f e r r e d
individual and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort in each of
the activity categories.

In the subsequent analysis of the data, each of the above objectives
is redefined as a s e r ie s of hypotheses representin g the various activity
categories used in the study.

Thus, objective one, which is d irecte d at

determining differences between actual individual and p r e f e r r e d indi­
vidual effort, is achieved by testing the following symbolic hypotheses:

%

:

MEx

: m Ei

N

H° 1

ME

S
H

■ A
x * A1

:

ll

Objective 1

: A2
:

• A

*

1

: A^

A3

:

H° 3

h °n
where:

: ME 2 : an

" m e 2 : an

M

= mean

Ej

= actual individual activity
-

p r e f e r r e d individual activity

Aj

= f i r s t activity category

N

= number of activity categories

considered in the study.

45

Since the study is exploratory in nature, the hypotheses generated in
support of the objectives a re stated in the null form .

Analysis of the Data
A univ ariate analysis of repeated m e a s u re s design is used to te s t
the hypotheses.

Originally developed to com pare individual sc o res on

a single te s t over tim e, the ANOVA of repeated m e a s u re s or split-plo t
design is commonly used in com parisons of individual or group re s u lts
on s im ila r , though independent, m e a su re s [16:245],

Since this study

seeks to compare four related though independent m e a s u re s (actual in­
dividual, p r e f e r r e d individual, perceived organizational, and p re fe r re d
organizational effort), the design provides an appropriate means to
d escribe significant differences between the variables in question.
T h re e m a jo r assum ptions, however, m ust be m et in justifying the
use of the analysis:

(1) th e re is a norm al distribution of e r r o r s or

scores within the population,

(2) there is an equal e r r o r variance for

all tre a tm e n t groups, and (3) th e re is a sta tistic a l independence between
the e r r o r components [12:440],
The ANOVA of repeated m e a s u re s technique is generally con­
sidered robust to violations of norm ality and e r r o r variance equality.
Recognizing, however, that an activity analysis is likely to generate
raw e r r o r components which d ra s tic a lly violate these assum ptions,
responses were tra n sfo rm e d to standard s c o re s p rio r to the analysis.
Justification for the system atic tran sfo rm atio n of s c o re s in

univariate

designs is provided by Kirk [16:63-67],
The third assumption of the analysis, that of s ta tistic a l indepen­
dence, is also likely to cause inferential e r r o r if d ra stic a lly violated.
Obviously, te s ts which employ repeated m e a su re s on the same subject

46

a re immediately suspect with resp ec t to this assumption.

The suspi­

cion is compounded if the study re q u ire s dependency in response (i. e. ,
where responses to one item determ ine responses to all others).

Recog­

nizing that this weakness is inherent in all split-plot designs and p a r ­
tic u larly apparent in this study, two counter m e a su re s were employed.
F i r s t , the G eisser-G reenh ouse conservative F te s t was used in the
analysis.

This t e s t in c re a se s the re s is ta n c e of the design to violations

of the th ird assumption [16:142-143, 262],

Secondly, to reduce response

dependence, the following six items appearing on the Effort F o rm were
deleted p rio r to the analysis:
5.

Teaching off-campus undergraduate courses

7.

Teaching non-credit courses

8.

F o rm a l and informal undergraduate advising

16.

Other relate d activity

22.

Attraction of other gifts and grants

30.

Other assignments (Computer Laboratory, department
outside College).

The selection of item s to be deleted was based on a lack of specificity
in content an d /o r lack of actual faculty activity in the described area.
The l a tte r was determ ined through a review of Annual Reports com­
pleted during the previous y e a r.
After meeting the above assum ptions, the analysis was completed
in th re e steps.

The f i r s t step consisted of generating an o v e r-a ll F

te s t to determ ine whether significant interaction existed between the
various activity a re a s and the four response patterns (actual individual,
p re fe rre d individual, perceived organizational, and p r e f e r r e d organiza­
tional effort).

An alpha level of . 05 was established.

Given the

47

existence of significant interaction, a second step, consisting of an
examination of simple main effects, was planned.

This test, described

by Kirk [16:263-266], was employed to determ ine whether differences
exist between the four response patterns in each of the activity a re a s .
Since the experim ental alpha is additive over the twenty-six activity
area t e s ts ,

a level of significance of . 05/26 o r . 002 was established.

The third and final step of the analysis involved a post hoc examination
to determ ine the source of any differences discovered between the four
response p attern s.

The Tukey method for post hoc comparisons dis­

cussed by Hayes [12:484] was employed.

ResultB of the comparisons

are organized in Chapter XV around the six objectives of the study.

A b rief description of the sample used in the study was presented
in this chapter.

Also included were discussions of the development of

the instrum ent and the procedures employed in collecting the data.
Finally, the sta tistica l design selected for the study was identified and
described.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction
This chapter is devoted to the presentation and analysis of the data
which were collected to achieve the objectives of the study.
of the chapter consists of:
study hypotheses,

The form at

(1) a re -s ta te m e n t of the objectives and

(2) a b rief review of the procedural and sta tistica l

design, and (3) a re p o rt and analysis of the data.

Statement of Objectives
Four variables were identified in Chapter I as being central to the
purpose of this study.

These include:

(1) actual individual effort, (2)

p r e fe rr e d individual effort, (3) perceived organizational effort, and
(4) p re f e r re d organizational effort.

An in strum ent was developed and

administered to the faculty of the College of Engineering at Michigan
State University to obtain estim ates of these variables fo r thirtyp ro g ra m -re la te d activities.

The subsequent analysis of this data was

directed at achieving the following six objectives:
1.

to determ ine whether differences exist between actual in­
dividual and p r e f e r r e d individual effort in each activity
category

2.

to determ ine whether differences exist between perceived
organizational and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort in each
activity category

49

3.

to determ in e whether differences exist between actual in­
dividual and perceived organizational effort in each activity
category

4.

to determ ine whether differences exist between actual in­
dividual and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort in each activity
category

5.

to determ in e whether differences exist between p r e f e r r e d
individual and perceived organizational effort in each of the
activity categories

6.

to determ ine whether differences exist between p re fe r re d
individual and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort in each of
the activity categories.

A s e r ie s of null hypotheses repre sentin g the various activity categories
was established fo r each of the objectives stated above.

Review of Design and General Findings
An analysis of variance of repeated m e a su re s or split-plot design
was employed to te s t the hypotheses generated in support of the objec­
tives of the study.

In o rd e r to m eet the th eo re tica l assumptions of the

design, th re e precautions were taken in prep a ratio n for the analysis.
F i r s t , to insure independence of response, six of the thirty activity
category item s appearing on the instrum ent were excluded from the
analysis.

Secondly, since unequal e r r o r variance was expected, indi­

vidual raw scores were transform ed into standard sc o re s .

Finally, a

conservative decision model (Geisser-G reenhouse F statistic) was
chosen to overcom e possible violations of sta tistic a l independence of
response.

50

The analysis was accomplished in th re e distinct phases.
phase consisted of testing for m ain and interaction effects.
sum m arizes the resu lts of this procedure.
sta tistic ,

The f i r s t
Table 4. 1

Using a conservative F

significant differences at the . 05 level were found between

the four effort m e a su re s .
TABLE 4. 1 - - Summary of Analysis of Variance on Subjects,
Activity A re as, and Effort Measures

Source

SS

df

MS

F

Subjects

150.655

69

2. 183

Effort M easures

226.937

3

75.465

163. 028*

Activity Categories

569.359

23

24. 754

10. 3 83*

Subjects x Measure

96. 060

2 07

. 464

Subjects x
Categories

3783.565

1587

2.384

M easures x
Categories

151.677

69

2. 198

2624.345

4761

. 551

Subjects x Measures
x C ategories

3. 989

Significant at the . 05 level using the G eisser-G reenh ouse
Conservative F sta tistic
Significant differences w ere also found to exist between the twenty-four
activity c a teg o ries.

The third main effect, " s u b je c ts ," could not be

tested as no e r r o r te rm s were available to generate an appropriate F
statistic.
Obviously, the differences existing between levels of a main effect
are confounded by any significant interaction which may exist between it
and other main effects.

Since a significant interaction effect was

51

discovered between effort m e a s u re s within activity c a te g o rie s, no con­
clusions could be drawn from this phase of the analysis.
Phase two of the design consisted of examining significant in te r ­
action through an analysis of sim ple interaction effects.

As was indi­

cated above, significance at the . 05 level was found fo r the interaction
effect of m e a su re s within activity c a teg o ries.

In other words, the dif­

ferences between the four effort m e a su re s did not consistently appear
in every activity category.

The analysis of sim ple interaction effects

was employed to com pare the four m e a s u re s within each of the activity
categories.

Since the simple effects ANOVA examined the sources of

significant in teractio n found at the . 05 level,

an alpha equivalent to . 05

divided by the num ber of activity categories (24) or . 002 was established
for the analysis.
The resu lts of the ANOVA of simple in te raction effects are p r e ­
sented in Table 4 .2 .

Significant differences between effort m ea su res

were found in seventeen of the twenty-four activity categories.

No dif­

ferences were discovered between effort m e a s u re s in seven of the cate­
gories including (1) M.S. th e sis advising,
ment,

(3) departm ental r e s e a r c h ,

(6) public se rv ic e ,

(2) se rv ic e cou rse develop­

(4) sponsored r e s e a r c h , (5) publications,

and (7) pro fessio nal development.

The th ird and final phase of the analysis was direc te d at examining
the source of the differences between effort m e a su re s which were found
to exist in seventeen of the activity categories.

This was accomplished

through an a p o s te rio r i com parison of effort m e a su re means appearing
in the seventeen categ o ries.

A Tukey post hoc procedure was employed

in making the p airw ise com parisons.

The resu lts of this phase of the

analysis are p re s e n te d in the following section.

52

TABLE 4. 2 - - Summary of Analysis of Variance of Simple Main
Effects of Effort M easures by Activity Area

Source

SS

df

MS

Subjects
Effort Measures
Activity Areas
Subjects x M easures
Subjects x Area
M easures x Area:
Undergrad Inst.
Major
Undergrad Inst.
Service
Grad Inst. Majors
Grad Inst. Service
Off-Campus Grad
Inst.
Grad Advising
M.S. Thesis
Ph. D. Thesis
Course Dev. Majors
Course Dev. Service
New Teaching Tech.
Course Evaluation
Dept. R e sea rch
College R e sea rch
Sponsored R esearch
Dept. Res. P ro posal
Dev.
College Res. Propo.
Dev.
Public ations
Public Service
Dept. Committees
College Committees
Univ. Committees
Management
P rofessio nal Dev,
Subjects x Areas
x M easures

150. 655
226. 937
569. 359
96. 060
3783.565

69
3
23
207
1587

2. 183
75. 465
24.754
. 464
2. 384

58. 152

3

19.384

3 5. 372**

8. 421
38. 345
2 0. 02 7

3
3
3

2. 806
12. 781
6. 675

5.120**
2 3, 322**
12.180**

37. 160
16.749
4. 981
19.353
19. 645
2. 598
14.017
8. 793
1. 134
25. 532
7. 770

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

12.386
5. 583
1. 660
6. 451
6. 548
. 866
4. 672
2. 931
. 337
8. 5 10
2. 590

22.602**
10. 187**
3. 029
1 1. 771**
11.948**
1. 580
8. 525**
5. 348**
. 687
15.529**
4. 726

9. 305

3

3. 101

5.658**

12.906
1. 439
. 473
12.232
15.453
25.507
14.025
4. 597

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4.
.
.
4.
5.
8.
4.
1.

2624. 345

4761

301
479
157
077
151
5 02
674
532

. 551

^Significant at the . 05 level using conservative F te s t.
^S ig n ific an t at the . 002 level.

F

163.028*
10. 383*

7.848**
. 874
. 286
7.439**
9. 399**
15. 514**
8. 529**
2. 795

53
The data analysis was perform ed on the CDC 65 00 computer system
at Michigan State University.

Three pro gram s w ere employed in

accomplishing various phases of the design:
to obtain raw data s ta tis tic s ;

(1) the BASTAT routine

(2) a tran sfo rm atio n program , written

especially for this study, to convert responses into standard scores;
and (3) the Jennrich p ro g ra m to accomplish the ANOVA and the analysis
of simple interaction effects.

The post hoc calculations were perform ed

by hand.

Hypotheses Testing
As was e a r l i e r stated, twenty-four null hypotheses,

representing

the activity category item s remaining in the design, were established
for each of the six objectives of the study.

The re su lts of the testing

of these hypotheses a re p resented below.

Objective 1
To determ ine whether differences exist between actual individual
effort and p r e f e r r e d individual effort in each activity category.
Symbolic statem ents of, and te s t resu lts for, the twenty-four hy­
potheses generated in support of Objective I are presented in Table 4, 3.
Seven of the twenty-four null hypotheses were not rejected as a resu lt
of the ANOVA of simple interaction effects (described in Table 4. 2)
where no significant differences were found between effort m ea su res.
The Tukey post hoc analysis of the remaining seventeen activity c a te ­
gories also failed to d escrib e significant differences between the com­
bined actual individual and p r e f e r r e d individual effort of the engineering
faculty.

54

TABLE 4.3 - - Tukey P ost Hoc Comparisons of Actual Individual
Effort and P r e f e r r e d Individual Effort

Activity

Undergrad Inst.
Majors
Undergrad Inst.
Service
Grad Inst. Majors
Grad Inst. Service
Off-Campus Grad Inst,
Grad Advising
M.S. Theses
Ph. D. Theses
Course Dev. Majors
Course Dev. Service
New Teaching Tech,
Course Evaluation
Dept. R esearch
College R esearch
Sponsored R e sea rch
Dept. Proposal Dev.
College Proposal Dev.
Publications
Public Service
Dept, Committees
College Committees
Univ. Committees
Man ag em ent
Prof. Development

A

Me j

Me2

1. 198

1. 207

-. 009

not rejected

. 459
. 951
. 220
.238
1. 111
. 356
. 609
. 340
. 529
. 342
.431
. 559
.417
. 585
. 379
. 387
. 765
. 463
1. 101
. 709
.511
. 341
. 859

. 533
1. 172
. 293
. 221
1. 058
. 455
. 840
. 795
. 575
. 329
. 284
. 492
. 468
. 871
. 393
.439
. 848
. 551
. 874
. 745
. 5 04
.219
. 720

-. 074
221
-. 073
. 017
. 053
------. 231
- . 445
-----. 013
. 147
-----. 051
-----. 014
052
_- -----. 227
-. 036
. 007
. 122

not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not

Ho:Me j =Me^

rej ected
rejected
rej ected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rej ected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rej ected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rej ected
rejected

Significant at . 002 level.
Mej = mean standard sc o re s for Actual Individual Effort
Me^ = mean standard scores for P r e f e r r e d Individual Effort
A

i|j

= Mej

- Me2

Tukey te s t sta tistic for v
Jj at . 002 Alpha

= ± . 460

55

Objective XI
To determ in e whether differences exist between perceived organ­
izational and p r e f e r r e d organizational activity.
This objective was established to a s s e s s faculty perceptions of
actual and ideal pattern s of professional re s o u rc e allocation within the
organization.

The te s ts of the hypotheses generated in support of the

objective a re sum m arized in Table 4 .4 .

The analysis of simple in te r ­

action effects and the post hoc comparisons again failed to produce
significant differences between perceived and p r e f e r r e d organizational
effort in any of the twenty-four activity categories.

Objective III
To determ ine whether differences exist between actual individual
and perceived organizational effort in each activity category.
This third objective was directed at determining the accuracy of
facility perceptions of organizational patterns of re s o u rc e allocation.
As such, it com pares the combined activities of individual faculty m em ­
bers {as a m e a su re of actual organizational effort) with an estim ate of
the faculty's perception of the c u rre n t pattern of professional resource
allocation within the college.

The resu lts of this comparison a re de­

scribed in Table 4 .5 .
Significant differences between actual individual effort and p e r ­
ceived organizational effort were discovered in nine of the twenty-four
activity categories.

In each of these c a s e s , the faculty perceived that

more re s o u rc e s were being allocated than was actually the case.

The

la rg e st difference occurred in the instructional pro gram a re a where
standard sc o re differences of - 1. 018 and - . 880 were found in under­
graduate and graduate instruction for m a jo rs.

Other instructional

56

TABLE 4. 4 - - Tukey Poat Hoc Comparisons of P erceived
Organizational Effort and P r e f e r r e d Or­
ganizational Effort

A
Activity

Undergrad Inst.
Majors
Undergrad Inst.
Service
Grad Inst. Majors
Grad Inst. Service
Off-Campus Grad Inst.
Grad Advising
M.S. Theses
Ph. D. Thes es
Course Dev. Majors
Course Dev. Service
New Teaching Tech.
Course Evaluation
Dept. R esearch
College R esearch
Sponsored R esearch
Dept. P ro po sal Dev.
College Proposal Dev.
Public ations
Public Service
Dept. Committees
College Committees
Univ. Committees
Manag em ent
Prof. Development

Me3

Me,
4

2. 216

1. 982

. 234

. 806
1. 831
. 687
. 915
. 796
. 639
1. 286
1. 024
. 783
. 831
. 561
. 647
1. 138
1. 021
. 792
. 864
. 934
. 441
I. 441
1. 164
1. 130
. 745
1. 017

. 866
1. 732
. 861
. 997
.495
. 683
1. 142
. 945
. 605
. 72 1
. 767
. 640
. 908
. 955
. 696
. 813
. 940
. 483

- . 060
. 099
174
082
. 301

Ho:Me, =Me,
3
4

1.266
1. 225
1. 091
. 689
1. 035

------

. 144
.259
- —

. 110
- . 2 06
------

. 230
------

. 016
. 051
-----------

.
-.
.
.

175
061
039
056
. . .

not rejected
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not

rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected

.ij

Significant at the . 002 level
Me^ = mean standard scores for P erceived Organizational Effort
Me^ = mean standard sc o re s for P r e f e r r e d Organizational Effort
A

iji

Tukey te s t sta tistic s for

= M e^ - M e^

ip at . 002 Alpha

= ± . 460

57

TABLE 4.5 - - Tukey P o st Hoc Comparisons of Actual Individual
Effort and P erceived Organizational Effort

Activity

Undergrad Inst.
Majors
Undergrad Inst.
Service
Grad Inst. Majors
Grad Inst. Service
Off-Campus Grad Inst.
Grad Advising
M.S. Theses
Ph. D. Theses
Course Dev. Majors
Course Dev. Service
New Teaching Tech.
Course Evaluation
Dept. R esearch
College R e sea rch
Sponsored R e se a rc h
Dept. P ro po sal Dev.
College P ro posal Dev.
Public ations
Public Service
Dept. Committees
College Committees
Univ. Committees
Management
Prof. Development

Me j

Me3

A
*

Ho: Me j =Me^

1. 198

2. 216

-1.018*

rejected

. 459
. 951
. 220
. 238
1.111
. 356
. 609
. 340
. 529
. 342
.431
. 559
. 417
. 585
. 379
. 387
. 765
. 463
1. 101
. 709
. 51 1
. 341
. 859

. 806
1. 831
. 687
. 915
. 796
. 639
1. 286
1. 024
. 783
. 831
. 561
. 647
1. 138
1. 021
. 792
. 864
. 934
. 441
1. 441
1. 164
1. 130
. 745
1. 017

- . 347
880*
-.467*
-.667*
. 315
------

-.575*
-.684*
-.489*
-. 130
------

~ . 721*
------

-.4 1 3
-.477*
—

-

------

- . 340
-.4 55
619*
-. 404
~

not rejected
rejected
not rejected
rejected
not rejected
not rejected
rejected
rejected
not rejected
rejected
not rejected
not rejected
rejected
not rejected
not rejected
rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
rejected
not rejected
not rejected

^Significant at the . 002 level
Mej = mean standard s c o re s for Actual Individual Effort
Me^ = mean standard s c o re s for P erceived Organizational Effort
A
ip s: Me j - Me ^
Tukey te s t sta tistic for

ijj at . 002 Alpha

= ± . 460

58

p ro g ram activity a re a s displaying significant differences were offcampus graduate instruction. Ph. D. th esis advising, course develop­
ment fo r m a jo r s ,
techniques.

and the development of new teaching-learning

In the r e s e a r c h p ro g ra m a r e a , the faculty perceived that

m ore re s o u rc e s were being expended in college sponsored r e s e a r c h
and proposal development than combined individual activity in these
categories indicated.

A s im ila r difference also appeared in the ad­

m in istrativ e and committee se rv ic e s p ro g ram a r e a where perceptions
of university committee activity were higher than the mean faculty
effort reported.
It is equally, if not m o re im portant, to note that no significant
differences were found in fifteen of the activity categ o ries.

Thus, the

m ajority of null hypotheses suggesting equality between actual individual
and perceived organizational effort w ere not rejected.

Objective IV
To determ in e whether differences exist between actual individual
and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort in each category of activity.
Objective IV was established to investigate the differences between
the combined individual effort of the faculty (as a m e a su re of actual
professional re s o u rc e allocation in the organization) with an estim ate
of a perceiv ed ''ideal" p a tte rn for allocating faculty r e s o u r c e s .

Table

4. 6 sum m arizes the re s u lts of the com parisons made to achieve this
objective.
Ten of the twenty-four null hypotheses suggesting equality between
actual individual and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort were rejected at
the . 002 level.

Significant differences occurred m ost frequently in the

activity categories associated with the in structional p ro g ram area.

59

TABLE 4.6 - - Tukey Post Hoc Comparisons of Actual Individual
Effort and P r e f e r r e d Organizational Effort

Activity

Undergrad Inst.
Majors
Undergrad Inst.
Service
Grad Inst. Majors
Grad Inst. Service
Off-Campus Grad Inst.
Grad Advising
M.S. Theses
Ph. D. Theses
Course Dev. Majors
Course Dev. Service
New Teaching Tech.
Course Evaluation
Dept. Research
College R esearch
Sponsored R esearch
Dept. Proposal Dev.
College Proposal Dev.
Public ations
Public Service
Dept. Committees
College Committees
Univ. Committees
Management
Prof. Development

Mej

Me4

A
*

HotMe. =Me,
1
4

1. 198

1. 982

-.784*

rejected

. 459
. 951
. 220
. 238
1.111
. 356
. 609
. 340
. 52 9
. 342
. 431
. 559
. 417
. 585
. 379
. 387
. 765
. 463
1. 101
. 709
. 511
. 341
. 859

. 866
1. 732
. 861
. 997
. 495
. 683
1. 142
. 945
. 605
. 721
. 767
. 640
. 908
. 955
. 696
. 813
. 940
. 483
1. 266
1. 225
1. 091
. 689
1. 03 5

- . 407
-.781*
-.641*
-.759*
- . 616*

not rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
not rejected
rejected
rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
rejected
rejected
not rejected
not rejected

------

-.533*
-.605*
------

- . 379
- . 336
------

- *491 *
------

- . 317
-.4 2 6
-----------

-.1 65
-.516*
-.580*
- . 348
~ —•

Significant at the . 002 level
Me^ = mean standard scores for Actual Individual Effort
Me^ - mean standard scores for P re f e r r e d Organizational Effort
A
vp =
Tukey te s t statistic for

M e^ - M e^

at . 002 Alpha

= ± .460

60

Differences were also discovered in the categories of college supported
r e s e a r c h and committee activities at both the college and university
level.

In all but one case, the differences of significance suggested

that perceptions of p r e f e r r e d organizational effort were g r e a te r than
the actual effort being expended.

The exception occurred in the ca te­

gory of graduate advising where m o re actual effort was observed.
Within the m ajority of c a teg o ries, however, no significant dif­
ferences w ere identified.

Thus,

a total of fourteen null hypotheses

stating equality between the m e a s u re s of actual individual and p re fe r re d
organizational effort were not rejected .

Objective V
To determ ine whether differences exist between p r e f e r r e d indivi­
dual and perceived organizational effort in each of the activity
categories.
The intent of this objective was to evaluate whether the combined
individual activity p refe re n c e s of the faculty differed from th e i r p e r ­
ception of the actual allocation of professio nal re so u rc e s within the
college.

The hypotheses testing associated with this objective is p r e ­

sented in Table 4. 7.
The null hypotheses s tre s s in g equality between p r e f e r r e d individual
and perceiv ed organizational effort w ere reje cted in eight of the twentyfour activity categories.

The l a r g e s t significant difference found at

the . 002 level was in the category of undergraduate instruction for
m a jo rs.

S im ila r differences, though le s s pronounced, o c c u rre d in

the categories of graduate instruction for m a jo rs , off-campus graduate
instruction, new teaching-learning development, and college sponsored
re s e a rc h .

In the p ro g ram a r e a of committee and adm inistrative se rv ic e ,

61

TABLE 4 .7 - - Tukey P ost Hoc Comparisons of P r e f e r r e d Individual
Effort and Perceiv ed Organizational Effort

A
Activity

Undergrad Inst.
Majors
Undergrad Inst.
Service
Grad Inst. Majors
Grad Inst. Service
Off-Campus Grad Inst.
Grad Advising
M.S. Theses
Ph. D. Theses
Course Dev. Majors
Course Dev. Service
New Teaching Tech.
Course Evaluation
Dept. R esearch
College R esearch
Sponsored R esearch
Dept. Proposal Dev.
College Proposal Dev.
Public ations
Public Service
Dept. Committees
College Committees
Univ. Committees
Management
Prof, Development

Me2

Me3

1. 2 07

2. 216

-1.009*

. 533
1. 172
. 293
. 221
1. 058
. 455
. 840
. 795
. 575
. 329
. 284
. 492
. 468
. 871
. 393
.439
. 848
. 551
. 874
.745
. 504
. 219
. 720

. 806
1. 831
. 687
. 915
. 796
. 639
1. 286
1. 024
. 783
. 831
. 561
. 647
1. 138
1. 021
. 792
. 864
. 934
. 441
1. 441
1. 164
1. 130
. 745
1. 017

-.2 73
-.659*
394
-.694*
-.2 62

Ho: Me^ =Me^

------

- . 446
- .2 2 9
-.512*
-.2 7 7
-.670*
------

-.3 99
-.4 25
- - -

-.567*
-.4 19
—
.626*
-.526*
“—
“

rejected
not rejected
rejected
not rejected
rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
rejected
not rejected
not rejected
rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
rejected
not rejected
rejected
rej ected
not rejected

Significant at the . 002 level
Me^ = mean standard sc o re s for P r e f e r r e d Individual Effort
Me^ = mean standard sc o re s for P erceived Organizational Effort
A
4* = Me^ - Me ^
Tukey test sta tistic for

• 002 Alpha

= ± . 460

62

th re e of the four activity categories listed displayed significance be­
tween the two m e a s u r e s .

The data supporting the rejection of the eight

null hypotheses fu rth e r suggested that the faculty's perception of the
amount of organizational effort expended was g r e a te r than the com­
bined individual p refe ren c es for involvement in each of the eight are as.
No significant differences were found in sixteen of the activity
a re a s .

Thus, m ost of the null hypotheses suggesting equality between

m e a su re s were not rejected.

Objective VI
To determ ine whether differences exist between p r e f e r r e d indi­
vidual and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort in each of the activity
c a te g o rie s.
The sixth and final objective was established to compare faculty
perceptions of an ideal p attern of allocating organizational effort with
an organizational effort p attern constructed from the combined individual
activity prefe ren c es of the faculty.

The hypotheses testing conducted

to m eet this objective is describ ed in Table 4. 8.
The null hypotheses suggesting equality between p r e fe rr e d indivi­
dual and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort were rejected in nine of the
twenty-four activity c a te g o rie s.

Differences of significance (at the . 002

level) w ere again observed m o st frequently in the instructional program
area.

The activity categ o ries, within this a r e a , displaying significant

differences included undergraduate instruction for m a jo r s , graduate
instruction for m a jo r s , graduate instruction for non-m ajors (service),
off-campus graduate instruction, graduate advising,
ation.

and course evalu­

In each of these c a s e s , organizational p refe ren c e was g re a te r

than the combined prefe ren c es of individual faculty m em bers.

Similar

63

TABLE 4.8 - - Tukey Post Hoc Comparisons of P r e f e rr e d Individual
Effort and P re f e rr e d Organizational Effort

Activity

Undergrad Inst.
Majors
Undergrad Inst.
Service
Grad Inst. Majors
Grad Inst. Service
Off-Campus Grad Inst.
Grad Advising
M.S. Theses
Ph. D. Theses
Course Dev. Majors
Course Dev. Service
New Teaching Tech.
Course Evaluation
Dept. Research
College Research
Sponsored R esearch
Dept. Proposal Dev.
College Proposal Dev.
Public ations
Public Service
Dept. Committees
College Committees
Univ. Committees
Management
Prof, Development

%

A

Ho:Me, =Me,
2
4

Me2

Me4

1. 207

1. 982

-.775*

rejected

. 533
1. 172
. 293
. 221
1. 058
. 455
. 840
. 795
. 575
. 329
. 284
. 492
. 468
. 871
. 393
. 439
. 848
. 551
. 874
. 745
. 504
.219
. 720

. 866
1. 732
. 861
. 997
. 495
. 683
1. 142
. 945
. 605
. 721
. 767
. 640
. 908
. 955
.696
.813
. 940
. 483
1. 266
1. 225
1. 091
. 689
1. 035

- . 333
-.560*
-.568*
-.776*
-.563*
----- . 302
- . 150

not rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
not rejected
rejected
rejected
rejected
not rejected

___

-.332
-.483*
------

-.4 40
-.303
-.3 74
-----------

-.392
-.480*
-.587*
-.470*
*
“*“

Significant at the . 002 level.
Me^ —mean standard scores for P r e fe rr e d Individual Effort
Me^ - mean standard scores for P re fe rre d Organizational Effort
A
ijj = Me^ - Me^

Tukey te s t statistic for

i|j at . 002 Alpha

= ± . 460

64
differences of significance and directio n were observed in three of the
four categories associated with the com m ittee and adm inistrative s e r ­
vice p ro g ra m a r e a .

These included the categories of college committee

management and university committee activity.
Once again, the analysis failed to re je c t the null hypotheses e sta b ­
lished for fifteen of the activity ca teg o ries.

Thus, in m ost catego ries,

the analysis tended to support the assumption of equality between the
two m e a s u r e s .

The central purpose of this study was to compare faculty estim ates
of actual individual, p r e f e r r e d individual, perceived org anizationa,

and

p r e f e r r e d organizational effort within twenty-four program related ac­
tivity categ o ries.

The estim ates were obtained using an instrum ent

which forced respondents to consider the " relativ e importance" of each
of the twenty-four activity categ ories.
In o r d e r to fulfill the purpose of the study,

six central objectives,

directed at comparing various combinations of the four effort m e a s u re s ,
were identified.

To facilitate the analy sis, each objective was r e ­

defined as twenty-four null hypotheses representing the activity c a te ­
gories were identified for the study.
A th r e e -p h a s e ANOVA of repeated m e a su re s design was employed
to test the hypotheses.

To m eet the various assumptions of this design,

extrem ely conservative procedures and decision models were used
throughout the analysis.

P h ase one of the analysis, consisting of an

overall ANOVA of main and interactio n effects, yielded significant
differences (. 05 level) for the main effects of "activity a r e a s " and
"effort m e a s u r e s . "

More im portant, however, was the discovery of

significant interactio n between effort m e a s u re s within activity categories.

65

Given the significant interaction effect, phase two of the analysis,
consisting of testing simple interaction of m easures within single ac­
tivity categories was initiated.

The results of the ANOVA of simple

effects yielded significant differences (Alpha = . 05/24 or . 002) between
effort m easures within seventeen activity categories.
Phase th ree of the analysis consisted of testing the sources of dif­
ference found within each of the seventeen activity categories.

This

was accomplished using a se rie s of Tukey post hoc comparisons.

The

results of these comparisons were organized to te s t the various hy­
potheses associated with the objectives of the study.
the hypotheses testing is provided in Table 4. 9.

A summary of

TABLE 4.9 -- Summary of Hypotheses Testing
(X = Reject, 0 = Do Not Reject)

Activity

Undergrad Inst.
Majors
Undergrad Inst.
Service
Grad Inst. Majors
Grad Inst, Service
Off-Campus Grad Inst.
Grad Advising
M.S. Theses
Ph. D. Theses
Course Dev. Majors
Course Dev. Service
New Teaching Tech.
Course Evaluation
Dept. Research
College Research
Sponsored Research
Dept. Proposal Dev.
College Proposal Dev,
Publications
Public Service
Dept. Committees
College Committees
Univ. Committees
Management
Prof. Development

Objective I Objective II Objective III Objective IV Objective V Objective VI
H :Me. =Me, H :Me.,=Me. H :Me. =Me~ H :Me.=Me, H :Me,=Me_ H :Me-=Me.
1
4 O £
o
1
2 o
3
4 o
1
3 o
3 o
2
4

O

0

X

X

X

X

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0

0
X
X
X
0

0
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
0
0

0
X
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
X
X
0

0
X
X
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
X
0

o

X
X
0
X
0
0
X
0
0
X
0

o

0
0
X
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
0

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Need and Purpose
Increasing demands for educational and fiscal accountability have,
in recent y e a r s ,

emphasized the need to critic ally evaluate program

p rio ritie s within higher education.

Fundamental to this evaluative pro ­

cess is the problem of developing effective means to a sse ss the disposi­
tion of faculty toward various institutional p rog ram s.

Since a pro gram

may be generally defined as an organized set of activities designed to
achieve predeterm ined goals, it appears reasonable to approach this
problem from the perspective of institutional goals (through goal p re f­
erence asse ssm e n t) or through careful analyses of attitudes toward
organizational activities.
Considering the problems associated with the interpretation of goal
preferen ce as se ss m e n t, this study was predicated on the need to furth er
explore activity analysis as a means to identify faculty perceptions of
institutional p ro g ra m s.

The central purpose of the study was to com­

pare actual and p r e f e r r e d p attern s of faculty effort within an academic
organization.

The population consisted of all faculty m em bers associ­

ated with the College of Engineering at Michigan State University.
Members of the adm inistrative and student se rv ic es staff were excluded
from the study.

An instrum ent defining thirty categories of program -

related activity was developed and distributed to the sample.
were asked to provide estim ates of the following;

67

Respondents

68
1.

Actual Individual Effort:

a percentage distribution d escrib ­

ing how the faculty m em ber divides his o r her tim e between
the thirty categories of activity
2.

P r e f e r r e d Individual Effort:

a percentage distribution

describing how the faculty m em ber would ideally divide
his or h er time between the categories of activity
3.

Perceived Organizational Effort:

a percentage distribu­

tion describing the faculty m e m b e r's perception of how
the college divides total faculty time between the various
activities
4.

P r e f e r r e d Organizational Effort:

a percentage d istrib u ­

tion describing the faculty m e m b e r’s perception of how
the college should divide faculty tim e between the various
activ itie s.
P ercentage distributions were employed in each of the four m ea­
sures to achieve an understanding of the "relativ e value" of each activity.
Since percentage distribution forces relative response p attern s, by
assuming finite reso u rce availability, the procedure roughly simulates
the process of p rio rity assessm en t which naturally occurs within an
organization.
Using the data collected, sta tistic a l comparisons were made to de­
term ine whether differences existed between actual and p r e f e r r e d effort
at both individual and organizational levels.

Objectives
Since the study was exploratory in nature, no experimental or d ire c ­
tional hypotheses were established.

The study was, however, organized

to achieve the following six objectives:

69
1.

to determ ine whether differences exist between actual in­
dividual and p r e f e r r e d individual effort in each of the
activity c a teg o ries,

2.

to determine whether differences exist between perceived
organizational and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort in each
activity category,

3.

to determine whether differences exist between actual
individual and perceived organizational effort in each
activity category,

4.

to determ ine whether differences exist between actual
individual and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort in each
activity category,

5.

to determ ine whether differences exist between p r e f e r r e d
individual and perceived organizational effort in each
activity category,

6.

to determ ine whether differences exist between p r e f e r r e d
individual and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort in each
activity category.

Twenty-four null hypotheses,

representing the activity categories in­

cluded in the study, were generated in support of each of the above
objectives.

Design
An analysis of variance of repeated m e a su re s design was employed
to test the hypotheses.

To meet the th eoretical assumptions associated

with this design, the following precautions were taken.
independence of response,
deleted from the analysis.

F irst,

to insure

six of the th irty activity category items were
Secondly, individual raw sc o re s were

70
transform ed to standard scores to avoid e r r o r associated with unequal
population variance.

Finally, a conservative decision model, the G eisser-

Greenhouse F te s t, was employed to overcome problems of statistical
independence among m easures.
The analysis was conducted in three distinct phases.

F ir s t,

an

overall ANOVA of repeated m easures was performed to test main and
interaction effects.

Significant differences at the . 05 level were found

to exist between the main effects of activity categories and effort m ea­
sures.

The interaction of effort m easures within activity categories

was also found to be significant .at the . 05 level.
Given significant interaction between effort m easures within activity
categories, phase two of the analysis was initiated.

This phase consisted

of determining whether differences existed between effort m easures
within specific activity categories.

Tests were performed using an

ANOVA of simple interaction effects which generated F statistics for
effort m easu res within each of the twenty-four activity categories.

As

a re s u lt of this procedure, significant differences at the . 05/24 or . 002
level were found in seventeen of the twenty-four activity categories.
The third and final phase of the analysis consisted of determining
the sources of the differences between effort m easures within the seven­
teen significant activity categories.

Paired comparisons were made

using the conservative Tukey post hoc procedure.

The results of this

analysis served to test the hypotheses generated in support of the objectives of the study.
Findings
The results of the hypothesis testing are summarized as follows:

71
Objective I :

None of the twenty-four null hypotheses generated in

support of this objective was reje cted .

Thus, as a r e s u lt of this study,

no differences were found to exist between actual individual and p r e ­
f e r re d individual effort within the p ro g r a m - r e la te d activity categ ories.
Objective II:

S im ila r re s u lts were found in the com parison of p e r ­

ceived and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort.

Again, the analysis failed

to r e je c t the twenty-four null hypotheses associated with this objective.
Objective III:

This objective was established to com pare estim ates

of actual individual effort with perceptions of organizational effort in
p r o g r a m - r e la te d activity categ o ries.

As a re s u lt of the analysis,

sig ­

nificant differences w ere found in the following activity categories:
(1) undergraduate in struction for m a jo r s ,
m a jo r s ,

(2) graduate instruction for

(3) graduate instruction for non-m ajors (service),

campus graduate in struction,
development for m a jo r s ,

(5) Ph.D.

thesis directio n,

(4) off(6) course

(7) developing new teaching techniques,

college supported r e s e a r c h ,

(8)

(9) college supported r e s e a r c h proposal

development, and (10) university com m ittee work.

In each case the

faculty appeared to p erceive the college expending m ore effort than was
indicated by the combined statem ents of individual effort.
Objective IV:

In comparing actual individual with p r e f e r r e d o r ­

ganizational effort, significant differences were found to exist p rim a r ily
in the activity catego ries associated with the instructional p ro g ra m a re a .
These included:

(1) undergraduate instruction for m a jo rs ,

instruction for m a jo r s ,

(2) graduate

(3) graduate instruction for n o n -m ajo rs,

off-campus graduate instruction,

(5) graduate student advising,

thesis d irection, and (7) course development for m a jo r s .

(4)
(6) Ph.D .

Null hypotheses

were also rejected in the categories of college supported r e s e a r c h and
committee activity at both the college and university levels.

With the

72
exception of the graduate advising category, faculty p refe re n c e s for
the allocation of effort were higher than the c u r re n t p a tte rn of allocation
as m ea su red by the combined estim ates of individual effort.
Objective V:

Differences between p r e f e r r e d individual and p e r ­

ceived organizational effort were found to be significant in only eight of
the twenty-four activity categories.
instru ction for m a jo r s ,

work,

(1) undergraduate

(2) graduate instruction for m a jo r s ,

campus graduate in struction,
techniques,

These included:

(3) off-

(4) developing new teaching-learning

(5) college supported r e s e a r c h ,

(6) departm ent committee

(7) univ ersity committee work, and (8) management.

The data

supporting the rejection of these null-hypotheses furth er suggests that
perceptions of the amount of organizational effort expended in these
categories is g r e a te r than the combined effort p re fe re n c e s of individual
faculty.
Objective VI:

The sixth and final objective was established to com­

p a r e faculty perceptions of an ideal or p r e f e r r e d p attern of allocating
organizational re s o u rc e s with the combined individual effort p re fe re n c e s
of the faculty.

Of the twenty-four null hypotheses generated to achieve

this objective, only nine were rejected.

Significant differences between

p r e f e r r e d individual and p r e f e r r e d organizational effort were found in
the categories of:

(1) undergraduate instruction for m a jo r s ,

in struction for m a jo r s ,

(3) graduate instruction for n o n -m a jo rs,

off-campus graduate instruction,

(4)

(5) graduate student advising, {6)

course evaluation, (7) college committee work,
work,

(2) graduate

(8) university committee

and (9) management.

C onclus ions
The evaluation of faculty attitudes toward institutional p ro g ram s is
a problem which has attrac te d considerable attention in recen t y e a r s .

73
F o r the m o st p a r t ,

r e s e a r c h e r s have approached this problem indirectly

from the perspective of organizational goals a sse ssm e n t.

Predicated

on the assumption that organizational program s a r e goal directed, m ost
of these studies have sought to establish goal evaluation as fundamental
to the p ro ce ss of identifying pro g ram p rio ritie s within academic o r­
ganizations.

While the logic of this approach is unquestionable, certain

in te rpretiv e problem s (see Chapter II) generally associated with various
goal p re fe re n c e techniques tend to lim it th e ir usefulness.
Recognizing th ese p roblem s, this study attempted to address the
question of p rio rity evaluation from the perspectiv e of organizational
activity.
1.

The study was predicated on four operational assumptions:
Since institutional program s may be defined as organized
sets of activ ites, it was assumed that perceptions of these
program s could be evaluated in t e r m s of the specific ac­
tivities from which they a re com prised.

2.

It was suggested that the value or "im portance1*, whether
actual or p r e f e r r e d , of a p ro g ra m - re la te d activity could
be defined quantitatively as an amount of professional
re s o u rc e s (faculty effort) devoted to the activity.

3.

Recognizing that all organizational r e s o u r c e s , including
faculty, a r e finite in nature, it was assumed that an
evaluation of the "im portance" of a single activity m ust
n e c e s sa rily be weighed against the "importance*1 of all
other activities.

4.

Finally, it was assumed that organizational activities and
program s are the re s u lt of a complex interaction between
individual needs and organizational expectations.

Thus,

74
it was deemed essential to consider the evaluation of
activities from both an individual and organizational
perspective.
With these assumptions in mind, th re e m a jo r

conclusions may be

drawn from the analysis of faculty effort pattern s within the College of
Engineering.
1.

There was no evidence to suggest that the combined individual

effort p references of faculty m em bers differed from the pattern of faculty
effort which actually occurs within the college.

It appears, then, that

if assignments were made solely on the basis of individual faculty preferdnce, the resultan t p attern of professional resource allocation over
program s could not be significantly different than that which is currently
in effect.

It must be emphasized, however, that the resu lts did not

suggest that the assignment of individual faculty m em bers, under " p re ­
f e rre d " conditions, would rem ain the same.

To the contrary , it was

evident through a review of individual response patterns that actual
assignments do not n e c e s s a rily reflect the activity p references of many
faculty.
2.

The analysis also failed to reject the null hypotheses generated

to compare faculty perceptions of actual and p re fe r re d patterns of o r ­
ganizational effort.

This finding was p a rtic u la rly significant in that it

evaluated faculty attitudes toward the priority s tru c tu re which exists
within the College of Engineering.

The evaluation consisted of asking

faculty to define the "importance" of various p ro g ra m -re la te d activities
in te rm s of th e ir perception of the amount of professional reso u rce s
being expended by the college in support of these activities.

The re s u l­

tant pattern of perceived organizational effort was then compared with

75
a p attern consisting of the faculty p references for professional reso u rce
allocation within the organization.

Since the analysis failed to describ e

significant differences between the two organizational p attern s, it would
appear that the faculty,

as a whole, is content with the cu rre n t p rio rity

stru ctu re which exists within the College of Engineering.
Though em pirical com parison is not possible, it is appropriate to
briefly con trast the findings described above with those studies which
have sought to define institutional p rio ritie s through the a sse ssm e n t of
organizational goals.

As noted in Chapter II, m ost of the goal studies

reviewed tended to support two central conclusions.

F irst,

facility,

and often o th e rs, generally display congruent opinion on the "actual"
and p r e f e r r e d "im portance" of various goals (i. e. , the rank o rd e r c o r­
relations between the two m e a su re s were found to be directly related).
Secondly, faculty and other groups queried generally felt that nearly all
goals should ideally be given g r e a te r amphasis (i. e. , p re fe rre d im por­
tance ratings were almost always higher than ratings of actual
importance).
To a large extent, the findings of the p resen t study support the con­
clusion of congruence of opinion among faculty regarding organizational
p r io ritie s .

Viewed from the perspective of p r o g ra m -re la te d activities

ra th e r than goals, the faculty sample tended to d escribe statistically
equivalent ratings of perceived and p r e f e rr e d importance over the
various activities in question.

Since the "im portance" of activities was

defined as a finite quantity of r e s o u rc e s , the resu lts did not (nor could
they) suggest that g r e a te r emphasis should be placed upon all organ­
izational p ro g ra m s.

Each p r o g ra m -re la te d activity was, in effect,

weighed against all others considered.

The re s u lts , th erefore, confirm

76

congruence of opinion regarding pro g ram p rio ritie s by suggesting that
each p ro g ram - related activity was receiving an appropriate sh a re of
the p rofessio nal re s o u rc e s available to the organization.

Thus, though

s im ila r to those found in goal studies, the conclusions of the presen t
inquiry were uniquely based upon a pragm atic evaluation of organiza­
tional p ro c e ss e s and r e s o u rc e s .

As such, they may be m o re easily

in te rp reted to support various adm inistrative functions.
3.

Four of the six objectives of the study sought to compare indi­

vidual effort patterns (actual and p re f e rr e d ) with organizational effort
patterns (perceived and p re fe rre d ).

As a re s u lt of the analysis, the

following four observations were made:

(a) the comparison of actual

individual with perceived organizational effort suggested that faculty
perceptions of the actual p a tte rn of professio nal re s o u rc e allocation
are generally accurate;

(b) in comparing actual individual with p r e ­

f e r re d organizational effort, it appears that the faculty's perception of
an ideal p attern of re s o u rc e distribution is not significantly different
from that which c u rre n tly exists;

(c) the analysis of p r e f e r r e d individual

and perceived organizational effort suggested that if faculty were assigned
according to th e ir personal in te re s ts and needs, the resultant p attern of
re so u rc e allocation would not be significantly different from that which
they feel cu rre n tly exists;

(d) the re s u lts of the comparison of p r e ­

fe rre d individual with p r e f e r r e d organizational effort

suggested that

the combined individual preferen ces of the faculty generally agreed with
th e ir p refe re n c e s for organizational activity.
Exceptions to these observations (i.e . , significant differences be­
tween individual and organizational effort) were noted in certain ac­
tivities related to the instructional and adm in istrativ e-com m ittee

77
se rv ic e s p ro g ra m a re a (see Chapter V, pp. 70-71).

Substantive in te r ­

pretation of these exceptions must be made with caution since the
response ra te achieved precluded accuracy in establishing organiza­
tional m e a su re s composed of the combined actual and p r e f e r r e d effort
of individual faculty.
Recommendations for F u r th e r R e se a rc h
This study re p re se n ts an initial attempt to extend the scope of
activity analysis as a means to evaluate p ro g ram p rio ritie s within
academic organizations.

As such, its r e s u lts and limitations suggest

the need for furth er inquiry in the following a re a s :
1.

The p re s e n t study did not consider such variables as Bex,
tenure,

educational and p erso nal background.

age,

F u rth e r r e s e a r c h

should be directe d to d eterm ine whether these and other demo­
graphic c h a ra c te ris tic s r e la te to various perceptions of individual
and organizational effort.
2.

The study also failed to consider the perceptions of other signi­
ficant organizational groups such as t r u s t e e s ,
personnel w o rk e rs, and Btudents.

a d m in istra to rs,

Since each of these groups

influences the p rio rity s tru c tu re of the organization, th e ir p e r ­
ceptions of professio nal effort patterns should be carefully
evaluated.
3.

In addition to including various groups, it is also recommended
that future r e s e a r c h be directed to consider other organizational
units having sim ila r p ro g ram s (such as other engineering col­
leges an d /o r academic departm ents with a college).

C ross­

com parisons of such units may se rv e to determ in e the relatio n­
ship of clim ate,

s tru c tu re ,

an d /o r other organizational

c h a ra c te ris tic s to resu lta n t patterns of actual and p r e f e r r e d effort.

To support the above recommendation, it is suggested that r e ­
search be undertaken to develop instrumentation capable of
measuring actual and p refe rred effort patterns within a variety
of academic environments.
The p resent study sought to compare actual and prefe rred pat­
terns of professional resource distribution using gross percentage
estimates of faculty effort.

While no significant differences were

found between organizational patterns, there was some slight
evidence to suggest the existence of differences between the
patterns of individual faculty m embers.

A comparative r e ­

examination of these pattern s, considering such variables as
cost and hours, could serve to determine whether individual dif­
ferences substantively effect resultant organizational patterns.
Questions concerning the relationship of individual effort patterns
to other organizational variables, not addressed in the present
study, should also be fully explored.

For example, is congruence

between actual and p refe rred individual effort related to such
factors as productivity, conflict, efficiency, and/or the leadership
style of the organization?
The evaluation of actual and p re fe rre d patterns of resource alloca­
tion should be enlarged to encompass resources other than p ro ­
fessional staff.

Consideration, therefore, should be given to the

allocation of space, equipment, supportive staff, and other r e ­
sources necessary to the maintenance of academic program s.
Faculty reaction to the design of the present study should also be
explored.

For example, did the evaluation of p rogram -related

activities, in term s of finite re so u rc e s, re s u lt in faculty members
changing th eir perceptions of the "importance" of various activities?

79
9.

The relationship between activities and p ro g ra m s , on which the
p re s e n t study is largely based, needs fu rth e r em piric al d e s c rip ­
tion.

Is, for example, this relationship singular or can a given

activity substantially re la te to m o re than one organizational p r o ­
g ra m ?

The answer to this question would significantly effect the

in te rpretatio n of future activity analyses.
10.

Finally, the p re s e n t study sought to evaluate faculty attitudes
toward institutional p ro g ram s through an analysis of professional
re so u rc e s and activities.

Other studies have approached the same

problem through the a s s e s s m e n t of institutional goals and objec­
tives.

Since the advantages and limitations of these techniques

a re somewhat com plimentary, information obtained from both
should be system atically combined to support various management
processes.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
THE ANNUAL REPORT OF FACULTY ACTIVITIES
AND FACULTY EFFORT FORM

Michigan State University - College of Engineering
Annual Report of Individual Faculty Activities

' l a m e ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Department _______________________________________________________________________________________________

*ank _________________________________________________

Period Covered:

Basis:

10Mo.

January l f 1973 through December 31,

12 Mo.

1973

INSTRUCTION -- This includes all effort dedicated to the teaching of
students, whether the teaching effort is form al or informal. It will be
distributed into the following categories: (a) regular on-campus classroom
teaching, (b) off-campus program s adm inistered by the University involving
instruction for credit, (c) off-campus p ro g ra m s, administered by the
University, but not for credit, (d) advising, (e) thesis direction and
(f) related developmental activities.
LectureB to civic groups or laymen
not students or practitioners in the subject field a re excluded here and
placed under "Public Service. " Reading related to a re s e a rc h project or
general reading in one's professional field not specifically related to
courses taught is subsumed under "R esearch and Scholarly Activity" or
"Professional Development. "
A.

On-Campus Teaching. To help with data on teaching loads.
Institutional R esearch has supplied the attached printout.
P lease
check this listing for accuracy and enter the appropriate figures
below.
u .g .
Winter,

1973

Spring,

1973

Summer,
F all,

sch

grad,

sch

1973

1973

_____

TOTAL

80

81

13.

Off-Campus Tcachine. Indicate in parenthesis any of the student
credit hours taught on an overload basis.

Winter,

1973

Spring,

1973

Summer,
F all,

u. g. sch

grad,

sch

____________

_____________

1973

1973

TOTAL

C.

Off-Campus (or Evening College)

D.

Academic Advising.

P ro g ra m s .

W’73
Number of undergrad, advisees
Number of M.S. advisees
Number of Ph. D. advisees

-

2-

Describe.

S' 73

SS'73

F 17 3

82

E.

Thesis Direction.
W'73

S r73

SS'73

Number of M.S. students
requiring thesis direction:
Number of M.S. d egrees awarded:
Number of Ph. D. degrees awarded:
Names of Ph. D. recipients;

Number of active guidance
c om m itte e s :

F.

Associated Instructional A c tiv itie s. If you check any of the
activities listed below, explain briefly.
_______

New course development

_______

Class notes in t r i a l or p re lim in a ry preparation

______

P re p a ra tio n of laboratory e x e rc ise s or notes; design
of laborato ry experim ents

_______

New experim ents in teaching,
methods

_______

T .V .

instruction program s

-

3-

learning,

or examination

F 173

83

_______

Experiments with programmed learning

_______

Audio-visual aids, e le ctro w rite r, or any other teacher learning media

_______

Services performed in support of instruction, i. e. , service
at registration desk, orientation program

_______

Course supervision

_______

Other

Explain:

-4-

84
G.

II.

Teaching Effectiveness. Supply any information you feel is ap p ro ­
priate which su m m arize s your effectiveness in teaching. S1RR fo rm s,
although not n e c e s sa ry , provide one of the better views of effectiveness
and student acceptance. Do not include m a te ria l you wish to have retu ri

RESEARCH AND SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY - - includes all effort dedicated
p rim a rily to the discovery and application of new knowledge. Excluded a re
any activities for which the m a jo r purpose is the training of students or the
improving of instruction, both of which should be accounted for under
"Instruction. " Consulting or other activity for which individuals receive
more than token payment from an outside source is also excluded.
A.
B.

Department Supported R e se a rc h an d /o r
College Supported R e sea rch through P E R .
This information will also be used in the Division
of Engineering R e s e a r c h 's short form of the Annual
Report. Additional information for the long form
may be requested.
Title _______________________________________________________________________________________
Support Source (Department, DER, or other)

Co-Investigators ________________________________________________________
Graduate Students ______________________________________________________
Provide a b rief sum m ary or a b s tra c t of p ro g re ss for 1973
(approximately 200 words):

-5-

85

C.

R esearch Supported by Off-Campus Agency.
This information will also be used in the Division
of Engineering R e se a rc h 's short form of the
Annual Report. Additional information for the
long form may be requested.
Title ________________________________________________________________________
Agency ____________________________________________________________________
Am ount____________________________________________________________________
Start ing and Ending Dates ___________________________________________
Co-Investigators _______________________________________________________
Graduate A ssistants
Provide a b rief sum m ary or a b s tra c t of p ro g re s s for 1973
(approximately 200 words):

-

6-

86

QW

Department Supported P ro p o sal Development and/o r
College Supported Fropoaal Development through PER.
Date
Submitted

Title

Approved

If pending or under active development, briefly explain.

F.

Gifts and Grants from Outside Sources.
gifts and grants, fellowships, etc. )
Item Received

Explain if necessary:

Amount

(Equipment, unspecified

Source

Denied

87
G.

Publications.
This information will also be used in the
Division of Engineering R e se a rc h 's short
form of the Annual Report.
Please indicate whether these were American or foreign a rtic le s ,
papers presented, books, chapters, monographs, reviews,
technical re p o rts, etc.
Indicate any works in p ro g re s s.
For
papers presented, give the location and date of the conference.
Add additional sheets if neceBsary,
Journal reference:
G .E . Doe and P. S. Roc, "The development of the b eta tro n ,"
Am. J. Phys. 20, 298 {1952).
Book reference:
John G. Doe, The Gammatron (McGraw-Hill Book Company,
In c., New York, 1952), 2nd ed. Vol. I, Chap. 2, p. 69.
Paper presented:
A. C. Doe, "New developments with the betatron, " ASEE
Annual Meeting, New York, October 1967.

-

8-

PUBLIC SERVICE -- includes the following activities:
preparation of information bulletins; contacts with professional orgnnizatioi
(offices held, committee assignm ents); editor of professional publication;
d irecto rsh ip or planning chairm anship of conferences; participation in con­
ferences, se m in a rs, colloquia; radio and T. V. presentations; talks or
papers before serv ic e clubs, high schools, community se rv ic e and activitie
public relations work with outside agencies or institutions for courtesy and
good will; campus v isito r program s; student campus society or fra te rn a l
organization advising.
Name of Activity

Nature of the Service

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES -- includes a ll effort
devoted to m anagerial and supervisory tasks (except course supervision)
perform ed for the departm ent, college, or University as a whole but
supported by the department.
Names of committees o r activities

You may want to detail any contributions of the ad m in istrativ e resp o n ­
sibilities listed above.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT - - includes any personal accomplishmc
designed to maintain and improve one's general professional competence
ra th e r than one's perform ance of c u rr e n t instructional, re s e a rc h , or s e r
responsibilities. Such activities include scholarships, fellowships, granl
leaves, travel, special sum m er p ro g ra m s, and activ itie s, added degrees
honoring awards o r m em berships granted.
Name of accomplishment or activity

Explain if you so d e s ire :

Dates

90

VI.

SELF-ASSESSMENT - - indicate the most significant contribution to your
department, the college or the University during the calendar year 1973.

VIL.

NEED - - i n what a re a could assistance be provided to you that would help
you in better achieving your objectives for 1974?

-

1 1-

91

FACULTY EFFORT FORM
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

You have recorded your activities during the period from Winter 1972
through Fall 1972. Will you now look through the questionnaire and
estim ate the percent of tim e you epent in each of the listed activities
for the entire year.
Your total effort should be exactly 100%.
A sum m ary will be made from this data and provided to you.

- 12-

92

Lower
U. G.

C

o

jeu
u

A.

T e a c h in g Load

B.

A c a d e m ic A d vising

C.

A sso c ia te d Instructional
A ctivities

D.

T h esis D irection

Upper
U .G .

M asters

A.

R e se a r c h supported

B.

R e se a r c h supported by D iv isio n of E n g in ee rin g R e se a r c h

C.

R e s e a r c h su p p o rted by O ff - C a m p u s A g e n c y

Doctoral

by a c a d e m ic d e p a r t m e n t

fcl ti

n

D

Pi

a? £
P 41
P* VI

D.

R e se a rch prop osal d evelopm ent supported byacad em ic
departm ent

E.

R e s e a r c h p r o p o s a l d e v e lo p m e n t su p p o rted by D iv is io n of
E ngineering R e se a r c h

Public S erv ice

“

C o m m i t t e e and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S e r v i c e

u
> M
d
*m
4
I— t

T£3

D epartm ent
C ollege
U niversity

nr
o

* art

> a,
2 Q
I
u

c

2 .|2A? -C
8 3 s
< £

•C

P e r s o n a l a c c o m p l i s h m e n t d e s i g n e d t o m a i n t a i n and i m p r o v e
general professional com petence
C o m p u t e r L a b o r a t o r y , d e p a r t m e n t o u t s i d e th e C o l l e g e of
Engineering

T otal:

-13-

100%

APPENDIX B
REVISED FACULTY EFFORT FORM

FACULTY EFFORT FORM
Directions
You have now recorded your activities during the period Winter 1973
through Fall 1973.

Will you now look through the questionaire and estimate

the percent of time you spent in each of the listed activities.

These esti­

mates should total 100% and appear in Column A on the following page.
We are also asking your assistance in acquiring additional data for
a study which may be helpful to you, your Department and the College.
This information is requested in the remaining three columns which appear
on the following page:
In Column B you are asked to estimate the percentage of time you
would prefer spending in each of the listed activities
over an academic year.
This estimate should reflect
personal judgment on how your talents and in te rests
might best be used in the College. Your total "p re ­
ferred effort" estimates in Column B should be
exactly 100%.
In Column C please estimate your perception of the percentage of
faculty time which you feel the College currently al­
locates to each of tne listed activities. Your estimates
in Column C should again equal 100%,
In Column D you are asked to provide an estimate of the percentage
of faculty time which, in your opinion, should be de­
voted by the College to each of the listed activities.
The total of Column D should be 100%.
Suggested P rocedure: You will note that the thirty activity items
appearing on the form are listed under eleven general headings
( i . e . , ON CAMPUS TEACHING, OFF-CAMPUS TEACHING,
RESEARCH, etc. ). To simplify completing the columns, you may
f i rs t wish to estimate percentages for each of the eleven headings
according to the directions above. Each gross estimate may then
be divided among the items listed under the heading.
The information collected in each of the four columns will be made
available, without names, to Mr. William Abbett for use in a proposed Ph. D.
thesis which will examine patterns of resource allocation within the College.
When your department secreta ry prepares the two copies of the form to be
made available to your Department and the College, Columns B, C, and D
will not be included in order to insure confidentiality of your responses.
Your original draft will be returned to you.
93

FA C U LTY E F F O R T FO R M
P l e a e e in d ic a t e y o u r d e p a r t m e n t a l a f f ilia t io n :

NOTE,

Ite m

P le a a e r e v i e w d ir e c t i o n ! o n p r e c e d in g
p a g e b e f o r e c o m p le t in g the c o lu m n a b e lo w :
C o l.

0

C o l. A
A c tu a l
P eraon al
A c t iv it y

C o l. C

C o l. D

P r e fe r r e d
P eraonal
A c t lv lt y

P e r c e iv e d
C o lle g e
A c t iv ity

P r e fe r r e d
C o lle g e
A c t iv it y

%

%

7.

%

%

%

%

%

%

7.

%

%

%

%

IN ST R U C T IO N
A.

b

.

C.

ON -C A M P U S T E A C H IN G

I.

T e a c h in g u n d e r g r a d u a te c o u r a e a d e a ig n e d f o r c o l l e g e m a j o r e

2.

T e a c h in g u n d e r g r a d u a te c o u r i e r d e c l i n e d f o r n o n - c o l l e g e m a jo r e

J.

T e a c h in g 8 0 0 - 9 0 0 l e v e l c u u r a e a d e e tg n a d f o r c o l l e g e m a jo r a

%

4.

T e a c h ln c 0 0 0 - 9 0 0 l e v e l c o u r a e a d e c l i n e d f o r n o n - c o l l e i e m a lo r e

%

o ff

E.

F.

cam pus

T e a c h ln i o f f- c a m p u a u n d e r g r a d u a te c o u r a e a

%

b.

T e a c h in g o f f- c a m p u a g r a d u a te c o u r a e a

%

%

%

7t

%

7.

%

%

%

7.

- ........... %

%

%

%

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

T e a c h in g n o n - c r e d i t c o u r a e a

A C A D E M IC AD V ISIN G
a.

F o r m a l and In fo r m a l u n d e r g r a d u a te a d v la tn g

9.

F o r m a l and In fo r m a l g r a d u a te a d v la tn g (In c lu d in g P h . D . c o m m it t e e
a c t iv it y )

%

%

...

, *

T H E SIS D IR E C T IO N
10.

D ir e c t in g M .S . T h e e a a

%

%

%

%

11.

D ir e c t in g P h . D . T h e a c a

%

%

7.

%

%

%

%

%

A S S O C IA T E D IN S T R U C T IO N A L A C T IV IT IE S
12.

D e v e lo p in g n ew c o u r a e a fo r m a jo r a

11.

D e v e lo p in g n ew c o u r a e a fo r n o n -m a j o r a

%

*

7.

7.

14.

I m p le m e n tin g n ew t e a c h in g - le a r n in g t e c h n iq u e !

%

%

7.

7.

15,

E v a lu a tin g e a ia tin g _ c o u r a r i w ith in t h e c u r r ic u lu m

%

7*

7.

%

lb .

O th e r r e la t e d a c t iv it y

%

%

%

'

"I

A C T IV IT Y

17,

C o n d u c tin g r e a e a r c h a u p p o r te d bv D e p a r t m e n t

m
.if

n.

%

IB.

C o n d u ctin g r e a e a r c h a u p p o r te d bv D iv ia io n o f E n g in e e r in g R e a e a r c h

%

%

7„

nr

19.

C o n d u c tin g r e a e a r c h a u p p o r te d bv O lf-C a m p u e A g e n c y

%

%

7.

*M
I

20.

D e v e lo p in g r e a e a r c h o r o p o a a la a u p p o r te d bv D e p a r tm e n t

%

%

%

*1'

21.

D e v e lo p in g r e a e a r c h o r o p o a a la a u p p o r te d b v D iv ia io n o f E n g in e e r in g
R ea e a r e h

%

%

%

*F

22.

A t tr a c tio n o f o t h e r g lfta and g r a n t !

%

%

%

■|T(

21.

P r e p a r a tio n o r e d it in g o f m a n u a c r lp t e , p a p e r a a n d /o r a r t i c l e !

%

%

%

f.

%

7.

%

--------- 2*

%

7.

atf
T.

P U B L IC S E R V IC E
24,

IV,

%

O T H E R O F F -C A M P U S (O R E V E N IN G C O L L E G E ! PR O G R A M S

R ESEARCH A N D SC H O LA R LY

III.

.

t e a c h in g

5.

7.
D.

-

.

P r o f e a a io n a l p a r t ic ip a t io n In c o m m u n it y a n d /o r p r o le a a lo n a l
o r g a n iz a t io n !

C O M M IT T E E A N D A D M IN IS T R A T IV E S E R V IC E S
25.

p a r t i c i p a t i o n In D e p a r t m e n t a l c o m m it t e e a

%

26,

P a r t ic ip a t io n In C o ll e g e c o m m lt t e e a

%

7.

%

27.

P a r t ic ip a t io n In l l n iv e r a l t v c o m m lt t e e a

%

%

7.

2 8.

M a n a g e m e n t a n d /o r a u p e r v t e o r y a c t iv it le a

7.

t*

rt4
i!

7.

%

*

%

%

I 00%

10 0 %

......... *

P R O F E S S IO N A L D E V E L O P M E N T
29,

VI.

I m p r o v e m e n t o f g e n e r a l p r o f e a a io n a l c o m p e t e n c e In c lu d in g a c h o la r a h lp a ,
f a llo w a h lp a , g r a n t a , l e a v e a . t r a v e l , a p e c la l e u m m e r p r o g r a m ! , p e r a a n a l a tu d y , e t c .

%

O th e r a a a lg n m a n ta (C o m p u te r L a b o r a t o r y , d e p a r t m e n t o u te ld e C o lle g a i

%

O TH ER
1 0.

T O T A I.S

10 0 %

.
10 0 %

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.

Blau, P e t e r M. and Scott, W. Richard.
"The Nature and Types
of F o rm a l Organizations. " Organizations and Human Behavior:
Focus on Schools. Edited by F ra n k D. C a rv e r and Thomas J.
Sergiovanni. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.

2.

Bunnell, Kevin, ed. R eport on the Conference on Faculty Work­
load. Washington, D. C. : Am erican Council on Education, I960.

3.

Cannell, Lewis D.
"Apportioning Straws to C am el's B a c k s ."
Junior College Jo u rn a l, XXX (September, 1959), pp. 3-5.

4.

Carnegie Com mission on Higher Education.
The More Effect
Use of R esources: An Im perative for Higher Education.
New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.

5.

Cornfield, Je ro m e and Tukey, John W.
"Average Values of Mean
Squares in F a c to r ia ls . " Annals of M athem atical S ta tis tic s . XXVII
(1956), pp. 907-949.
'
~

6.

Cyphert, F re d e r i c k R. and Gant, W alter L.
"The Delphi Tech­
nique: A Case Study. " Phi Delta Kappan, LII, No. 5 (January.
1971), pp. 272-273.

7.

Doi, Jam es.
"The P r o p e r Use of Faculty Load Studies. " Studies
in College F acu lty . Boulder, Colorado:
W estern In te rsta te
Com mission for Higher Education, 1961.

8.

D re s s e l, Paul L. , Johnson, F. C raig, and M arcu s, Philip M.
The Confidence C r i s i s . San F ra n cisc o :
Jossey B a ss, 1970.

9.

Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations.
J e rse y :
P re n tic e Hall, 19647

10.

Englewood Cliffs, New

G ro s s, Edward and G ram bsch, Paul V.
University Goals and
Academic P o w e r. Washington, D. C. : A m erican Council on
Education, 1968,

11.

Hauck, George F.
"Estim ating Faculty Work L o a d ."
Education, LX (October, 1969), pp. 117-119.

12.

Hays, William L.
Winston, 1963.

13.

Hill, Armin J.
"Measuring Faculty Work Load. 11 Engineering
Education. LX (October, 1969), pp. 92-96.

S ta ti s t i c s .

95

New York:

Engineering

Molt, R in ehart and

96

14.

Hintz, John A. "An Examination of Goal Congruence and P e r ­
ceived Need for G re a te r Cooperation Between Undergraduate
Teaching Faculty and Student P ersonnel Staff at Michigan State
U n iv ersity ." Unpublished Ph. D. d issertatio n , Michigan State
University, 1974.

15.

Isa a c s, G. W.
"Determination of Faculty L oads." P a p e r p r e ­
sented before the American Society for Agricultural Engineering
Department C hairm en's Workshop, Chicago, Illinois, 1971.

16.

Kirk, Roger E. Experimental Design;
P roced ures for the Behavioral Sciences.
Belmont, California:
Brooks Cole Co. ,

1968.

17.

18.

Lawrence, Ben, _et_al. , eds. Outputs of Higher Education:
Their Identification. M easurem ent, and Evaluation. Boulder,
Colorado: Western Intersta te Commission for Higher Education,
1970.
Manning, Charles W. Faculty Activity Analysis:
P ro c ed u re s
Manual. Boulder, Colorado: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems at WICHE, 1973.

19.

M ille r, K erm it C.
"A Study of Faculty Work Load in Higher
Education. " Unpublished Ph. D. d isse rta tio n , University of
M ississippi, 1968.

20.

P feiffer, John. New Look in Education: Systems Analysis in
Our Schools and Colleges! New York: The Odyssey P r e s s , f968.

21.

Ratzman, Steven J. "Teaching Load Evaluation in Agricultural
Engineering Departments. " Unpublished M. S. T hesis, Michigan
State University, 1973.

22.

"A Report:
Notes. St.

College Goals and Governance, " Danforth News and
Louis: Danforth Foundation, November, 1969.

23.

Richardson, H. D. "Faculty Woj*k Load Study and Analysis. "
College and U niversity, XLIII (1967), pp. 108-114.

24.

Romney, Leonard C. Faculty Activity Analysis:
Overview and
Major I s s u e s . Boulder, Colorado: National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems at WICHE, 1971.

25.

Rourke, F ra n c is E. and Brooks, Glenn E. The Managerial
Revolution in Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins P r e s s ,
1966.

26.

Roy, Robert H.
Hopkins P r e s s ,

27.

Sheets, Norman L. "Guidelines for Assigning Faculty Loads. "
JOPHER. 1970, pp. 40-43.

The Adm inistrative P r o c e s s .
195S.

Baltimore:

Johns

97

2 8.

Stead, Ronald S.
"An Analysis of the University Goal P erceptio ns
and P re fe re n c e s of Students, Facility, A d m inistrato rs , and T ru s ­
tees at Michigan State University. 11 Unpublished Ph. D. d i s s e r ­
tation, Michigan State University, 1971.

29.

Stecklein, John E. How to Measure Faculty Work Load.
ington, D. C. : American Council on Education, 1969.

30.

Sweitzer, Robert.
"An A ssessm en t of Two Theoretical F r a m e ­
w o r k s ." Organizations and Human Behavior; Focus on Schools.
Edited by F rank D. C a rv e r and Thomas J. Sergiovanni.
New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.

31.

Thomas, William L. "Perceptio ns of University Goals:
A
Com parison of A dm in istrators. Faculty, and Students Engaged
in the P ra c tic e , Teaching and/o r Study of Student Personnel
Administration at Michigan State University with a Nationwide
Study of University Faculty and A dm inistrators. " Unpublished
Ph. D. d iss e rta tio n , Michigan State University, 1970.

32.

Thompson, Jam es D. and McEwen, William J.
"Organizational
Goals and Environment: Goal Setting as an Interactive P ro c e s s . "
American Sociological Review. XXIII (F eb ruary, 1958), pp. 23-31.

33.

Toombs, William. Productivity and the Academy:
The C urrent
Condition. Center for tHe Study of Higher Education, Report 16.
University P a r k , Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University,
April, 1972.

34.

Uhl, Norman P. Identifying Institutional Goals;
Encouraging
Convergence of Opinion Through the Delphi^Teclinique. 'D u r h a m .
North Carolina: National L aboratory for Higher Education, 1971.

35.

University of California. Faculty Effort and Output Study. Berke­
ley: Office of the P re sid e n t, University of California, 1970.

36.

Veblen, Thorstein.
Am erican Century,

The Higher Learning in A m eric a.
1957.

Wash­

New York: