INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming.
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or
notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an
indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed,
a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is
customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to
continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary,
sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on
until complete.
4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic
means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.

University

Microfilms

International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

8415277

Zonia, Susan Catherine

THE DILEMMA OF UNIONIZATION: A LONGITUDINAL CASE STUDY OF
FACULTY AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

PH.D. 1984

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Copyright 1983
fc>y
Zonia, Susan Catherine
All Rights Reserved

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .

1.

Glossy photographs or p ag es______

2.

Colored illustrations, paper or print_____

3.

Photographs with dark background_____

4.

Illustrations are poor copy______

5.

Pages with black marks, not original

6.

Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page______

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

8.

Print exceeds margin requirements_____

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______

10.

copy__

Computer printout pages with indistinct print_____

11.

Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.

12.

Page(s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13.

Two pages num bered____________ . Text follows.

14.

Curling and wrinkled p ag es______

15.

Other___________________________________________________________________

University
Microfilms
International

THE DILEMMA OF UNIONIZATION:
A LONGITUDINAL CASE STUDY OF FACULTY AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

by
Susan C a t h e r i n e Zonia

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Mi c h i ga n S t a t e Uni v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s
f o r th e degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Sociology
1983

©

C o p y r i g h t by
SUSAN CATHERINE ZONIA
1983

ABSTRACT
THE DILEMMA OF UNIONIZATION:
A LONGITUDINAL CASE STUDY OF FACULTY AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
Susan C a t h e r i n e

Unionization
universities
bargaining

of f a c u l t y

does

that

not

sity,

we c o l l e c t e d

structural

the

their

collective

structural

One a t t i t u d i n a l

variables

variable,

variable.

to

added t o

size,

Univer­

perceptions

the

budget,

1981 d a t a s e t

turnover

attitudes

contributed

of the explained

with

towards

little

explanations

we

t o our

bargaining.

policy

variance

of

measured

analysis,

towards c o l l e c t i v e
agreement

of

investigating

These v a r i a b l e s

upon

Traditional

workers.

university

Through r e g r e s s i o n

attitudes

a c c o u n t e d f o r most
dependent

we a l s o

State

patterns,

In a d d i t i o n

wor k s e t t i n g

bargaining.

of

of c o l l e c t i v e

1978 and 1981 a b o u t f a c u l t y

communication

and e n r o l l m e n t s .

of the

Michigan

bargaining,

d a t a on d e p a r t m e n t

understanding

at

in 1977,

variables,

salary

impact

found t h e

data

and s a t i s f a c t i o n .

psychological

faculty,

colleges

towards c o l l e c t i v e

influence

and

h a v e f o c u s e d m a i n l y on b l u e - c o l l a r

a sample of f i v e

administration,

in American c o l l e g e s

c o n f o r m t o most t h e o r i e s

Using

attitudes

Zonia

statements,

in our
o f why f a c u l t y

favor

collective

bargaining

satisfaction,

and p a t t e r n s

by o u r d a t a .

Because t h e s e

different
their

administrative

measures

require

are s t a b l e

revision

to

b a s e d on a g e ,
of

rank,

i n f l u e n c e we r e n o t

d a t a were g a t h e r e d

and e c o n o m i c

professional

job

supported

under very

conditions,

and s how how c u r r e n t

explain

gender,

we t h i n k

theories

unionization.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There

are

my e d u c a t i o n a l
particular,
major

was b o t h

career

I wo u l d

advisor,

under his

i n n u m e r a b l e p e o p l e who h a v e ha d an i m p a c t on

like

Philip

direction
invaluable

I wo u l d a l s o

a nd d e v e l o p m e n t

as w e l l

like

and F r e d r i c k

suggestions

In

t o my
I ha d

S c i e n c e R e s e a r c h Bureau

as e n j o y a b l e .

t o e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e
committee

Wa i s a n e n - -

for

--

to the other

Harry P e r l s t a d t , Richard
their

valuable

a nd c o m m e n t s .

Finally,
a nd M a n f r e d ,

The a p p r e n t i c e s h i p

the Social

me mb e r s o f my g u i d a n c e
Block,

t o e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n

M. M a r c u s .

in

as a s o c i o l o g i s t .

I wo u l d l i k e t o t h a n k
for the years

Dhimitri

of p a t i e n c e ,

e n c o u r a g e m e n t t h e y h a v e g i v e n me.

and M a r g a r e t ,

support

and

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List

of Tables

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

v1

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................

1

A.

L a b o r U n i o n s ....................................................................................

1

B.

W h i t e - C o l l a r W o r k e r s a nd L a b o r U n i o n s ....................

4

C.

U n i v e r s i t y and C o l l e g e F a c u l t i e s
and L a b o r U n i o n s ..........................................................................

8

Chapter
I.

D.

F a c u l t y C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g I s s u e s .......................
1.
F e d e r a l and S t a t e L e g i s l a t i o n .............................
2.
T y p e s o f U n i t s ....................................................................
3.
Attempts to Organize the F acu lty at
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ........................................

20

P u r p o s e o f t h e S t u d y .................................................................

25

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.................................................................

28

A.

The U n i v e r s i t y O r g a n i z a t i o n ..............................................

28

B.

Powe r and I n f l u e n c e ...................................................................
1.
P r o p o s i t i o n # 1 .....................................................................
a.
H y p o t h e s e s #1 t h r o u g h # 3 ................................

31
38
38

C.

Reference

and C o m m u n i c a t i o n ............................

38

P r o p o s i t i o n # 2 .....................................................................
a . H y p o t h e s i s # 4 ............................................................
P r o p o s i t i o n # 3 .....................................................................
a. Hypotheses
#5 and 6 ..............................................

45
45
45
45

C h a n g e s on U n i v e r s i t y C a m p u s e s .....................................
1.
P r o p o s i t i o n # 4 .....................................................................
a . H y p o t h e s i s # 7 ............................................................

46
48
49

E.
II.

1.
2.
D.

Gr o u p s

iii

12
12
15

C h ap ter

III.

I V.

V.

DATA COLLECTION........................................................................................

50

A.

M e t h o d s .................................................................................................

50

B.

Development of t h e Survey

I n s t r u m e n t s ...................

52

C.

Data C o l l e c t i o n

and P r o c e d u r e s .....................................

55

D.

The P o p u l a t i o n S a m p l e s and
R e s p o n s e R a t e s ...............................................................................

56

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

60

A.

P r o p o s i t i o n # 1 ...............................................................................
a.
H y p o t h e s i s # 1 ........................................................................
b.
H y p o t h e s i s # 2 ........................................................................
c.
H y p o t h e s i s # 3 ........................................................................

62
62
65
67

B.

P r o p o s i t i o n # 2 ...............................................................................
a.
H y p o t h e s i s # 4 ........................................................................

69
69

C.

P r o p o s i t i o n # 3 ...............................................................................
a.
H y p o t h e s e s #5 and # 6 ......................................................

76
76

D.

P r o p o s i t i o n # 4 ...............................................................................
a.
H y p o t h e s i s # 7 ........................................................................

82
82

CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................

101

L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
f o r F u t u r e R e s e a r c h ..........................................................................

108

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

112

APPENDIX A:

FACULTY

QUESTIONNAIRE - -

1 9 8 1 ..................................

119

APPENDIX B:

FACULTY

EXCLUDED FROMTHE STUDY............................

124

APPENDIX C:

VARIABLES USED TO CONSTRUCT NEW INDEX
VARIABLES AND THEIR FACTOR LOADINGS................

125

VARIABLES USED TO CONSTRUCT DEPARTMENT
INDEX VARIABLES AND THEIR FACTOR
LOADINGS, 1 9 8 1 .......................................................................

127

APPENDIX D:

iv

APPENDIX E:

APPENDIX F:

APPENDIX G:

APPENDIX H:

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
INDEX VARIABLES:
1977 ...............................................

128

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
INDEX VARIABLES:
1 9 7 8 ...............................................

129

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
INDEX VARIABLES:
1 9 8 1 ...............................................

130

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IMPACT ITEMS, RANK
AND PERSONAL AND GROUP INFLUENCE INDEX
VARIABLES:
1977 ...............................................................

131

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IMPACT ITEMS, RANK
AND PERSONAL AND GROUP INFLUENCE INDEX
VARIABLES:
1 9 7 8 ............................

132

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IMPACT ITEMS, RANK
AND PERSONAL AND GROUP INFLUENCE INDEX
VARIABLES:
1 9 8 1 ...............................................................

133

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
COMMUNICATION ITEMS AND ACADEMIC
RANK:
1 9 7 8 ...............................................................................

134

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
COMMUNICATION ITEMS AND ACADEMIC
RANK:
1 9 8 1 ...............................................................................

135

FACULTY SATISFACTION, 1 9 7 7 , 1 9 7 8 , 1 9 8 1 :
ONE' S OWN AND PERCEIVED OF OTHERS.....................

136

v

LI ST OF TABLES

National
Selected

I n c o me and Emp l o y me n t P a t t e r n s f o r
I n d u s t r i e s ............................................................

3

Election

R e s u l t s ....................................................................

23

Comparison o f F a c u l t y R e s po n d e n t s wi t h t h e
F i v e - C o l l e g e P o p u l a t i o n ..................................................

58

S a mp l e and P o p u l a t i o n by R a n k ,
1 9 7 7 , 1 9 7 8 , and 1 9 8 1 ..........................................................

59

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I t e m s Used t o C o n s t r u c t New
I n d e x V a r i a b l e s .......................................................................

61

P e r c e i v e d P e r s o n a l I n f l u e n c e , by R a n k ,
1 9 7 7 , 1 9 7 8 , 1981 ( M e a n s ) ...............................................

63

Correlations
of I n f l u e n c e

Be t we e n Rank and Two T y p e s
Ov e r T i m e .....................................................

64

P e r c e i v e d F a c u l t y Gr oup I n f l u e n c e , b y R a n k ,
1 9 7 7 , 1 9 7 8 , 1981 ( M e a n s ) ...............................................

66

C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t we e n I mp a c t o f C o l l e c t i o n
B a r g a i n i n g Woul d R e d u c e M e r i t a s a
J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r R a i s e s and T y p e s o f
I n f l u e n c e Ov e r T i m e .............................................................

68

F r e q u e n c i e s and P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n
o f L e n g t h o f Ti me i n C u r r e n t P o s i t i o n by
Ac a d e mi c R a n k :
1 9 8 1 ...........................................................

71

Reference

Gr o u p by Ac a d e mi c Ra n k :

1978....

73

Reference

Gr o u p by Ac a d e mi c

1981....

73

L e n g t h o f Ti me i n C u r r e n t P o s i t i o n by
R e f e r e n c e Group:
1 9 8 1 .....................................................

75

vi

Ra n k :

Table
14

F a c u l t y C o m m u n i c a t i o n , By R a n k ,
1 9 7 8 , 1981 ( M e a n s ) ....................................................................

77

C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t we e n Ac a d e m i c Rank and
Communication I t e m s :
1978 & 1 9 8 1 .............................

78

C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t we e n C o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h
C h a i r p e r s o n a nd O t h e r C o m m u n i c a t i o n I t e m s :
1978 and 1 9 8 1 .................................................................................

82

Percentage of F aculty Favoring C o l l e c t i v e
B a r g a i n i n g , by Rank, 11970, 1977, 1978,
1 9 8 1 .........................................................................................................

84

C o r r e l a t i o n B e t we e n Ac a d e mi c Rank and F a v o r
C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g Over T i m e ..................................

85

Mean S c o r e o f F a c u l t y F a v o r i n g C o l l e c t i v e
B a r g a i n i n g , by C o l l e g e , 1 9 7 0 , 1 9 7 7 , 1 9 7 8 ,
1 9 8 1 .........................................................................................................

86

Mean S c o r e s o f F a c u l t y F a v o r i n g C o l l e c t i v e
B a r g a i n i n g , by Ag e , 1 9 7 0 , 1 9 7 7 , 1978 and
1 9 8 1 .........................................................................................................

89

C o r r e l a t i o n s Be t we e n F a v o r C o l l e c t i v e
B a r g a i n i n g a nd Age Over T i m e ..........................................

89

C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t we e n Ac a d e mi c Rank and
P o l i c y A g r e e m e n t Over T i m e ...............................................

90

C o r r e l a t i o n Be t we e n P o l i c y A g r e e m e n t ,
F a v o r C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g and C o l l e c t i v e
B a r g a i n i n g I m p a c t Ove r T i m e .............................................

90

24

Favor

Collective

B a r g a i n i n g - 1 9 7 0 ...........................

93

25

Favor

Collective

B a r g a i n i n g -...1977 ...........................

93

26

Favor

Collective

B a r g a i n i n g - 1 9 7 8 ...........................

94

27

Favor

Collective

B a r g a i n i n g - 1 9 8 1 ...........................

95

28

Pro-Union

1978,

1981 ............................................

97

29

I t e m s Us ed t o C o n s t r u c t D e p a r t m e n t
Index V a r i a b l e s :
1 9 8 1 ..........................................................

98

15
16

17

18
19

20

21
22
23

-

1977,

vi i

Ta b l e
30
31

P r o - U n i o n ( Wi t h D e p a r t m e n t L e v e l
V a r i a b l e s ) - 1 9 8 1 .......................................................................
Summar y o f

F i n d i n g s ..................................................................

99
104

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Labor u n i o n s
colorful
of

history.

studies

evolution
history,

in

in t h e United

The i n t e r e s t e d

any l i b r a r y

of u n i o n s.
and f o r

States

reader

our purposes

here,

themselves

in.

we w i l l

and

find myriads

growth

In o r d e r t o do j u s t i c e

prim arily to the current

to

and
this

confine

situations

our

unions

find

La bor Uni ons
The h i s t o r y o f t h e

has

will

concerning the

statements

A.

have had a r i c h

largely

l a b o r mo v e me n t

been a b l u e - c o l l a r

phenomenon.

have succeed ed

in o r g a n i z i n g

workers,

in the

industrial

greatest

success

it

is

enjoyed t h e i r

in t h e

United

States

Wh i l e u n i o n s

some g r o u p s o f w h i t e - c o l l a r
sector

that

and r e m a i n

unions

have

concentrated

today.
Uni o n s s e e k b a r g a i n i n g
Juris

and Roomki n

typically
their

(1980,

i mp o s e t wo l i m i t s

effectiveness.

bargain

p.

effectiveness
66)

above

have n ot ed t h a t

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

First,

"...they

to t h e term of employment".

to

all

else.

unions
increase

deliberately

limit

the

Second,

" . . . t h e unions l i m i t themselves to a ' g r i e v i n g ' ,
p r o t e c t i v e , a d v e r s a r y p o s t u r e as b e i n g mo r e c o m p a t i b l e
with b a r g a i n i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s t ha n comanagement,
1

p a r t n e r s h i p , or any o t h e r v a r i a t i o n whi ch p u t s t h e
u n i o n i n an i n i t i a t i n g r o l l . . . T h e u n i o n p r e f e r s t o
a f f e c t e m p l o y m e n t by g r i e v i n g i n c r e m e n t a l l y r a t h e r t h a n
by f o r m u l a t i n g i t w h o l e s a l e t h r o u g h c o d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . "
Issues

concerning

wa g e s

secondary esp ecially

if

and e v e n j o b c o n s c i o u s n e s s
they clash

with

union

are

effectiveness

in b a r g a i n i n g .
Uni ons had t h e i r
large,

ma s s

industries

a nd m a n u f a c t u r i n g
traditionally

years.

Table

decreased
national

of m i n in g ,

a percentage

i ncome

doubled over t h i s

of t o t a l

changes.

The a r e a s

changes,

and mo r e c a p i t a l

n u mb e r o f w o r k e r s

n u mb e r o f

union

support,

are

intensive,

losses

p a y i n g members,

resulted

bargaining

not

but

in t h e

units;

in

a nd b y 1976 t h i s

loosing

greatly

h a v e b e c o me l e s s

labor

thereby reducing

o n l y in t e r m s

also

t h e y have

establishment

Unions

blue-

pace with t h e s e

79.5% of e l e c t i o n s

t o 60. 7%,

the

i n d u s t r y has

elections.

fell

in r e c e n t

Although

g r o w i n g n u mb e r o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l

collective

have

the

needed.

Unions have s u f f e r e d
n u mb e r o f d u e s

the

kept

industries

empl oyed has

from each

of t r a d i t i o n a l

by t e c h n o l o g i c a l

intensive

not

building

empl oyment

percentage

period,

the

Wh i l e t h e y we r e

these four

(GNP) o r i g i n a t i n g

workers employed has

effected

transportation,

1979).

strongholds,

I s h o ws how t h e

in o r g a n i z i n g

over the twenty-two year p e r i o d .

mo r e t h a n
collar

as

success

(Hildebrand,

union

been d e c l i n i n g

greatest

over f i f t y

1967,
figure

percent

union

In

of the
lost

a

1946,
of

success

rate

ha d d r o p p e d t o 4 9 . 7 % .
of

all

representa-

TABLE 1
NATIONAL INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS FOR SELECTED INDUSTRIES

1963
N a t io n a l Income
O rig in atin g (in
b i 1l i o n s )

X

1976
Employment
( i n thou san d s)

X

N a t i o n a l Income
O rig in atin g (in
b illio n s)

X

1985
Employment
( in thousands)

X

Employrm
Project

C o n s t r u c t i o n and
Mining

3 0.2

6.2

3 ,5 9 8

5.3

8 7 .1

6.2

4 ,1 5 3

4 .7

6 .1

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and
P ublic U t i l i t i e s

4 0 .1

8 .4

3 ,903

5 .8

1 0 6.8

7.6

4,507

5 .1

4 .9

1 4 3 .8

29.8

16,9 95

2 5 .1

3 6 5 .0

2 6 .1

18 ,9 5 4

21.7

2 0 .6

54.1

1 1 .2

8 ,3 2 5

1 2.3

18 8.2

13.4

1 4,6 0 2

1 6.7

2 2 .1

M a n u fa c t u r in g
S ervices

co
Source:

e x c e r p t e d from Hervey A. J u r i s and Myron Roomkin ( e d s . ) The S h r i n k i n g P e r i m e t e r : Unionism and Labor R e l a t i o n s in
t h e M a n u f a c t u r in g S e c t o r . ( L e x i n g t o n , M a s s a c h u s e t: L e x i n g t o n Books, 1 9 8 0 ), p . 8 .

tional

elections

held

( U. S.

News and Wo r l d R e p o r t , J u l y 2 5 ,

1977).

Today t h e y r e p r e s e n t

workers

(BLS D a i l y R e p o r t

Labor u n i o n s

above.
the

workers.
charges

(Rees,

length

"arbitrary"

of c o r r u p t i o n
to

rule

identify

21* o f n o n - f a r m

9/18/81).

States

we r e and s t i l l

industries

such

with

as t h o s e m e n t i o n e d

of working day,

salaries

of t h e managers

over the

strikes,

the

are

employing

violence,

"unions

and

walk-outs

h a v e made many w h i t e - c o l l a r

and

workers

o f wage e a r n e r s "

1962).

B. W h i t e - C o l l a r Wo r k e r s
Blue-collar
industries

and L a b o r U n i o n s

w o r k e r s employed

have been

counterparts

arrangements

of b l u e - c o l l a r

information

and c r e a t i n g

feeling

of s o l i d a r i t y

setting

than

sentiment

in

is

isolated

also tends

workers walking

better

wa g e s

from t h e i r

a teacher

Business,

for

organize than

workers.

Disseminating

group or p ee r
less

pressure

difficult

offices

with

in

and a

a fa c to ry type

few w o r k e r s .

away f r o m t h e i r

Public

1977;

jobs

to

and s t r i k i n g

There i s

same r e a s o n
U. S .

for

little

or government employee wal ki ng

the

their

p r e c i s e l y be c a us e of t h e working

and w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s .

desks

to

t o be s o me wh a t mo r e s y m p a t h e t i c

ma n u a l

sympathy f o r

i n ma s s p r o d u c t i o n

s o me wh a t e a s i e r

white-collar

Nations

181,

non-professionals,

Th e i r h i s t o r y of

hesitant

than

in b l u e - c o l l a r

The y e m p h a s i z e

s o me wh a t

No.

in t h e United

heavily concentrated
semi-skilled,

less

( von H o f f m a n ,

News and Wor l d R e p o r t ,

away

1978;
1978).

The t e c h n i c a l

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

g r o w i n g g r o u p and t h i s
e c o n o my i s
this

shown i n T a b l e

sector

education,
technical

growth

in t h e

I.

a nd s o c i a l

services
in

(research

by o n l y 2. 4% t o

employed,

however,

s ame p e r i o d .

that

labor

11. 2% o f t h e

change

in t e c h n o l o g y

is

less

Gi v e n t h a t

labor

if

they

are to

is

employment
Hopkins,

their

than

1979).

(Juris

Th e y v i e w u n i o n s

encouraging
e.g.,

increase
of

i n d u s tr y while

to

implies

sector,

to the

i.e.,

a

a large

industrial
service

sector,

with w h i t e - c o l l a r

organizingw hite-collar
perception

u s u a l l y hold

or

share-holders

union o f f i c i a l s

S mi t h

and

a "pro1976;

"undignified"

Directors

of t h e i r

1978;

as e m p l o y i n g c o e r c i o n

a nd w a l k - o u t s .

profits

industries

This

( B e y e r and L o d a h l ,

"unprofessional"

strikes

service

in t h e

and Ro o mk i n g ,

Professionals

management" o r i e n t a t i o n
1954).

to

quasi-professional

situation

16. 6 9 % o v e r t h e

survive.

One o f t h e m a j o r b a r r i e r s
workers

The s e r v i c e

li k e ly to displace

u n i o n s m u s t b e g i n t o make i n - r o a d s
employees

the

and

The p e r c e n t a g e

to the service

is c r i t i c a l

(e.g.,

GNP and t h i s

investment.

segment of t h e working p o p u l a t i o n
sector.

1976.

s hows t h a t

in

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

i n c r e a s e d f r o m 12. 3% t o

i s mo r e c r i t i c a l

included

and e v a l u a t i o n ) .

r e q u i r e mo r e l a b o r t h a n c a p i t a l

of t h e

human s e r v i c e s

services)

13. 44% i n

This c l e a r l y

sector

The o c c u p a t i o n s

1963 r e p r e s e n t e d

increased

is the f a s t e s t

service

a r e o f t wo m a j o r g r o u p s :
health

industries

class

Dean,

and
behavior;

of c o r p o r a t i o n s

are seen

as t h e

who do t h e

who

captains

s ame f o r

their

share-holders
Similarly,
collar

(members)

crimes"

while

improving th e
stress

collective
seniority
Ryan,

rather

of b eh av io r

increases
than

on s k i l l

and a d v a n c e m e n t .

middle c l a s s .

workers

have been v e r y e f f e c t i v e
(Freeman,

efforts

and o t h e r

to the

As B e l l

b a s e d on

1973;

L e wi s

and

professional's
(1976,

are r e c r u i t e d

Because of t h e i r

1979).

to obtain

benefits

(Schram,

runs counter

white-collar

"white-

are charged with

me mb e r s

use of c o l l e c t i v e

This

l a w c o mmi t

unions

wa g e s o f t h e i r

the

inflation.

1978).

blue-collar

salary

1976).

noted,

as f u e l i n g

union o f f i c i a l s

(von Hoffman,

Traditional

Un i o n s

seen

b u s i n e s s m e n who b r e a k t h e

racketeering

in

are

social

p.

72)

idea

has

p r i m a r i l y from t h e

origins

and:

" . . . i n p a r t b e c a u s e of t h e e t h o s of ' c l e a n c u f f
o c c u p a t i o n s ' " ( w h i t e - c o l l a r wo rk e r s were) " s t u b b o r n l y
d e t e r m i n e d t o m a i n t a i n a s e l f - i m a g e and s e l f - e s t e e m
t h a t was ' m i d d l e c l a s s ' " .
It

is not

to maintain
identify
Al l

surprising

distance

unions with
of t h i s

is

The m a j o r

professionals

from p r o d u c t i o n
blue-collar
n o t meant t o

completely "struck-out"
workers.

then th a t

in t r y i n g

area of

workers

workers

and t e a c h e r s .

Association
Municipal
country.

a nd t h e

Empl oyees

imply t h a t

union growth over

The N a t i o n a l

among t h e t e n

1955).

unions have

to organize

white-collar
the

last

government

Educational

Ameri can F e d e r a t i o n
are

and c o n t i n u e t o

(Goldstein,

d e c a d e h a s come p r e c i s e l y f r o m o r g a n i z i n g
employees

struggle

of S t a t e ,

largest

C o u n t y and

unions

in the

Victories
t wo r e a s o n s .
of

by t h e s e
First,

Exec ut ive Order

the federal
support

and m o s t

This c l e a r l y

unionism,

Act h e l p e d b l u e - c o l l a r
enabling

legislation

collectively.

they

Once t h e

problematic

to

enjoy the

counter-parts.

t o wor k

Labor R e l a t i o n s

f r e q u e n t l y been denied t h e
traffic
work,

controllers

and,

teachers

being

right
fired

to
for

o r d e r e d back

failure

t h e union has been

employees

circumstances.

S mi t h

and H o p k i n s

white-collar

workers

(1979)

we r e mo r e l i k e l y

when t h e y w e r e d i s s a t i s f i e d
organization
fringe

of t h e i r

benefits

researchers

jobs.

we r e a l s o

with

found d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n

to

air

to
One o f

public

found t h a t
unionization

scope

a nd

salaries

and

however,

with

the

return

(1979)

the content,

important,

with

have

denied to

of

that

blue-collar

(to w it,

to favor

The i s s u e s

each

t h e y do n o t

classroom).

and Koc ha n

large

in t h o s e

workers

t h e m a j o r we a p o n s o f
u n d e r some

than

strike

to

is less

of t h e i r

to th e

right

Bo a r d r u l e d

however,

unionized

the

proximity to

the organizing

and p r i v i l e g e s

White-collar

as M i c h i g a n ,

t wo g r o u p s ,

in c l o s e

Once o r g a n i z e d ,

and

Similarly,

teachers

settings

unionism in

t h e Wagner

such

in t h e s e

passage

legitimacy

1935,

in s t a t e s

empl oyment

rights

in

granted

organize,

in t h e s e

few p r o f e s s i o n a l s .
always

tend

encouraged

workers.

Secondly,

National

have a r i g h t

that

prim arily for

was t h e

granted

as,

was p a s s e d

numbers of e mp l o y e e s
other.

just

industrial

New York and P e n n s y l v a n i a
bargain

importantly,

1 0 9 8 8 i n 1962 t h a t

service.

to public

g r o u p s were o b t a i n e d

the

working s i t u a t i o n s ,

l ow o c c u p a t i o n a l
organization
attitudes

status

towards

autonomy.

Historically,

proponents

of worker

organization

itself

a professional

m o n i t o r i n g o f wor k
wor k p r o c e s s

aspects

unlikely that

organize

remain v i r t u a l l y
the

current

C.

University

some c o n t r o l
unions

(e.g.,

the

of

and

over the

have l a r g e l y
Unless

p l a y up t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l ,
workers'

trade,

and

finance,

jobs)

unions will
workers

it

is

be a b l e t o

in

insurance

a nd u n l i k e l y t o o r g a n i z e

that
under

situation.

and C o l l e g e

The a b o v e d i s c u s s i o n

Faculties
has

traditional

unions have

industries,

their

lend

itself

to w h ite - c o lla r

will

argue t h a t

special

One a s p e c t

of w h i t e - c o l l a r

untouched

of

strong

adversary position.

the tra d itio n a l

science,

of l o s s

peer-review

earlier,

of w h i t e - c o l l a r

large blocks

engineering,

1976).

internal,

As s t a t e d

tactics

fears

nor have t h e y c h a l l e n g e d

as h a v i n g

protective,

change t h e i r

employee,

highly

as well

the

workers

have not been

(Bell,

concerns

itself.

a grieving,

unions
not

autonomy,

o f wor k

White-collar

frequently cite
unions

with

promoting f a v o ra b le

unionization.

unionization

taken

involvement

c o n t r i b u t e d mo r e t o

opposed to

being

a nd l e s s

college

attempted

succeeded

history

a nd L a b o r U n i o n s
to

s how t h a t

in o r g a n i z i n g

ma s s

and p h i l o s o p h y d o e s n o t
workers.

In t h i s

while

readily

section,

we

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

s u b - c a t e g o r y of w h i t e - c o l l a r

workers

and h e n c e ,

a

pose

e v e n mo r e p r o b l e m s

for

explore th is

here

topic

The f i r s t
came i n

at four
In t h e i r

first

campuses,

1978,

legislation

that

critical

to

granted

its

success,

1970's

collective

bargaining

four-hundred-thirty
However,

support

for

affiliate

when o n l y t h i r t y
organized

right

to

unionize

1978).

and

Wh i l e o t h e r

from u n i o n i z i n g

legislation

(such

the r is e

unions

1930's.

flourish

the

of o r g a n i z i n g

country.

By 1 9 7 6 ,

ha d b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d

collective

(Garbarino e t .

1970's

agent.

reduced

than

about

al.,

1977).

actually

The r u s h

to

to a t r i c k l e

were added t o t h e
1978).

in

o f f a c u l t y me mb e r s g a v e

bargaining

bargaining

Lipset,

and g r o w t h o f

of t h e

percentage

faculties

( La d d and

rate.

much as e a r l i e r

units

in t h e e a r l y

college

is

institutions

a collective

1971).

1e g i s 1a t i o n

across

an e v e n h i g h e r

and Ha e n ,

agent

enabling

saw a g r e a t

on c a m p u s e s

bargaining

sought

had e s t a b l i s h e d

faculties

1981),

permitted

activities

elected

states

faculty the

and i n d u s t r i a l

The e a r l y

of Teachers

success

III.

colleges

the four-year

( L a d d and L i p s e t ,

Johnstone,

Wa gne r A c t )

blue-collar

verbal

percent

do n o t e x p r e s s l y f o r b i d
1970;

(Gerth

to penetrate

twenty-four

collectively

(Brown,

as t h e

colleges

t h e y had a f i f t y

As o f

bargain

attempt

Federation

briefly

in Chapter

four-year

as t h e c o l l e c t i v e

State

We w i l l

on i t

organize

Amer i can

themselves

California

attempts.

a nd e l a b o r a t e

drive to

1965 when t h e

to establish

states

major

organizing

list

b y 197 7
of t h o s e

10

One o f t h e r e a s o n s
universities

faculties

have been p a r t i c u l a r l y

b e c a u s e of t h e i r

reliance

After

of s e rv in g

long y e a r s

school,

their

national

professional

as t h e

relationships
boundaries.

that

academic

represent

area they p r a c tic e

organizational
cosmopolitan
education

teacher

at

before,

is

a large

autonomy.

white-collar

jobs

that

also
their

exercise
courses

exercise,

control

a local

on e

the degree

a

as t h e

These

(e.g.,

a mo r e

higher

types

of

as s t a t e d

of

aut onomy t h a t

Not o n l y do f a c u l t y e x e r c i s e

o v e r wh a t t h e y t e a c h

research.

Faculty Senates

considerable control

as w e l l

a professional,

almost complete c o n tr o l

through

as well

school).

of bei ng

grant

and t h e i r

and j o i n

profession

Association

There a r e few o t h e r

f a c u l t y me mb e r s e n j o y .
considerable

profession

lead f a c u l t y to develop

than

One o f t h e c r i t e r i a

in g r a d u a t e

( much as t h e p h y s i c i a n who i s

affiliations

is

Th e y r e g a r d

of Family P r a c t i o n e r s ).

orientation

to organize

often c ris s -c ro s s

the over-all

member o f t h e A m e r i c a n M e d i c a l
American A s s o c i a t i o n

and

associations.

an a p p r e n t i c e s h i p

as me mb e r s o f t h e

organizations

difficult

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

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

themselves

at c o lle g e s

over

and wh e n ,

over the c o n t e n t

In a d d i t i o n ,
(to

promotion,

but they

they

be d i s c u s s e d
tenure,

peer

of

also

later),
review

and

evaluation.
There
perception
in t h e i r

is

an i n h e r e n t

of themselves

wor k s i t u a t i o n .

contradiction
being

in f a c u l t y members'

professional

In t h e f i n a l

and a u t o n o m o u s

analysis,

faculty

11

me mb e r s

are employees of the c o l l e g e

t h e y work.

It

autonomous

at th e

Scott:1963).
that

is d i f f i c u l t

unionization

"...professional
rights

have

t o be b o t h

s ame t i m e

Kr e me r
is

(Blau,

a t wh i c h

an e m p l o y e e and

1973,

and B a l d r i d g e

Bl a u and

(1975,

p.

7)

have

argued

t h e c h o i c e o f f a c u l t y when

practices,

little

or u n i v e r s i t y

peer judgments

and f a c u l t y

foothold".

B e i n g a f a c u l t y member i s

a highly

individualistic

g r a n t i n g much d i s c r e t i o n

and a u t h o r i t y t o t h e o c c u p a n t

the

on t h e o t h e r

role.

Labor

unions,

collective

group a c t i o n ;

obligatory

u n i o n m e m b e r s h i p and c l o s e d

a free-ride

for those

action

is

academics'

notions

of

shops

in the

t o be e f f e c t i v e .
individualism

supported

in o r d e r

to bar

(Olson,

1971).

who do n o t w i s h t o j o i n
to join

of

require

t h e y have t r a d i t i o n a l l y

E v e r y o n e m u s t be r e q u i r e d
collective

hand,

job

agreement

if

This c l e a r l y

violates

and a d v a n c e m e n t

in t h e i r

profess i on.
One c a n r e a s o n a b l y
groups

unions

have s u c c e e d ed

t h e wor k d o n e i s
cannot

are req u ire d

course material
research
will

by k e e p i n g

in t h e i r

field

contribute

academics have
unionization

i n t h e t wo w h i t e - c o l l a r

in o r g a n i z i n g

largely routinized.

be made o f c o l l e g e

academicians

that

argue t h a t

s ame a r g u m e n t

and u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y .
to update the content
abreast

as w e l l

of c u r r e n t

These

of t h e i r

literature

as c o n d u c t c u r r e n t

t o t h e knowledge

argued t h a t

This

(AFSCME and NEA),

collective

wo u l d h a v e a d e l e t e r i o u s

in t h e i r

effect

research

field.

bargaining

and

Many

and

on t h e

scope of

12

their

wor k

relations

and wo u l d u l t i m a t e l y r e p l a c e

the c o lle g ia l

t h e y now e n j o y w i t h mo r e b u r e a u c r a t i c

arrangements

(Mar shal 1 , 1979) .
Before summarizing th e purpose of t h i s
first

turn

unions

our

vying to r e p r e s e n t

universities,
at

attention

and b r i e f l y

Michigan S t a t e

Faculty Collective

1.

Federal

Bargaining

institutions

institutions
but comprised

14(c)

from i t s

was n o t c o v e r e d

we r e n o t

subject

states

National

Bo a r d d e c l i n e d

to

needs

of those

^National

and

of u n i o n i z a t i o n

1947 e x c l u d e d

jurisdiction .1
by t h e

Act,

As a r e s u l t

Labor R e l a t i o n s

to

employees
of t h e

Act,

those
legislation,

Congress

do s o .

states

Because

e m p l o y m e n t t o be

to exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n

only f i f t e e n

relief.

of

Labor R e l a t i o n s

1970,

federal

act

In 1 9 5 9 ,

f r o m 1959 t o
the

the

Issues

to the federal

legislation.

of t h e

Labor R e l a t i o n s

cover

colleges

history

a s u b - c a t e g o r y of p u b l i c

g o v e r n e d by s t a t e

permitted

review the

Labor R e l a t i o n s

empl oyment

Section

at

legislation,

Legislation

The N a t i o n a l

public

faculties

we w i l l

University.

D.

educational

to the enabling

study,

passed

Act wh i c h

when t h e

National

During t h e

period

ha d e s t a b l i s h e d

l a ws

who w e r e d e n i e d

slowness

29 U . S . C . A .

on t h e

S151

part

(1947)

of

13

states

in e s t a b l i s h i n g

Relations
of t h e
1970,

Board,

national

in

labor

e m p l o y e d by t h e
ascertain
unit.

the

used

to

the

Labor

uniform

application

jurisdiction,

in

that

me t

its

1970).

industrial

sector
Bo a r d

of a s t a t e - w i d e

Board had n o t
past,

assure

Labor R e l a t i o n s

appropriateness

in t h e

National

and u n i v e r s i t i e s

( McHugh,

in the

the

asserted

colleges

National

Wh i l e t h e

education

policy,

standards

The c r i t e r i a

laws,

an a t t e m p t

over n o n - p r o f i t

jurisdictional

these

we r e
in o r d e r

bargaining

previously dealt

Bo a r d m a i n t a i n e d

to

with

that:

"We a r e m i n d f u l t h a t we a r e e n t e r i n g i n t o a h i t h e r t o
unchartered area.
N e v e r t h e l e s s , we r e g a r d t h e a b o v e
p r i n c i p l e s as r e l i a b l e g u i d e s t o o r g a n i z a t i o n i n t h e
e d u c a t i o n a l c o n t e x t as t h e y h a v e b e e n i n t h e
i n d u s t r i a l , and we w i l l a p p l y t h e m t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s
of t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . "
( C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y , 183, NLRB
No. 4 1 , p . 74)
When f a c u l t i e s
themselves
(1970,

p.

in

approve

a union,

an i n d u s t r i a l

context.

they

immediately place

As Brown h a s n o t e d

306):

" P r e s e n t l y t h e r e i s no s t a t e p u b l i c e m p l o y e e l a b o r
l e g i s l a t i o n whi ch d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t we e n e mp l o y e e s in
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n and t h o s e i n e l e m e n t a r y o r s e c o n d a r y
education.
In f a c t , v e r y few s t a t e s d i s t i n g u i s h
between p u b l i c employees in t h e a r e a of e d u c a t i o n
v e r s u s t h o s e employed in o t h e r s e c t o r s " .
The l a n g u a g e
consternation
members,

of t h e

law has been

and c o n f u s i o n

who c o n s i d e r

for

themselves

responsible

faculty.

avoid placement
academic

in

an i n d u s t r i a l

governance.

relations

The l a n g u a g e o f

the

much

Many f a c u l t y

professionals,

comp ar i son t o p r i m a r y or s e c o n d a r y school

for

shun

teachers,
mode l

and

for

legislation

has

14

l e d many t o wo n d e r w h e t h e r o r n o t
wo u l d be d i m i n i s h e d

by p l a c i n g

relations

Th e y a r e

the
is

context.

industrial

Michigan

Michigan

of
the

public
1970).

higher

of t h e

The f a c u l t i e s

as s t a t e

it

bargaining

consider

threat

whether

of s t r i k e ,

all

(PERA) o f
bargain

Michigan

a r e c o v e r e d by t h i s
bargain.

public

employees,

act

1977).

employees,
even though

This

from t h e c o n s t r a i n t s

1965 g a v e

collectively
institutions

and h e n c e ,

have

Wh i l e t h e f a c u l t y
they

are not

a large

b u d g e t c ome s f r o m s t a t e

a l .,

appropriations

distinction

is

who c h o s e t o
of

state

percentage

important
bargain

employee

laws.

Unlike s t a t e s
is

at

r emoves t h o s e f a c u l t i e s

collectively

such

as New Y o r k ,

considered to

and t h e r e f o r e ,
issues

an i n d u s t r i a l

governance.

to

to c o l l e c t i v e l y

(Garbarino e t.

Michigan

academic

to

its

employees the r i g h t

university

in t h a t

with

Ac t

are considered

regarded

forced

Empl oyee R e l a t i o n s

education

right

me mb e r s

also

in

status

Legislation

The P u b l i c

(Brown,

form of

professional

themselves

r e l a t i o n s model,

an a p p r o p r i a t e

their

retain

of c o l l e c t i v e

each

institution

be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y

a high degree

of

in

independent

independence over

bargaining.

In M i c h i g a n
" . . . t h e r e i s no s t a t e - l e v e l a g e n c y t h a t e x e r c i s e s any
s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r o l o v e r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n as a s t a t e
a c t i v i t y , and t h e r e i s no s t a t e - l e v e l e x e c u t i v e
a g e n c y , s u c h as an o f f i c e o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g o r
o t h e r c e n t r a l i z e d b u r e a u c r a c y , t o d e v e l o p and i m p l e m e n t
a collectiv e bargaining policy eith e r for s tate

15

e m p l o y e e s as a w h o l e o r f o r t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n s e p a r a t e l y or in co mbinat ion" (Ga rbarino e t .
al . , 1 9 7 7 , p . 4 3 ) .
There
of

are t h i r t e e n

Michigan.

Association

Five of t h e s e
of

Eastern

National

Educational

Superior

and S a g i n a w ) .

2.

Michigan

bargaining
State

and Gr a n d

Types of F a c u l t y

represent

Wh i l e a l l
ing

organizing

emerge
these

The A m e r i c a n
The AFT,
American
its

AFT h a s

the

Ferris,

by t h e

La ke

wh i c h h a v e n o t
U n i v e r s i t y of

Michigan T e c h n o l o g i c a l

unions

on c o l l e g e
have been

contracts
in t h e i r

for

vie for

the

opportunity

and u n i v e r s i t y c a m p u s e s .
involved

in f ormal

faculties,

respective

bargain­

important

orientations

to

groups.

organized

Federation

teachers,

schools

are:

Northern,

were o r g a n i z e d

(Central,

University,

national

Federation

recruitment

Amer i can

Unions

groups

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

by t h e

state

Valley.

faculties

three

differences

The f o u r

in t h e

( Wayne S t a t e ,

and f o u r

Association

Currently three
to

were o r g a n i z e d

and O a k l a n d )

endorsed c o l l e c t i v e

University,

institutions

University Professors

Western,

Michigan,

four-year

Teachers

( AFT)

in

is

1916,

of

Labor.

drives

almost

treating

increased

an a f f i l i a t e

Historically,
exclusively

c o l l e g e membership
its

pursuit

as

of c o l l e g e

of t h e

t h e AFT f o c u s e d

on p u b l i c
incidental.

school
The

and u n i v e r s i t y

16

faculty

and now h a s

level.

Their current

Ak e y ,

over

total

discuss)

stresses

member s ,

rather

Representatives
regardless
any o t h e r

the

than

membership

public

is

at th e c o l l e g e

475,000

(Kugler,

to

of camouflage to

in n a t u r e ,
load

favors
faculty

Since

the

1968).

and

teachers,

It

is

this

that

reinforce
senates

bargaining

a false

notion

and c o m m i t t e e s
control

(Kugler,

as t h e m o s t

and t h r o u g h

over

(i.e.,
the

faculty

s ame r i g h t s

as o t h e r

use of s a n c t i o n s

advisory

salaries,
The AFT

appropriate

bargaining,

attempts
increased

public

that

form of
to
salaries

faculties

employees

and s t r i k e s .

as

of

are

1968).

The AFT m a i n t a i n s

wor k l o a d s .

the

and

facu lty to

Ac a d e mi c s e n a t e s ,

and d e c r e a s e d

includes

group,

leaving

of employment,

have t h e

same as

constitute

achieve uniform c o n d i t i o n s

should

are the

a r e v i e w e d b y AFT r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

and w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n

governance

relations.

the board of t r u s t e e s

university,

t h e y deny f a c u l t y r e a l

collective

of f a c u l t y

board of d i r e c t o r s ,

and m a n a g e r s )

maki ng body o f t h e

and c o m m i t t e e s

that

Th e y l i k e n

and u n i v e r s i t i e s

professionalism.

this

( Ya k e s

we w i l l

or c o l l e g i a l

a t which t h e y t e a c h ,

p r o v i d e o n l y an a d v i s o r y r o l e .

a sort

relationship

group m a i n t a i n

employee.

board of d i r e c t o r s

senates

organization

professional

level

deans t o managers

decision

a ny o t h e r

"employee"

of t h i s

of the

of c o l l e g e s

wor k

locals

1980).
The AFT ( mo r e t h a n

the

one h u n d r e d

and

17

The N a t i o n a l

Educational

The NEA, f o u n d e d
organization
largest,
1980).

in 1857,

of t e a c h e r s

with

organizational

life,

association

the

the

levels,

bargaining

in t h e

on c a m p u s e s ,

counterpart,
of

its

decision-making

the

the

administrators.
to

settle

lessen

has

since

increasingly

evolved

into

procedures,

1966),

t h e AFT was h a v i n g

and t o

insure

pattern

its

itself

after

NEA b e c a me mo r e r a d i c a l
rights

to

participate

bargaining,

it

also

f r o m t h e AFT by s t r e s s i n g
relationships

of f a c u l t y

identity

and

its

in

the
and

The NEA h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y o p p o s e d
professional

all

on c o l l e c t i v e

success

faculty

a

disputes.

Wh i l e t h e

and c o l l e c t i v e

collegial

Ho we v e r ,

grievance

NEA b e g a n t o

d e ma n d s f o r

professional,

attempt

to

AFT.

itself

and

at

( Mos kow,

distinguished

a professional

and p o l i c y m a k i n g p r o c e d u r e s

NEA' s p o s i t i o n

faculty

and Ak e y ,

to

was l a r g e l y d u e t o t h e

in r e c r u i t i n g

in terms

right

also

of f a c u l t i e s

and a r b i t r a t i o n

The c h a n g e

its

the

is

its

NEA h a v e

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

in d e c i s i o n

of

elementary

of t h e

supporting

It

( Ya k e s

1957).

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

mediation

position

(Wesley,

professional

States.

1.7 m i l l i o n

policies

b e c o me mo r e m i l i t a n t .

participate

oldest

United

a nd r e p r e s e n t e d

the e a rly

union

the

NEA was l a r g e l y

teachers

full-fledged

(NEA)

one h u n d r e d y e a r s

secondary school
1960's

is

in the

a membership of

For t h e f i r s t

teachers

Association

any

concomitant

18

status.

The NEA h a s

when t h e y do o c c u r ,
mediate the

not endorsed the
the

NEA h a s o f f e r e d

organization

designed

i n 1915 as

to protect

C u r r e n t membership

and s i n c e

education,

services

of U n i v e r s i t y P r o f e s s o r s

The AAUP was f o u n d e d

1980)

its

but
to

grievance.

The A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n

freedom.

use of s t r i k e s ,

virtually

t h e AAUP i s

is

all

(AAUP)

a professional

and d e v e l o p
68,000

me mbe r s

academic

( Ya k e s

and Ak e y ,

a r e empl oyed

the major spokesperson f o r

in h i g h e r
college

and u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y .
Wh i l e t h e AAUP c o n s i s t e n t l y
areas

of job

tended

security,

t o do s o t h r o u g h

governance,

such

In t h e c a s e
exclusivity
right
sional

salaries,

to

existing

as f a c u l t y
of

Michigan,

forms of

the

unit

senates.
the rig h t

( Br own,

AAUP b e c a u s e ,

t h e y wo u l d be d e n i e d

1970).

bargaining

that

exclusive

unit

o f by f a c u l t y
committee.
e x c 1 us i v i t y .

representation

jurisdiction

senates,

Bo t h t h e

over

leaving

the

AFT and t h e

senate

This

access to the
The AAUP

wo u l d g r a n t

issues

of

as a p r o f e s ­

g o v e r n i n g mechanisms of t h e u n i v e r s i t y .

maintains

it

academic

law g r a n t s

a representational

organization,

strengthen

and a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m ,

and a c a d e m i c

h a s b e e n o p p o s e d by t h e

internal

attempted to

the

previously disposed
an i m p o t e n t

NEA e n d o r s e t h e r i g h t

of

19

In t h e

last

organization
as

ten

need t o

with

association

the

professional

work d i f f e r e n c e s

1968,
both

faculty

in c o l l e c t i v e

However ,
less
AFT.

been
the

the

than

that

and n o t f o r

designated

for

to

These t h r e e

the

right

senate,

to represent

type

NEA,

use of

its

by f a c u l t y m e m b e r s .
of r e s p o n s e

strike

is

that

only over

even
of t h e

academic

Wher e t h e AAUP h a s
unit

and s t r e n g t h e n

disputes

counter­

or c e r t a i n l y

issues.

develop

a u n i o n mo r e t h a n

like

representational

and d o e s

not

at

a campus,

internal
attempt

to

approach.

unions

the fa c u lty

academic

and t h e

begun t o compete

use of s t r i k e s

of t h e

handling

employ a t r a d e - u n i o n

on t h e n a t i o n a l

at c o l l e g e s

t wo h a v e b e e n s u c c e s s f u l
University.

the

The AAUP,

economic

as t h e

AAUP e n d e a v o r s

on e c o n o m i c

association

resembling

enthusiasm for th is

The AAUP e n d o r s e s

represent

the

o f t h e AAUP c e r t a i n l y g i v e t h e

association.

their

mechanisms

of th e

NEA f o r t h e

organization

supports

positive

matters

within

bargaining.

activities

a professional
also

aspects

t h e AAUP h a s n e v e r t h e l e s s

a p p e a r a n c e of t h i s

parts,

arisen

Wh i l e t h e d o m i n a n t f a c t i o n

out through

t h e AFT a nd t h e

Recent

has

or begi n t o f o c u s

and w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s .

stresses

since

dissension

as t o w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e AAUP s h o u l d c o n t i n u e

a professional

issues

years,

try

to

and u n i v e r s i t i e s ,

in g a i n i n g

The AFT w h i c h ,

level

ground

as s t a t e d

at

above,

but

Michigan
has

its

only
State

largest

20
constituency

i n p r i m a r y and s e c o n d a r y

b e c o me a v i a b l e
faculty

3.

contender

has

among M i c h i g a n S t a t e

as a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l

Attempts

schools,

to Organize the

not

University

unit.

Faculty

at

Michigan S t a t e

Un i v e r s i t y
The f i r s t
State

attempt

U n i v e r s i t y was

University
liberal

College,

admission

Michigan S t a t e

research

(Perlstadt,

upholding
faculty
could

unit
the

were

not

it

be t r e a t e d

1971 w i t n e s s e d
Michigan

State

and had

the college.

argument

of the e n t i r e
as a s e p a r a t e
an i n c r e a s e d

MERC f o r

by t h e

units

at

ha d h i g h
in

Emp l o y me n t
a collective

that

unit

entity

effort

the

to

cards

an e l e c t i o n .

College

and t h u s ,

(Lozier,

1972).

unionize

This tim e ,
with

petition,

University

faculty

authorization

announcement

with

involvement

MERC d e n i e d

intention

petition

little

t h e Michigan

who a f f i l i a t e d

order to

other

unit

the U niversity College

University faculty.

obtain

Michigan

in th e

granting

Co mp a r e d t o

Faculty Associates,
to

faculty

(MERC) t o e s t a b l i s h

U niversity's
a part

at

1975).

petitioned

for

by t h e

non-degree

l ow s a l a r i e s ,

C o mm i s s i o n

bargaining

a large,

University,

loads,

Relations

instigated

standards.

teaching

In 1 9 7 0 ,

to organize the f a c u lt y

NEA,

the

t h e MSU

announced

from f a c u l t y

in

Following t h i s

MSU F a c u l t y A s s o c i a t i o n ,

the

local

its

21
chapter
to

o f t h e AAUP a l s o v o t e d t o

insure

actually

a position
take

on t h e b a l l o t ,

the

prospective

as

in g arn erin g

authorization
the

cards

Faculty Associates,

the

necessary

of

voter

necessary

o n l y have t h e i r

organization

part-time

faculty

(Perlstadt,

the

1972.

The r e s u l t s

no u n i o n

(Lozier,

eligible

to vote turned

A second

obtaining

administration,

cards,

to the
all

but

Because t h e
they could

regular

unit.

and

department

associate

adjunct

and c o u l d

bargaining

excluded

assistant,

c o n d u c t e d b y MERC,

a nd c o l l e g e

faculty

1972).

attempt

(the

place

O c t o b e r 23

t h e AAUP, 4 3 8 f o r

NEA a f f i l i a t e )

and 1 , 2 1 3 f o r

A p p r o x i m a t e l y 80% o f t h e f a c u l t y
out

for

the

election.

to unionize the

The MSU F a c u l t y A s s o c i a t e s
authorization

took

w e r e 280 f o r

MSU F a c u l t y A s s o c i a t e s

inl978.

the

The MSU

on t h e b a l l o t

was c o m p r i s e d o f

and c l i n i c a l

we r e

1975).

The e l e c t i o n ,
a nd 2 4 ,

with

placed

and l i b r a r i a n s ,

head c o a c h e s

was d e c i d e d .

eligibility.

relative

cards

p ercentage of

authorization

a nd a s s o c i a t e c h a i r p e r s o n s ,
deans,

authorization

when t h e c o n s t i t u e n c y o f

unit

in c o n j u n c t i o n

AAUP l a c k e d t h e

unit

1972,

bargaining

n o t make r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

bargaining

The MSU F a c u l t y A s s o c i a t e s

the c r i t e r i a

The b a r g a i n i n g

cards

an e l e c t i o n

a faculty collective

by M a r c h ,

proposed f a c u l t y

established

should

a g e n t must o b t a i n

f r o m 30% o f t h e f a c u l t y .
successful

author!zation

place.

In o r d e r t o p e t i t i o n
agent,

seek

signatures

f a c u l t y took

were s u c c e s s f u l
f r o m 30% o f t h e

place
in

22
2 , 8 0 0 f a c u l t y me mb e r s
be h e l d .

votes

bargaining
intervening
election

decided

unit,

Faculty Associates
contested

May 24 and 2 5 ,
support

t wo e l e c t i o n

attempt

o f t h e AAUP, 476 f o r

and t h o s e

increased
Regardless
favored

for

the

of
The

MSU

the

from t h e c o u n s e l i n g

intramural

sports

unit

faculty,
1982).

1982 r e s u l t e d
the

of t h e s e

144

1978).

declined

from

favoring

the

f r o m 23% t o

the

MSU

26% d u r i n g t h e

increases,

collective

place

in

the

and

also

included

center,

and t e a c h i n g

unit

at

A change took
in t h i s

tenure track

tenured coaches,
specialists

The e l e c t i o n ,

in t h e f o l l o w i n g

bargaining

1982.

of t h e b a r g a i n i n g

counselors

favoring

the

no r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

to e s ta b lis h

This time

400 v o t e s

the

second tim e .

election.

and 1 8 ,

option

Affairs,

f a v o r i n g no a g e n t

U n i v e r s i t y took

Affairs,

it

2 006 b a l l o t s

favoring

in t h e co m p o si t i o n

of National

Of t h e

15%,

periods.

State

with

on t h e b a l l o t .

percentage

also

u n i o n i s m was r e j e c t e d
A third

1978.

sole

1978 w h i l e t h e

m a j o r i t y of t h e f a c u l t y

place

the

( Th e B u r e a u o f N a t i o n a l

AAUP r o s e f r o m 14% t o

Michigan

in n e g o t i a t i o n

a nd 1 , 0 9 7 f o r no r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , w i t h

59% i n

Faculty Associates

Once a g a i n ,

on t h e c o n s t i t u e n c y o f t h e

The p e r c e n t a g e o f f a c u l t y
63% i n 1972 t o

to

in o b t a i n i n g

wh i c h wo u l d g i v e t h e m a p l a c e

289 w e r e i n

ballots

who,

l e a v i n g t h e AAUP w i t h

was h e l d

an e l e c t i o n

f r o m 10% o f t h e f a c u l t y .

MSU F a c u l t y A s s o c i a t e s

administration,

cast,

MERC f o r

The AAUP was o n l y s u c c e s s f u l

authorization
was t h e

and p e t i t i o n e d

held

ballots

AAUP, 252 i n s u p p o r t

(Bureau

Nove mbe r 17
being

of t h e

cast:

MSU

23

Faculty Associates

and 939 f o r no r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .

received

s i g n i f i c a n t l y mo r e v o t e s

garnered

(25% i n

1 9 8 0 as o p p o s e d t o

w h i l e MSU F a c u l t y A s s o c i a t e s
1980 c o m p a r e d t o

than

26% i n

it

The AAUP

had p r e v i o u s l y

15% i n 1972 and 1 9 7 8 )

clearly

lost

1978 and 63% i n

ground

1972;

(16% i n

see Table 2).

TABLE 2
ELECTION RESULTS

YEAR
1972

UNION

1982

1978

AAUP

280

(14.5%)

289

(15. 5%)

400 ( 2 5 . 1 %)

MSUFA

438

(22. 7%)

476

( 25. 6%)

252 ( 1 5 . 8 %)

No Uni on

1213

(62. 8%)

109 6

(58. 9%)

939 ( 5 9 . 1 %)

TOTAL

1931

1861

( 100%)

( 100%)

1591

( 100%)

In t h e

1972 and 1 9 7 8 e l e c t i o n s ,

p r i m a r i l y on t h e
muster

votes.

lag

in u n i v e r s i t y

the

l ow r a n k i n g ,

professors'
salaries

remained
also

time

that

policies,

161,

to the

at

issue

of

faculty

we r e a s k e d t o

vacated

positions

take

early

were f r o z e n .

gr oup of d i s s a t i s f i e d
favored

time

a certification

faculty

at Michigan

unionization

attempts

a voice

in

and

was g r e a t e r

(State

Ne ws ,

we r e a n a t u r a l
taking

argue

response

place

department

on t h e

budgets

some o l d e r

and t e n u r e d

retirements

and t h e i r

Wh i l e t h e s e c h a n g e s

faculty,

led

newly
to

a

the majority
o v e r t h e t wo u n i o n s

as t h e b a r g a i n i n g

State

about

wh i c h w e r e f r e q u e n t l y

no r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

seeking

1982 e l e c t i o n ,

concerns

changes

frozen,

and

Wh i l e

One c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y

newspapers,

salaries

stressed

University.

"powerlessness"

of p o w e r l e s s n e s s ,

to

living

academic t e n u r e

any p r e v i o u s

and d r a m a t i c

of

t o have

Programs were b e i n g d e l e t e d ,

nevertheless

point

and a s s o c i a t e

in t h e

ability

162 and 1 9 3 ) .

in u n i v e r s i t y

we r e b e i n g c u t ,

large

of f u l l

procedures,

The i s s u e

significant

campus.

the cost

Michigan S t a t e

and t h e i r

these feelings

expressed

at

around t h a n

Vol . 7 5 , Nos .

focused

a rallying

f o c u s e d on f a c u l t y ' s

academic f re ed o m.
this

as

with

Bi g T e n ,

a critical

academic g ove r na nc e
determining

salaries

salaries

in t h e

salaries

election

of

unions

The AAUP and MSU F a c u l t y A s s o c i a t e s

the

this

issue

the

agent.

The

U n i v e r s i t y have r e j e c t e d

three

times

in t h e

last

decade.

Thus,

25

the facu lty ,

along with

student

t wo m a j o r g r o u p s o f e m p l o y e e s
who h a v e n o t

E.

collectively

Purpose of th e

of

with

workers.

subjects

the

service

bargaining,

have t r a d i t i o n a l l y

sector

( Wo l ma n ,

college

organize

( mi d 1 9 6 0 ' s ) ,

attempts

been

attributed

recession
1948).

well

as

their

workers

that,

supported

unionize.

to

workers

(1944)

reactions

proposed

position

(1975),
(in

Brown

provide

and f e d e r a l

that

to join

(1970)

to

when
in

1976).

to

bargaining
c a mp u s g r o u p s

of uni ons

in

has o f t e n

high unemployment,
i n wa g e s
join

(Dunlop,

unions

and w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s
problems

associated

(1969)

in
as

with

argued t h a t

a u n i o n when t h e i r

labor market

declined.

and J o h n s t o n e

th e ca s e of c o l l e g e

us

law

right

local

workers

and P e n c a v e l

in th e

the

stagnation

economic

we r e mo r e l i k e l y

on

and M i t c h e l l ,

The g r o w t h

and/or

Ashenfelter

do n o t

collective

i m p r o v e human r e l a t i o n s

bargaining
Lipset

actively

improve t h e i r

jobs.

Ba s s

of s t a t e

national

and r e d u c t i o n

Wyt e

order to

to

focused

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

and u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y

have

their

workers

1916;

Since the e s ta b lis h m e n t
granting

the

of t h e problems e n c o u n t e r e d

are w h ite - c o lla r

organizations

only

University

and i n d e e d ,

These p r o p o s i t i o n s

viable explanations

the

State

the

Study

unionization,

blue-collar

at Michigan

remain

organized.

The orie s of c o l l e c t i v e
history

employees,

(1981)

Ladd and
have

and u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y )

argued

26

professionals
researchers

join

unions

have s t a t e d

prerogatives

unions

for

postulated
consensus

that

are un c le a r

community c o l l e g e s )

white-collar
1970's

a nd c o l l e g e s

enrollments,

a slowing

Lipset,

unionization

changes

be i t

for

unprecendented

growth

Today,

with d e c l i n i n g
their
and

Wh i l e

unionization,

the

s l o w e d down.

( La d d

ascertain

in t h e job m a r k e t ,

whether or

trend
and

budgets

n o t macr o l e v e l

a nd p o l i t i c a l

h a v e had a n y i m p a c t

on c o l l e c t i v e

at

in the micro s p h e r e .

their

reflection

on l o n g i t u d i n a l

data,

opportunity to

analyze

attitudes

about th e

impact

remained the
impact

little

workers.

and t e n u r e .

has

to

1975).

In o r d e r t o

and t h e

is

academic j ob m a r k e t s ,

security

and

have been

o f t h e e c o n o my and h e n c e ,

a p p e a r t o be r i p e f o r

expanded

there

campuses.

are faced

and

new s c h o o l s

phenomena,

of

These

tendency to turn

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

depressed

in f a c u l t y jo b

conditions

unions,

on t h i s

on many c o l l e g e

budgets,

(e.g.,

a greater

was a p e r i o d

universities

operating

freedom

Wh i l e many e x p l a n a t i o n s

among r e s e a r c h e r s

a nd p r o s p e r i t y

toward

is

freedoms.

where academic

on why w o r k e r s j o i n

The e a r l y

their

or undefined

there

protection.

blue-collar,

changes

to p rote ct

it

same,

will

provide

attitudinal

effectiveness

has

one can

look

This

study,

based

us w i t h t h e

unique

changes.

there

bargaining

Have f a c u l t y

of c o l l e c t i v e

on u n i v e r s i t y

or has

of c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining,

climate

been

and c o l l e g e

bargaining
education

a reassessment

in h i g h e r

education?

of the
Does

27

the current

crisis

in

academia r e g a r d i n g budget

and j o b
unionization

security

lead f a c u l t y

t o be mo r e p r e d i s p o s e d

attempts

or

Wi t h t h e s e

will

less

so?

study five colleg es

Michigan
greater

State
the

particularly

as

rewards,

less

the

collective

and t h e i r

University.

perceived
it

relates

bargaining

unit.

us,

we

departments

hypothesis

is

that

at
the

of f a c u l t y members,

to job
will

to guide

respective

Our m a j o r

influence

faculty

questions

to

security

favor

and e c o n o m i c

the establishment

of

a

II.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
I n t r o d u c t i on

In t h i s

chapter,

characteristics
attempt
effect
the

voting

behavior.

Then we w i l l

discuss

This

research

of

review the

by a d i s c u s s i o n

and c o l l e g e

hypotheses,

campuses.

derived

will

and

affect

literature

on t h e

unionization.
concepts,

such

as

and c o m m u n i c a t i o n .
of r e c e n t

After

from t h e

will

bargaining,

bargaining

groups,

We w i l l

influence

and f a c u l t y

reference

faculty

influence.

some k e y s o c i o l o g i c a l

be f o l l o w e d

university

we w i l l

university

and i n f l u e n c e ,
will

of

perceptions

of c o l l e c t i v e

First

of th e

the e ffe c ts

impact of c o l l e c t i v e

impact

organization

p o we r

that

perceived

perceived

explore

h a v e on p e r c e p t i o n s

to e s ta b li s h
the

we w i l l

each

changes

on

section,

literature,

will

be

proposed.

A.

The U n i v e r s i t y O r g a n i z a t i o n
The u n i v e r s i t y

single

units

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

me mb e r s c a n b e s t
mode l

control

decision

guiding

the

has p o i n t e d

and t h a t

of t h e

with

making,
actor

out

its
with

(Kadish,

(1981),

bureaucrat

on e o f t h e

working t o g e t h e r .

be c h a r a c t e r i z e d

of p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m

independent

Scott

c a mp u s r e p r e s e n t s

the

overlap
28

largest
Faculty

using the t r a d i t i o n a l
assumption
n o r ms o f
1968;
role

of

a u t o n o m y and

service

Scott,

and p e e r

1966).

As

of th e p r o f e s s i o n a l

on i s s u e s

concerning

the

29

criteria

o f wor k p e r f o r m a n c e ,

a nd t h e e x t e n s i v e
The s e l e c t i o n
for

both

merit.

training

of p e o p l e

and t h e

The b u r e a u c r a t ,

organizational

principle"

Friedson

of

work,

obtains

control

and t r a i n i n g

determinants

The u s e o f p e e r

professional

from b u r e a u c r a t i c

the case.
been

that

E c o n o mi c

less

important

for

for

curriculum,

scholastic
best

frequently

is

who t h e n e l e c t

of

than

exercise

standards
forum f o r

a smaller

best

all

than

distinguishes

this

a nd d e g r e e
professional

group to

certainly

i n c a mp u s

over

requirements.
self-government

faculty

senates

Brown

have h i s t o r i c a l l y

some c o n t r o l

faculty

is

participation

been t h e

academic

c o mp o s e d o f

rather

perhaps

of t e a c h i n g

r e v i e w on c a mp u s h a s

A l t h o u g h many f o r m s

the

forms of employment.

faculty
to

type

the

and c o n t r o l s

professoriate,

aspects

and a b i l i t y

and p e e r

the

the

to perform a p a r t i c u l a r

and c o n t r o l ,

government

Perhaps the

according to

r e v i e w and c o n t r o l ,

review

argues

labor,

o f t h e wor k p e r f o r m e d .

hierarchical

(1970)

the

of

principle":

apprentices,

and e v a l u a t i o n

an

in t h a t

over the e n tr a n c e to

of

b a s e d on

and t h e m e t h o d o f

operates,

the r ig h t

is

division

t o be p e r f o r m e d ,

norms.

advancement

under

1973)

the

on an " o c c u p a t i o n a l

exercises

profession

(Friedson,

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

professional

operates

h ierarchy determines

(1973),

and c a r e e r

professional

however,

s c o p e o f wor k and t a s k s
performance.

b a s e d upon a c h i e v e m e n t

into the job

the bureaucrat

"administrative

c o m m i t m e n t t o t h e wor k p r o c e s s

exist,

senate.
it

most

above a c e r t a i n

actually transact

rank

the

30

business
senate

( Br own,

is

1970;

an e l e c t e d

Johnstone,

body of f a c u l t y .

a nd t e n u r e
to

the

review,

the

who,

as a g r o u p ,

In a d d i t i o n

from a
the

to handling grievances

also

years.

to the

senate

s y s t em has been growi ng

Johnstone

(1981)

needed

to cover the myriads

(e.g.,

affirmative

matching funds,

acts

notes

as

an a d v i s o r y g r o u p

loans)

action,

filing

resulted

for

state

of g r a n t s

This has

centralization

of d e c is io n

maki ng

are

wor k

regulations
and f e d e r a l

and h a n d l i n g

in a d r a m a t ic

hierarchy.

in

universities

of governmental

administration
has

that

The a mount o f p a p e r

administrative

to

represent

senate

b e c o m i n g e v e r mo r e b u r e a u c r a t i c .

student

the

administration.

Opposition
recent

Ideally,

b o d y c o mp o s e d o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

broad range of d i s c i p l i n e s
larger

1981).

growth of t h e

led to

an i n c r e a s e d

and p r o m o t e d many f a c u l t y

conclude th a t:
" . . . t h e c o l l e g i a l p r o c e s s has been b e t r a y e d , t h a t
a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m s and p r o f e s s i o n a l i n t e g r i t y a r e
t h r e a t e n e d s e v e r e l y , and t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s
academi c communi t y of s c h o l a r s i s f a d i n g as t h e
u n i v e r s i t y b e c o me s j u s t a n o t h e r b i g b u s i n e s s "
( J o h n s t o n e , 1981, p. 9 ).
Brown ( 1 9 7 0 )

strong

and a c t i v e ,

collective
Lipset

has

there

bargaining.

(1975,

p.

noted t h a t

256)

has been
This

who s t a t e d

opposed t o complete change)
greater

at

upper-tier

idea

of

where f a c u l t y
little

senates

of

an

are

move me nt t o w a r d s

is

supported

that

support

by Ladd and
for

reform

academic go ve r na nc e system

schools

" . . . w h e r e o b j e c t i v e l y t h e s i t u a t i o n i s b e t t e r in t h e
s e n s e t h a t d e c i s i o n s a r e mo r e c o l l e g i a l and l e s s
h i e r a r c h i c a l than at c o l l e g e s of t h e lower r a n g e " .

(as
is

31

B.

Powe r and

Influence

The e x i s t i n g
reflect

the

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

t h e p o we r s t r u c t u r e

organizat ion.
stages

rules

of t h e

In u n i v e r s i t i e s ,

of f a c u l t y

use of p ee r

wo u l d be e r r o n e o u s
(administrators

to

especially

of

issues?

complete control
in
the

two:

i.e.,

on d e p a r t m e n t a l

Clearly there

the

the facu lty

n o t be a b l e t o o f f e r

a s many c o u r s e s

may h a v e t o

increase

enrollment

of

offered.

sections

a considerable
different

hierarchical
technical

is

almost

are

autonomous

an o v e r l a p
withholds

in t h a t

between

or c u t s

back

d e p a r t m e n t may

a s t h e y wo u l d l i k e ,

and c u t

b a c k on t h e

Bot h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

but

or

nu mb e r

and f a c u l t y

a mo u n t o f p o we r and i n f l u e n c e ,

(1960)

(i.e.,

out th e
level

affairs

institutional
structures

identified

structure

core

managerial
internal

another.

wield

in

spheres.

Parsons

carrying

than

exercises

administration

funding,

It

one gr oup

over budgets while f a c u l t y

if

in

who h a s p o we r o v e r w h a t

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

academic m a t t e r s .

the

recognized

review.

i s mo r e p o w e r f u l

The q u e s t i o n m u s t be a d d r e s s e d :
types

are c l e a r l y

that

the

large ones,

administrative

generalize

or f a c u l t y )

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

groups within

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

as o p p o s e d t o

of

three

in t h e

o f c o mp l e x o r g a n i z a t i o n s :
t h o s e who a r e

actual

processes

(those

involved

and d e c i s i o n

level

levels

(those

directly

involved

in

of the o r g a n i z a t i o n ) ,
in th e

involved

the

organizat ion's

maki ng p r o c e s s e s ) ,

between t h e t e c h n i c a l

the

and t h e

in t h e m e d i a t i n g

and m a n a g e r i a l

level

and

32

the

larger

communi t y i n t e r e s t s ) .

the organization
critical

of

Salancik,

1978).

the

the environment

to organizational

lessening

at

with

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

environmental

survival

university,

those

b e c o me e v e r mo r e

when t h e r e

munificence

P e r h a p s mo r e t h a n
working

at

any o t h e r
the

uncertainty

(Crozier,

individuals

t r y to

support

the

foundations,
government,
outside
design

accrediting

and s i m u l t a n e o u s l y f e n d

groups
its

so t h a t

well-to-do

the

university

has

n u mb e r o f
led to

group

1963).

level
These

and t h e

pressures

has

enough

costs.

the growth of b u r e a u c ra c y

increased
subject

universities
institutes,

students

an i n c r e a s e d

aide to cover t u i t i o n

university

finance

in t h e

families

accelerated
than

the

single

u n iv e r s ity through

industry
off

and

from t h e s e
aut onomy t o

own f u t u r e .

The i n c r e a s e

financial

agencies,

a

institutional

in r e d u c i n g

for

is

(Pfeffer

are engaged

gain

linking

federal

mo r e and mo r e g r a n t

office,

at

t h e u n i v e r s i t y mo r e

regulations.

move f r o m e d u c a t i o n a l

requiring

aid,

maki ng t h e

Also,

institutions

mone y f l o w s

increased

d e p e n d e n c e on

Nothing has

d e p e n d e n c e on f i n a n c i a l
to

from l e s s

as

to

research

through

and mo r e p r e c i s e

the

33

accountability

of f u n d s . ^

centralization

o f d e c i s i o n maki ng

on f i n a n c i a l
at

matters

the managerial

technical

core

between t h e

link

is

research)

all

with

are not

decisions

increased

institutional

decrease

in

level

influence

and t h e

to

framework of t h e

out,

control

fulfilling

university.

their

critical

(and t h i s
and f i n a n c i a l

group.

size

authority.

(i.e.,

As B1au

and c o m p l e x i t y
The d a y - t o - d a y

teaching

and

by an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

of t e c h n i c a l l y

qualified

mechanisms

provide

their

within

role

In a d d i t i o n ,

a r e made b y d e p a r t m e n t a l
rarely

large

supervised

recruitment

for

enrollment

a r e made by t h i s

decentralize

directly

b e c o me t h e

environment

during

pointed

and i n t e r n a l

administrators

in

and d e a n s )

has

and i t s

o f f a c u l t y me mb e r ,

guidelines

decisions

level

important

(1971)

Selective

personnel

at the

(chairpersons

university

pressures

activities

staff.

level

especially

and S c h o e n h e r r
creates

resuited

a nd a c o n c o m i t a n t

institutional

link

not

has

(faculty).

Wh i l e t h e

declines)

This

most

faculties

have t h e e x p e r t i s e

to

faculty
the broad

personnel

because

senior

do s o .

"Nevertheless, senior a d m in istrato rs control the
d i r e c t i o n i n w h i c h u n i v e r s i t i e s a r e mo v i n g and t h e
t h a t i s bei ng done in t h e long r u n , b e c a u s e t h e y

wor k

The t a k e - o v e r o f t h e Al umni A s s o c i a t i o n a t MSU i s a c l e a r
example of t h i s t y p e of i n c r e a s e in b u r e a u c r a c y .
The r e a s o n
f o r t h e t a k e - o v e r was t o make t h e Al umni A s s o c i a t i o n a m a j o r
v e h i c l e in o b t a i n i n g p r i v a t e f u n d i n g .
T h e r e was a l s o a n e e d
t o make t h e A s s o c i a t i o n f i n a n c i a l l y mo r e a c c o u n t a b l e t o t h e
University.
As a r e s u l t , t h e U n i v e r s i t y ha d t o h i r e mo r e
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f t o t r y and c a p t u r e t h i s m a r k e t and
i n c r e a s e t h e a c c o u n t a b i l i t y of th e a s s o c i a t i o n .

34

a l l o c a t e t h e f u n d s t h a t d e t e r m i n e wh i c h f i e l d s c a n
e x p a n d and w h i c h o n e s m u s t c o n t r a c t " ( B l a u and
S c h o e n h e r r , 1971, p. 351) .
Unlike workers
direct

input

into

organization,

namely t e a c h i n g

departments

university's
the

exercises

of funds )

u n i v e r s i t y were once h e l d

are

in c re a sin g ly occupied

wh o s e v a l u e s
academic

disciplines,

administration.

This

because

it

the

no l o n g e r

decisions

longer
do!)

less

exercise

that

professional

should

where f a c u l t y

senates

and s p h e r e s

administrators
have not

of

declined.

administrators
institution

principles

This

is:

"disowned"

who a r e m a k i n g

has

l e d some f a c u l t y

Wh i l e t h e y may no

(or

over

diminished?

influence

at

least

think

they

Nevertheless,

time,

have t h e

and t h e d i v i s i o n
faculty

prerogatives
it

the

We wo u l d a r g u e t h a t

between

faculty

or

of

of being

power.

are w ell-defined

are c l e a r ,

positions

who a r e now a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

be a s k e d

prerogatives

in

much a n i m o s i t y b e t w e e n

influence

over former c o ll e a g u e s

question

labor

1981).

control

positions

these

from th e

and f e e l i n g s

t h e y have

be a b l e t o

Today,

come n o t

1964).

e x c l u s i v e l y by f o r m e r

former c o l le a g u e s

(Johnstone,

conclude th a t

1981).

has c r e a t e d

a nd a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
is

almost

have

and o v e r t h e

Administrative

but from b a s i c

faculty

(Etzioni,
indirect

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

a nd l o y a l t i e s

faculty

of t h e

and r e s e a r c h

goals.

(Johnstone,

goals

considerable

(allocation

long-term

f a c u l t y me mb e r s

to

organizations,

some o f t h e m a j o r

The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
over

in o th e r

is

of

and
and p o we r

over the

issue

of

35

indirect
that

control

and f u t u r e

administrators

and f a c u l t y mo s t

Wh i l e t h e f a c u l t y
on c a m p u s ,

studies

and i n f l u e n c e

bargaining

senate

indicate

as v a r i a b l e s

among t h e m ( B r o w n ,

directions

that

1970).

governance

on a c a d e m i c

senates.

Ho we v e r ,

do n o t wa n t t h e

completely abolished
the

collective

traditional
salaries
system

is

Bigoness
values

is

(Ponak

governance,

viewed

v i e w e d by some as

bargaining.

The f a c u l t y

universities

are

bargaining
Lipset,

as

bargaining

at

and t h a t
less

dissatisfaction
lack

is

p o we r t h e s e

institutions
colleagues

This

lower r a n k s ,

1979).

areas

that

i n c o m p a t i b l e with

their

presumably,

to

with.

collective
colleges

and

look t o w a r d s c o l l e c t i v e
interests
to the

exercise

schools.

promotion,

said

of b u d g e t s ,

the tr a d i t i o n a l

( L a d d and

superior

in t h e i r

t h e y e a r n mo r e money t h a n

are

t h e mo r e

adherence to professional

individuals

for

t h a t mo s t

Rather,

in d e a l i n g

i n mo r e p r e s t i g i o u s

due,

to

system

supplement

in t h e

administration,

of o p p o r t u n i t i e s

in t h e

that

prestigious

with

to

----- a r e a s

l i k e l y to

a collective

indicates

and T h o mp s o n ,

a me a n s o f s e c u r i n g

1975).

of

with heavy r e l i a n c e

research

ineffective

states

less

systems

especially

as b e i n g

faculty

v i e w p o we r

as an a l t e r n a t i v e

system is

benefits

(1978)

do n o t

academic g o ve r na n c e

bargaining

and f r i n g e

faculties

all

are eq u a lly d i s t r i b u t e d

s y s t e m may be v i e w e d
academic

faculty

represents

The e s t a b l i s h m e n t

traditional

university

often clash.

ideally

that

of t h e

their

On t h e o t h e r

hand

insufficient

p a y and

particularly

for

lead to m i l i t a n t

those

attitudes

36

towards

employers

(Feuille

and B l a n d i n ,

1975,

Th o mp s o n ,

1967).
Pfeffer
various

and S a l a n c i k

subunits

at

asked department
overall

quality

the

(1974)

U n i v e r s i t y of

directors
and

its

to rate

The r e s e a r c h e r s

powerful

subunit

committees
obtaining
for

wor k

that

and q u a l i t y ) ,
resources.

load,

the

was r e l a t e d
Lyons

to the

rank,

departmental
(1973),

State

University

Madison,

got

surprisingly

does

a nd

have power,

administrators
while f a c u lty

researchers

in

found

p o we r by r a n k .

t h e mor e

advantage

size,

t h e y found

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

at

U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin

similar

results

legislature
a great

on t h e i r

R e g a r d i n g who
and u n i v e r s i t y
deal

as o n l y h a v i n g

differences

o f p o we r

" s o me "

power.

faculty.

Indeed,

junior

including

trustees,

and a p p o i n t m e n t s

facu lty perceived

t o h a v e mo r e i n f l u e n c e

the c h a r a c te r is tic s

the

researchers

the

in p e r c e p t ions

S e n i o r f a c u l t y c l a i m e d mo r e i n f l u e n c e
policies

at

questions

a s u r v e y by Kenen and Kenen ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,
significant

in

controlled

a s u r v e y of f a c u l t y

and t h e

themselves

on

power.

in

regents,

p o we r o v e r e d u c a t i o n a l

Of a l l

on k e y

unit's

received

w e r e s e e n as h a v i n g

Similarly,

the

and

on

representation

"who d o e s " h a v e p o w e r .

the

rated

department

and f a c u l t y

of the budget

and Lyons

"who s h o u l d "

its

the greater

Florida

of

of

Urbana,

Even when t h e r e s e a r c h e r s

national

proportion

their

concluded t h a t

(in terms

p o we r o f

Illinois,

me mb e r s p a r t i c i p a t i o n

committees.
the

examined t h e

all
than

than

of

and
junior

others,
they did.

investigated

37

(rank,

sex,

race

a nd c h a i r p e r s o n s h i p ) ,

effect

on t h e p e r c e p t i o n s

of

influence

The r e have been numerous s t u d i e s
various

aspects

of job

satisfaction

unionize.

Bigoness

found t h a t

f a c u l t y members'

with

attitudes

less

found t h a t

predisposed

to unionization

institution,

members'

authority

aspects

as

larger

the

tions.
time

likely
in

colleagues.

of r a n k ,

the

senior

reduced

to

appointment
of

an

of t h e f a c u l t y

the

ones.

Blau,

themselves

i n f l u e n c e of
individuals

An

is

a nd f o r m a l

than younger f a c u l t y ,

w i e l d mo r e p o we r
The i s s u e

academically,

of

and i n f l u e n c e

influence

has

an

on c e r t a i n

among mo r e

smaller

position

size

influence

it

of

faculty

(i.e.,

large

divided

at

size

as a g r o u p ,

a mo u n t o f

the

less

d e p e n d e n t on
qualifica­

o l d e r f a c u l t y h a v e had a l o n g e r

t o have t e n u r e

general,

the

according

academic

Gi v e n t h a t

to e s ta b lis h

larger

Wh i l e t h e

than

influence,

individual's

union r e p r e ­

than younger f a c u l t y .

maki ng p r o c e s s

Po we r i s

institutions

individual's

the

Blau f ound t h a t

members.

for

associated

Tenured

Regardless

attempts

influence,

increased the

a collective,

individual
at

and

and t e n u r e ) .

institution

bargaining.

the greater

of the d e c i s i o n

procedures

was s t r o n g l y

o l d e r f a c u l t y me mb e r s w e r e

found t h a t

academic

conducted concerning

and K e a v e n y ( 1 9 8 1 )

faculty.

researchers

(1973)

and p o w e r .

n e e d and d e s i r e

than non-tenured

Bl a u

status

had t h e g r e a t e s t

and p r o p e n s i t y t o

and A l l e n

toward c o l l e c t i v e

f a c u lt y expressed
sentation

(1978)

rank

period of

a nd a r e mo r e
senior facu lty ,
than

their

junior

b e e n f o u n d t o be

38

critical

to c o lle c tiv e

Individuals
the

that

feel

e s ta b li s h m e n t of

wo u l d g i v e t h e m mo r e
Ba s e d on t h e
the

university

bargaining
powerless

( Hammer and Be r ma n ,

a r e mo r e l i k e l y

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

in d e c i s i o n

above d i s c u s s i o n

structure,

such

to favor

as a u n i o n ,

that

making.

o f p o we r

we p u t f o r t h

1981).

and i n f l u e n c e

in

the following

propos i t i o n :
Proposition

#1;

I n d i v i d u a l s who t h e m s e l v e s o r whos e
p e e r s (in academic ra nk ) p a r t i c i p a t e
in o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n maki ng
p e r c e i v e t h e m s e l v e s t o be
i n f 1u e n t i a l .

In o r d e r t o e x a mi n e t h i s
following hypotheses:

C.

the

The h i g h e r t h e a c a d e m i c r a n k , t h e
higher the personal influence.

Hypothesis

#2:

Non-tenured f a c u l t y w i l l p e r c e i v e group
i n f l u e n c e t o be h i g h e r t h a n p e r s o n a l
i n f 1u e n c e .

Hypothesis # 3 :

The l o w e r t h e p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e , t h e
h i g h e r t h e p e r c e i v e d impact of a
c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g u n i t on i s s u e s o f
s a l a r i e s , d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a nd j o b
security.

Reference

informal

Gr o u p s

actor's
groups

stratification

the

group"

importance

attitudes
were p o i n t s

status,

and C o m m u n i c a t i o n

on r e f e r e n c e

"reference

explain

their

test

#1:

The t e r m
to

we w i l l

Hypothesis

The r e s e a r c h
the

proposition,

groups

within

helps

the

was f i r s t

us t o

understand

university

structure.

coined

by Hyman ( 1 9 4 2 )

of group membership

and c o n d u c t .
of comparison

and e s t i m a t e s

in

shaping

an

In Hy ma n ' s w o r k ,

reference

u s e d by a c t o r s

to evaluate

were f ound t o v a r y a c c o r d i n g

to

39

the

group t h e

actors

compared t h e m s e l v e s

" . . . r e f e r e n c e g r o u p t h e o r y a i ms
d e t e r m i n a n t s and c o n s e q u e n c e s o f
e v a l u a t i o n and s e l f - a p p r a i s a l i n
t a k e s t h e v a l u e s or s t a n d a r d s of
g r o u p s as a c o m p a r a t i v e f r a m e o f
K i t t , 1950, pp. 5 0 - 5 1 ) .
A reference
to

the

actor

group,

in t h e

The a d o p t i o n

of

then,

a particular

of t h e

actor's

proves

a frame of r e f e r e n c e ,

understanding
In t h e
faculty
groups

is

repertoire

that

provide guides

as w e l l

as s o c i a l

standards

(Blau

representing

learn

guides

conferences,
salary

if

1963).

of

provided

for

scholarly

you w i l l ,

had l i t t l e

loyalty

them.

These p r o f e s s i o n a l s
orientation

to

group f o r

for

Professional
in h i g h e r

guides.
at

reference

these
associations
education

Novices

quickly

annual

sacrifices

(e.g.,

pursuits.

a high

outside

to the organization
a d o p t what
whi ch

is

and l o c a l s

c o m mi t me n t t o

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

groups

and

and e v a l u a t i o n

striving

behavior

part

1955).

wor k on c o s m o p o l i t a n s

f a c u l t y with

skills

t h e world

Professional

i n c l u d e s maki ng

seminal

found t h a t

"cosmopolitan"

these

"professional"

and t h i s

to

judgement

those

field.

a g r o u p b e c o me s

one r e f e r e n c e

of c o n d u c t ,

reference

perceptual

(Shibutani,

profession.

and S c o t t ,

and t i m e )

professional

of

t h e numerous d i s c i p l i n e s

Gouldner's
(1957)

his

a guide

support for

have t r a d i t i o n a l l y

a frame of

or o r i e n t a t i o n

setting,

of t h e i r

of

outlook

new s i t u a t i o n s

university

to systematize the
t h o s e p r o c e s s e s of
wh i c h t h e i n d i v i d u a l
o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s and
r e f e r e n c e " ( M e r t o n and

provides

organization

with.

reference

wh i c h e m p l o y e d

Gouldner has c a l l e d

characterized

by h i g h

a

40

participation
professional
taking
the

in p r o f e s s i o n a l
journals

a new j o b .

"local"

societies,

and r e s e a r c h ,

Th e c o u n t e r p a r t

who i s

the organization,

characterized
a belief

stimulation

et.al,

1977;

Goldberg,

1976;

professional

reference

group i s

reference

professionals
engineers,

dissatisfied
their

but

lawyers,

is

wort h

outside

rewards.

We t h i n k

include

not

discipline,

and f e w e r

that

on s h a r e d

research

job

interests

in g e n e r a l ,

university,

important

but

but

the

( w h i c h we

This

such

as

external

reference
do n o t

f a c u l t y may be
they get
to

to choose

sabbaticals

arbitrary

and e c o n o m i c r e w a r d s .
internal

in o n e ' s

reference

Wi t h t h e s e

disciplines

groups,

in a p a r t i c u l a r
rather

groups

own d e p a r t m e n t

in o t h e r

or
and

the focus

is

academic f i e l d

or

upon t e a c h i n g

or

satisfaction

who s u f f e r mor e

dissatisfaction,

c o l 1e a g u e s

sometimes even s t u d e n t s .
not

(London

faculty

mo s t f a c u l t y o b t a i n

social

schools,

also

the

to others

only colleagues
but

leave

wo u l d be o t h e r

and a r e e n t i t l e d

regulation,

In s m a l l e r

noting)

salaries,

by c o m p a r i n g t h e m s e l v e s

supervision,

is

The

t h e most

group f o r

For e x a m p l e ,

own w o r k i n g h o u r s ,

unemployment,

1977).

perhaps

to

and an

when f a c u l t y e x p e c t a t i o n s

with t h e i r

s u mme r s o f f .

to

from c o l l e a g u e s

a nd p h y s i c i a n s .

important

keep pace with

of t h e c o s m o p o l i t a n

Rotondi,

reference

working

g r o u p b e c o me s

reluctance

by a r e l u c t a n c e

acquired

in

group f o r f a c u l t y .

Another e x t e r n a l
h a v e no d a t a o n ,

and l i t t l e

in employee u n i t y ,

intellectual

external

interest

concerns.

41

Empl oyi ng G o u l d n e r ' s

terminology again

me mb e r s c a n be c h a r a c t e r i z e d

as

(1957),

"locals".

these faculty

These

a r e o r i e n t e d mo r e t o t h e

university

internal

are the p ro fessio n al-co sm o p o litan s.

department

Another
university
provides
faculty

prevailing
this

source

of

itself.

sets
to

than

internal

philosophies

use as b e h a v i o r a l
orientation

reference

reference

The u n i v e r s i t y ,

of r u l e s ,

in gen eral

individuals

Again,

their

is the

also

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

guides.

also

faculty

as e m p l o y e r ,

to the department

group can

for

and t o

for

be ca us e of t he

and u n i v e r s i t y ,

be c h a r a c t e r i z e d

as

"local"

in

nature.
Wh i l e we h a v e
sources

identified

of r e f e r e n c e

groups,

t wo e x t e r n a l

we do n o t mean t o

f a c u l t y m u s t be o f o n e t y p e o r a n o t h e r .
expect

to find

self-appraisals
However,
to

that
are

f a c u l t y members'
based,

we wo u l d e x p e c t

dominate th e o t h e r

imply t h a t

Rather,

attitudes,

i n some p a r t ,

one r e f e r e n c e

three

and t wo i n t e r n a l

on a l l

we wo u l d
values,

and

four types.

gr oup or o r i e n t a t i o n

in t h e f a c u l t y member's

frame of

reference.
Reference groups
collectivities
identifiable

of

are not

individuals

groups.

simply randomly chosen
but

The c o n c e p t

reference

g r o u p s c a n be r e a d i l y

divisions

in s o c i e t y .

structural

division.

faculty differ
groups.

rather,
is

We w i l l

according

with

represents

in t er ms

we w i l l

socially

only if

now i n v e s t i g a t e

to rank

More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,

useful

identified

Ac a d e mi c r a n k

are

these

structural
on e s u c h

whether

of t h e i r

reference

use communication

42

patterns
explore

as an e x p r e s s i o n
differences

of r e f e r e n c e

t h a t may e x i s t

group p r e f e r e n c e

and

by r a n k .

Communication
Hall

(1972)

organizations
definitions

is

they transmit

with

noted t h a t

a dynami c p r o c e s s

are

the c a r rie r s

t o new me mb e r s

interaction

found t h a t

problem s o lving
social

support

of communication
testing
social

ideas,

communication

in groups
to

of

because

individual
is

p.

subculture

this

flow c r e a t e s

part

269) c i t e s

as

which
1978).

participants

ideas.

Bl a u and S c o t t

a significant
furnishes

i m p a c t on

a form of

Wh i l e t h e f r e e

flow

of problem s o l v i n g

and

p r o b l e m s by p r o m o t i n g

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

environment

me mb e r s o f

and S a l a n c i k ,
provides

it

E x t e n s i v e communication with d i v e r s e

(1973,

its

members.

an i n t e g r a l

differentiation

organization's

scene,

their
has

and

the

(Pfeffer

out

in

as new a c t o r s

and c o m m u n i c a t i o n

an o p p o r t u n i t y t o t e s t

(1963)

communication

are c o n s t a n t l y en te r in g

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

Social

has

promotes

dependence.

components

of t h e

differentiation

an e x a m p l e o f t h i s ,

the fact

and Bl a u
that

" . . . t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f new d e p a r t m e n t s , wh i c h
m a n i f e s t s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n p r o c e s s , i s mo r e l i k e l y i f
t h e f a c u l t y i s no t so c o m m i t t e d t o t h e l o c a l
i n s t i t u t i o n t h a t t h e y l o s e touch with c o l l e a g u e s in
t h e i r v a r i o u s d i s c i p l i n e s o u t s i d e and i f t h e y h a v e much
c o n t a c t w i t h b r i g h t g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s , who may be
c o n s i d e r e d a demanding e n v i r o n m e n t " .
Similarly,
to e f f e c t
large

size

size

of

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

the flow of communication.
promotes

the

development

has

In t h e

also

been found

university,

o f new s p e c i a l i t i e s

43

(Blau,

1973).

provides

The p r e s e n c e

fertile

ground f o r

promote communication
interests
into

in

specialities

over-all
in th e

the

ma k e s f a c u l t y

integration.

ideas

as w e l l

as

h a v e common

This d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n

e v e r mo r e i n d e p e n d e n t

to

weakens t h e i r

The mo r e s p e c i a l i z e d

become,

o r some o t h e r

that

and h e n c e ,

t h e mo r e d i f f i c u l t

f a c u l t y to communicate a c r o s s
matters

exchange of

speciality.

and r e s e a r c h

university

n u mb e r o f s c h o l a r s

among i n d i v i d u a l s

an e m e r g i n g

pursue teaching

of a la r g e

the departments
it

is

for

discipline

lines

on s c h o l a r l y

common g r o u n d t h a t

could

integrate

them.
Wh i l e f a c u l t y
another,

they are not

Hierarchical
obstacles

d e p e n d e n c e has

(Blau,

1963;

and R o g e r s ,

do n o t t u r n t o
problems f o r
ignorance.

and i s

Kat z
or

occurs

between

formal

and i n f o r m a l

highest

individuals
status.

1971;

superiors

to discuss

or r e v e a l i n g

Individuals
ideas

and

their

dependence d i s i n c l i n e s

promote communi cat ion
the

and M a r r e t t ,

in th e

1966).

in communication

found t h a t

documented

and Ka h n ,

of being judged

(1963)

independent.

well

Ai k e n

Wh i l e h i e r a r c h i c a l

f a c u l t y to engage
however,

1976;

o f on e

a l s o been found to c r e a t e

Ha g e ,

supervisors

fear

independent

hierarchically

to communication

literature
Rogers

are h o r iz o n ta lly

with

superiors,

among p e e r s .

it

does,

B l a u and S c o t t

f r e q u e n c y of communication

that

are r e l a t i v e

equals

As K a t z and Kahn ( 1 9 6 6 ,

in both
p.

244)

have s t a t e d :
" Th e m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f c o l l e a g u e s i s o n e r e a s o n
f o r t h e p o we r o f t h e p e e r g r o u p .
Experimental f in d i n g s

44

a r e c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g a b o u t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f
s o c i o - e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t f o r p e o p l e in both o r g a n i z e d
and u n o r g a n i z e d g r o u p s .
P s y c h o l o g i c a l f o r c e s always
push p e o p l e t o w a r d c ommuni c a t i on wi t h p e e r s :
people
t h e s ame b o a t s h a r e t h e s ame p r o b l e m s . "
Interpersonal

linkages

play

uncertainty

in o r g a n i z a t i o n s

Individuals

prefer

with

that

others

to

higher
such

often

higher

ranked f a c u l t y

been

t o them.

their

university

at

(e.g.,

to s i t

the

university

longer

provided

a history

with

in o t h e r

their

rank.

into

these

contact

with

other

a major p a r t

of t h e i r

establishing

themselves

therefore

expect:

with

mo r e

lower

in t h e
of c o n t a c t
p l u s mo r e o f

university

one p o i n t may h a v e b e e n c o l l e a g u e s ) .
t o be y o u n g e r

novices

or ap pointed

than

and p r o g r a m s ,

develop c o n ta c ts

Because of t h e

position,

be e l e c t e d

them w i t h

departments

Lower r a n k e d f a c u l t y t e n d
higher

committees,

Higher ranked f a c u l t y have,

has

at

on c o m m i t t e e s

inter-departmental

organization

( wh o ,

likely.

organization

spent

administrators

of

linked

The a mo u n t o f t i m e

an o p p o r t u n i t y t o

business

The s h a r i n g

ranked f a c u l t y .

faculty

1978).

are b e t t e r

a r e mo r e l i k e l y

senate).

than n o t,

and c o n d u c t

ranked f a c u l t y

and f i n a n c e ,

and u n i v e r s i t y

and S a l a n c i k ,

ma k e s c o m m u n i c a t i o n mo r e

h i e r a r c h y of the

as t e n u r e

(Pfeffer

are fa m ilia r

In g e n e r a l ,
the

in r e d u c i n g

interact

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

into

a key r o l e

in

short

a mo u n t

have had

to committees
faculty

of t i me s p e n t

little
that

of

wo u l d b r i n g

them

Indeed,

is concentrated

discipline.

in

opportunity to

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

t i m e a nd e n e r g y
in t h e i r

than those

We wo u l d

on

45

Proposition

The h y p o t h e s i s
proposition,

#2:

L e n g t h o f e m p l o y m e n t a f f e c t s an
i n d i v i d u a l ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the
uni v e r s i t y .

we w i l l

investigate,

b a s e d on t h i s

is:

Hypothesis

#4:

The l o n g e r t h e f a c u l t y m e m b e r ' s l e n g t h
o f empl oyment a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y , t h e
h i g h e r th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with th e
university.
Li kewi s e :
The s h o r t e r t h e l e n g t h o f e m p l o y m e n t
the u n iv e rsity , the higher the
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the d i s c i p l i n e .

Ba s e d on t h e
also

previous

In o r d e r

to t e s t

#3:

the

the following
Hypothesis

we woul d

#5:

The c l o s e r f a c u l t y me mb e r s a r e
a c a d e m i c r a n k , t h e mo r e l i k e l y
are to i n t e r a c t .
validity

AAUP i s

viewed

of t h i s

proposition,

#6:

we w i l l

The h i g h e r t h e a c a d e m i c r a n k , t h e mo r e
th e communication with a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
and t h e l e s s t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h
g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s and u n i o n
representat ives.

as

in

status

of th e v a r i o u s

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

c o m p a r e d t o t h e MSUFA), we wo u l d e x p e c t
Hypothesis

in
they

hypotheses:

Because of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s
(the

of communication,

expect:
Proposition

test

discussion

at

unions

association

when

that:

F a c u l t y who c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h AAUP
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s have a h i g h e r academic
r a n k t h a n t h o s e f a c u l t y who d i s c u s s
i d e a s w i t h MSUFA r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

46

D.

C h a n g e s on U n i v e r s i t y Ca mp u s e s
Colleges

a nd u n i v e r s i t i e s

been

faced

with e r r a t i c

than

a decade of
these

declines

in e n r o l l m e n t

organizations

drive

toward

argued

that

the

turn

unions

unionization

satisfy

employee d e s i r e s

a nd B l a n d i n ,

bargaining

1973;

that

there

increases
faculty
the

account

et.al.

in th e

future.

for

(1972)

purchasing

Indeed,

the

dramatic

contains

a
the

have
p o we r o f

f a c u l t y me mb e r s t o
t h e move t o w a r d
t o be t h e

and m a n a g e m e n t s '

( W a l k e r and L a w l e r ,

( Mor ga n

is

little

in union

believe

1974)

result

ability

1979;

if

that

ability

argue t h a t

any d i f f e r e n c e

to

Feuille

response to

of f a c u l t y .

recent

1974;

Other

report

between s a l a r y

bargaining

reward them,

(Birnbaum,

Mortimer

collective

institutions.

a collective

to

1977;

Brown and S t o n e : 1 9 7 7 )

and n o n - u n i o n

only reasonable

psychologically

and K e a r n e y ,

t h e economic p o s i t i o n

(Marshal 1 : 1979;

university's

Steiner

rewards

Birnbaum,

improves

researchers

across

1976).

Some r e s e a r c h e r s
a nd L o z i e r ,

adduced t o

v i e w e d by some r e s e a r c h e r s
with

with

unionization

protection.

dissatisfaction

A f t e r mo r e

an e x t r e m e l y u n c e r t a i n

are

1970's,

finances.

and c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r c e s

for

is

as t h e i r

deterioriation

salaries

of

face

unionization.

faculty
to

that

patterns.

a r e now f a c e d

on f a c u l t y

of f a c t o r s

since the early

g r o w t h on c a m p u s e s

as well

universities

The l i t e r a t u r e
plethora

enrollment

unprecedented

country,

Currently,

have,

Wh i l e some

arrangement

declines

in t h e

e i t h e r m o n e t a r i l y or

Garbarino e t . a l . ,

1977;

is

47

Mor gan and K e a r n e y ,
conclusion
reject
that

(Lewis

improved under t h e

their

draw t h e o p p o s i t e

1976,

bargaining

individually,

1977).

appear

organizations

significant

(1970)

changes

participants

provides

and B l a n d i n ,

empl oyment

their

position

on t h e

organization,

strong

in

a job elsewhere;
situation

channels,

try

identification

t h e y can simply accep t

and v o i c e )

to

little

When t h e j o b m a r k e t

less
for

a vast

viable

is

voice

handling disagreements

individual

voice option

t o back

up.

it

It

is

is

situation

voice

option

exit

of

leaving

position.
bargaining.

(where m o b i l i t y
the

option

in th e

need f o r c o l l e c t i v e
tight

or,

as t h e

where t h e e x i t

bargaining

s u p p l y of P h . D . ' s )

and t h e

change;

can use t h e t h r e a t

improve t h e i r

t h e y have

and by w o r k i n g

the

f a c u l t y c a n demand a g r e a t e r
individuals

by s e v e r i n g

and l o y a l t y t o t h e

is

Therefore,

We wo u l d a r g u e t h a t

These

When

t h e y can v o i c e

to e f fe c t

quo.

university.

do n o t .

t h e y can e x i t

new s t a t u s
strong,

in

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

options:

current

the established

b e c a u s e of t h e i r

is

1974;

a key t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g

and o t h e r s

take place

and t a k i n g

to declines

us w i t h

unionize

have t h r e e

their

there

do

n o t be s i g n i f i c a n t l y

(Feuille

wor k on r e s p o n s e s

why some u n i v e r s i t i e s

(exit

that

t o do s o on t h e g r o u n d s

rewards will

new s y s t e m

Faculties

1978).

Hirschman's

through

others

and Ryan,

collective

Bigoness,

1977),

option

is

l ow and

b e c o me s

b e c o me s t h e p r i m a r y mode

and d i s s e n s i o n .

However ,

the

weakened w i t h o u t

the ex it

option

with t h i s

group

(those having voice

48

b u t no e x i t )

that

we wo u l d e x p e c t

toward

unionization.

(1967)

argument t h a t

demarcations
individuals
protect

This

between e n t r y
will

turn

Michigan S t a t e

position

consistent

level

changes

recently

as a r e s u l t

the s t a t e ' s

and an o v e r - a l l

departmental

budgets.

Our e a r l i e r

in g e n e r a l )

of f a c u l t y

groups f a v o rin g

favorable to

collective

full

professors.

been

sacrosanct

to

unions,

recent

cut-back

expensive
lack

the

disposed
potential

and t e n u r e d

exit
to

option,

for

to

Proposition

"close
#4:

to

of t h e d i r e
in

(and

indeed,

a polarization
bargaining.

the

by r a n k
The

h a v e b e e n mo r e

than

the

associate

or

system has h i s t o r i c a l l y
have not been f a v o r a b l e

have o c c u r r e d

Senior,

tenured

any s c h o o l .

with

faculty

When t h e s e

In t h e wake o f

t h a t might

been going

surveys

we wo u l d a r g u e t h a t

unionization.

budget c u ts

are expected

faculty

a change to

investments

action

in

professors

bargaining

proposals.

are few),

back

collective

Whi l e t h e t e n u r e

we e x p e c t

level

cut

have r e v e a l e d

and a s s i s t a n t

l ow ( i . e . ,

e c o n o my r e s u l t i n g

deletions

literature

Thompson's

occupation.

programmatic

instructors

is

and h i g h e s t

U n i v e r s i t y has

of

s t r o n g e s t move

with

t o forms of c o l l e c t i v e

some d r a m a t i c

financial

see the

when t h e j o b c e i l i n g

and e n h a n c e t h e i r

through

is

to

affect

these
are

individuals

t h e y wo u l d be mo r e
actual

and

al1 faculty,

faculty

ranks".
C h a n g e s i n j o b s e c u r i t y and
d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of f a c u l t y with
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s and
d e c i s i o n s w i l l l e a d b o t h t e n u r e d and
n o n - t e n u r e d f a c u l t y t o be mo r e l i k e l y
t o seek j o b p r o t e c t i o n from

49

organizations
university.
To t e s t

this

proposition,

Hypothesis

#7:

outside

of the

we p r o p o s e :

The d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e v a r i o u s
f a c u l ty groups' ( i . e . , rank, college
a nd a g e ) a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s c o l l e c t i v e
b a r g a i n i n g w i l l n a r r o w b e t w e e n 1978 and
1981.

III.

DATA COLLECTION
I n t r o d u c t i on

As s t a t e d

earlier,

measure the e f f e c t s
member s ,

bargaining.
central
look

of the

particularly

economic r e w a r d s ,

the purpose of t h i s

as

at f a c u l t y

it

is

upon t h e i r

In a d d i t i o n

variable,

perceived

rank,

to exploring

patterns,

to

attitudes

towards c o l l e c t i v e

This c h a p t e r
methods

used

in t h i s

instruments,
population

A.

to

of f a c u l t y
and

towards c o l l e c t i v e
the e f fe c ts

of t h i s

we w i l l

also

and i n t e r a c t i o n s
to

understanding

faculty

bargaining.

include

study,

is

security

influence,

contribution

will

to job

attitudes

communication

see t h e i r

influence

related

namely p e r c e i v e d

study

a description

development

the data c o lle c tio n

of the r e s e a r c h

of t h e

procedures

survey

and t h e

sample.

Me t h o d s
This

study

Michigan S t a t e
university.

b a s e d on t h r e e

University,

The s u r v e y

questionnaire
conducted

is

primary

instrument

questions

appointment,

in

1970,

50

at

midwestern

was a c l o s e - e n d e d

we w i l l

to the

rank,

surveys

a l s o d r a w up on an

which c o n t a i n s

concerning the
academic

of f a c u l t y

public,

In a d d i t i o n

1 9 7 8 and 1 9 8 1 ,

Omni bus S t u d y c o n d u c t e d
demographic

a large,

( A p p e n d i x A) .

in 1977,

surveys

similar

respondents'
a g e and s e x ,

college
plus

a

of

51

question

regarding c o lle c tiv e

mo r e d e t a i l

survey the f a c u l t y

original
n u mb e r
still

researchers

that

undergraduate
the

study,

Bl a u

(1973)

then

found
size

of

of c l e r i c a l

was t h a t

the

a smaller

organization

the

aide

and
among

in choosing

researchers

units

that

units,

the three

as t h e

lower

we r e

offered

Fr om t h e

both

inception

of

undergraduate

division

This

dissimilar.
those that

reduced the

faculty

of f a c u l t y
of t h e
staff

perceptions

and s t u d e n t

units

within

to facu lty .

Research

also

structural

pool

o f p o we r
salary

the co lleg e,

these

study units

data.
that

we r e

were d i v i d e d

i n t o t wo g r o u p s :

were p r i m a r i l y

professional

colleges

coupled with th e d a t a
further

oriented

colleges.

discussed

reduced

This

and t h o s e

division,

a b o v e on s t r u c t u r a l

t h e pool

and

The U n i v e r s i t y ' s

provided

wanted t o

body,

variables

The c o l l e g e s

were d i s c i p l i n e

variables,

used t h e f o u r

affect

Institutional

The r e s e a r c h e r s

that

selected

used to

were e l i m i n a t e d .

differentiation

ratio

Office

criteria

as well

colleges,

colleges.

a nd i n f l u e n c e :

the

in

Rather

some c o m p a r i s o n s

and g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s .

The r e s e a r c h e r s

level,

larger

in d e g r e e - g r a n t i n g

non-degree colleg es

that

1977)

enough t o p e r m i t

colleges

colleges.

seventeen

the

the t h r e e medical

residential

to ten

all

t o be s t u d i e s

interested

seventeen

(Stonewater,

One o f t h e f i r s t

the colleges
only

in

wo u l d r e p r e s e n t

be d i v e r s e

units.

( t o be d i s c u s s e d

below).

The U n i v e r s i t y c o n t a i n s
than

bargaining

of c o l l e g e s

to fiv e :

52

Arts

and L e t t e r s ,

Communication A r t s ,

E c o l o g y and S o c i a l
their

respective

versus
small

applied
versus

Sciences.

(Blau,

and d e p a r t m e n t s

their

level

1975;

Nixon,

B.

of o p p o s i t i o n
1975;

Development

of th e

survey instrum ent.

first

survey

(1970)

literature,

Wh i l e t h e

in

a decade

the

and,

p r o v i d e us w i t h
historically
( La d d

in

and L i p s e t ,

and A b r a m s o n ,

in t h e development

provided the re search ers

with

information,

be t a i l o r e d

1970).

the

of

in t h e

instrument

t o t a p mo r e c u r r e n t

issues

h a d d e v e l o p e d on c a mp u s o v e r t i m e .

a survey

instrument

a l 1 the

later!

Just

g o n e t h r o u g h many c h a n g e s
did our

1976)

used

had t o

address

of

instrument

nevertheless

(usually)

Wences

involved

amount s o f u s e f u l

Unfortunately,

degrees

have v a r i e d

1977;

considerable

a nd p r o b l e m s t h a t

a mi x o f

Survey Instruments

T h e r e w e r e many s t e p s
the

1975),

to unionization

Rhodes,

and a l l

a mi x o f t h e o r e t i c a l

Baldridge e t . a l .,

that

Human

colleges,

with v a r i o u s

1973;

f r o m wh a t we know f r o m t h e
colleges

offer

( La d d and L i p s e t ,

large colleges

differentiation

These f i v e

departments,

fields

Engineering,

issues

designed

in

researchers

as t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
over the

instrument.

Ea ch s u r v e y

1981 s t u d y w i l l

be d e s c r i b e d

last

ten

instrument
in

detail

1970 d o e s n o t

are

interested

under s t u d y has
years,
leading

below.

so t o o
up t o

53

The 1970 S u r v e y *
The Ur ba n S u r v e y R e s e a r c h
University administered
s u r v e y was s e n t t o
faculty

reported

here.)

opinions

and a t t i t u d e s

range of

issues

(Only t h o s e
colleges

The i n s t r u m e n t

listed

of the r espondents

University.

and f o u r

respondents

who we r e

above w i l l

be

bargaining,

on a v e r y wi d e

at t h a t

The s u r v e y

demographic

500

was d e s i g n e d t o p r o b e

w h i c h we r e i m p o r t a n t

i t e m on c o l l e c t i v e

emphasis,

The

a p p r o x i m a t e l y 500 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

f a c u l t y me mbe r s f r o m t h e f i v e

one

of Michi gan S t a t e

an Omni bus S u r v e y 1n 1 9 7 0 .

and 250 0 s t u d e n t s .

Michigan S t a t e

Unit

time

instrument

at
included

o n e on d e p a r t m e n t a l

items

(i.e.,

college

primary appointment,

academic r a n k ,

original

were p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h e x p l o r i n g

researchers

faculty's

perceptions

attitudes

towards c o l l e c t i v e

interest

the

researchers

study but to

bargaining

and b u i l d

use t h e

and i n f l u e n c e

bargaining.

i n many o f t h e o t h e r

Omni bus S t u d y ,
original

o f p o we r

a g e and s e x ) .

of

issues

The

and t h e i r

Wi t h l i t t l e

addressed

in t h e

dec id ed not to r e p l i c a t e

the

item about c o l l e c t i v e

a ne w, mo r e f o c u s e d

instrument.

The 1970 s t u d y i s d i s c u s s e d h e r e o n l y t o p r o v i d e b a c k g r o u n d
i n f o r m a t i o n on how and why t h e s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t d e s i g n e d
and u s e d i n 1 9 7 7 , 1 9 7 8 and 1981 came a b o u t .
The s t u d y a t
h a n d w i l l f o c u s on t h e s e l a s t t h r e e s t u d i e s and d r a w on t h e
1970 s t u d y o n l y t o p r o v i d e b a c k g r o u n d d a t a .
Dr . P h i l i p M.
Ma r c u s was i n v o l v e d i n t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f d a t a a t a l l s t a g e s
and p r o v i d e d some c o n t i n u i t y i n s t u d y d e s i g n and e x e c u t i o n .

54

The 1977 S u r v e y
In t h i s
faculty

influence.

faculty's

Indeed,

Other

the

real

items

addressed

issues

own and o t h e r ' s

and t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s

policies.
base for

few c h an g e s

probed th e p e r c e p t i o n s

of t h e i r

prestige,

university

provided

questions

perceptions

departmental
various

survey,

subsequent

w e r e made i n t h e

concerning

satisfaction,

agreement

The 1977 s u r v e y

of

with

instrument

investigation.
1978 and 1981

i nstrument.

The 1 9 7 8 S u r v e y
W h i l e no d e l e t i o n s
researchers
Michigan

did

State

on w h e t h e r

at

this

most

2

3

included,

the researchers

participation

c h o i c e was AAUP,
l e g i t i m a c y of

a s was a s e t

patterns

important

The f i r s t

time,

respondents'

or not t h e i r

munication

faculty

when c h o o s i n g

election

vote
unit

an i t e m
and

MSUFA, o r n e i t h e r .

a strike

by f a c u l t y

concerning

was

com­

they considered
3
another position.

took p lace

The a u t h o r o f t h i s r e s e a r c h
1978 and 1981 s u r v e y s .

included

in t h e e l e c t i o n ,

of q u e s t i o n s

of f a c u l t y

the

at

U n i v e r s i t y had a s e c o n d o p p o r t u n i t y t o

item concerning the
also

In 1 9 7 8 ,

t h e y wanted a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g
2
on c a m p u s .
Because of t h e s a l i e n c e of

unionization

whether

add some i t e m s .

1977 s u r v e y ,

or not

established

about the

w e r e made i n t h e

a nd f a c t o r s

in

1972.

was i n v o l v e d

in both

the

An

55

The 1981 S u r v e y
A r e f e r e n d u m was n o t h e l d
University

i n 1981 a t

and s o t h e t wo q u e s t i o n s

were o m i t t e d .
priorities

Michi gan S t a t e

concerning

this

issue

Added was an i t e m c o n c e r n i n g wh a t t h e

of c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining

the respondent

favored

at

that

Some a d d i t i o n a l

of

questions

time.

should be,

and w h e t h e r

a r e f e r e n d u m on c o l l e c t i v e

on c o m m u n i c a t i o n

bargaining

i t e m s were added t o t h e
and a g r e e m e n t

set

( s e e Appendix

A) .
In a d d i t i o n
researchers
variables

also

such

undergraduate
budgets,

to the perceptual
included

C.

1977 t o

of time

of

faculty

instrument
ten

days

follow-up

at

Michigan

the

questionnaire.

late

this

study

State

in t h e

s u r v e y t o go o u t

first

is

size,

department

position.

These d a t a

and B u d g e t

and c o v e r

In 1 9 7 8 ,

Spring of

received

a

copy of t h e
possible

bargaining

1978.

Approximately

respondents

was n o t

a collective

surveys

The s u r v e y

questionnaire.

mailing,

it

b a s e d on t h r e e

University.

and an a d d i t i o n a l

follow-up because
held

department

(Both

and P r o c e d u r e s

before,

letter

enrollment

of P l a n ni n g

was a c l o s e - e n d e d

after

on s t r u c t u r a l

in c u r r e n t

Office

the

1980.

Data C o l l e c t i o n
As s t a t e d

salaries,

and g r a d u a t e ) ,

w e r e p r o v i d e d by t h e
the years

information

as f a c u l t y

and l e n g t h

data collected,

to

send out

r e f e r e n d u m was

The r e s e a r c h e r s

immediately following

a

wanted t h e

the election

s o as t o

56

be a b l e t o

probe

attitudes

the

perceived

the

academic y e a r of

survey,

D.

effect

might have.

In a l l
processing
full-tim e

tenure

population

used

in

modification

of t h e

remained the

same,

with

joint

we r e

all

we r e

included

the

In 1 9 7 7 ,

a nd h e n c e ,
4

lateness
also

in

the

and R e s p o n s e R a t e s
obtained

from d a t a

O f f i c e of the

Provost,

listed

f a c u l t y m e mb e r .

studies

This,

( 1 9 7 8 and 1 9 8 1 )

s a m p l e was e m p l o y e d :
however,

with

then,

every
was t h e

a slight
ranks

the researchers

Excluded from a l l

administrative
University's

titles

list

used

included
three

faculty

studies

or t h o s e

who

of d e s i g n a t e d

( Ap p e n d i x B) .
627 f u l l - t i m e

questionnaires

responded

the

and

1977.

on t h e

administrators

bargaining

labels,

appointments.

faculty

possible.

mailing

track

In s u b s e q u e n t

received

Samples

studies,
through

Due t o

the referendum,

a f o l l o w - u p was n o t

The P o p u l a t i o n

(N=347).

1978

( a n d t wo we e k s

full

and p a r t - t i m e

percent

it

towards c o l l e c t i v e

( N=2 5 0 )

faculty

in th e f i v e

with f o l l o w - u p ,

The s e c o n d s u r v e y ,
after
faculty

o f whom 55 p e r c e n t
conducted

a MERC e l e c t i o n )
in th e f i v e

responded to the

second

colleges

in Sp rin g ,

was s e n t

to

700

colleges.

On l y 36

survey.

The t h i r d

^ C o m p a r i s o n s o f e a r l y and l a t e r e s p o n d e r s i n 1981 and
1 9 7 7 s how no d i f f e r e n c e s .
The r e s e a r c h e r s a s s u m e d t h a t
f o l l o w - u p m a i l i n g i n 1 9 7 8 wo u l d h a v e made no d i f f e r e n c e
the overall r e s u l t s .

a
in

57

survey,

with f o l l o w - u p ,

1981.

In t h i s

survey,

Tables

3 and 4 ) .

In T a b l e 3,

to the fiv e

percent

of f a c u l t y

and 1 9 8 1 ,

to

44 p e r c e n t

844 f a c u l t y

college

population,

responding to the

with t h e

larger

from A r t s

an o v e r - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

of f a c u l t y

in

population

by r a n k ,

In 1 981,

instructors

we h a d

Generally,
population

(i.e.,

rank

respondents
that

similarity

a slight

the

population.

the

1978 and 1981 we had

to

Sciences.

the fiv e

quite

population;

college

strong

(Table
of

i n 1978 we h a d an

a p p e a r e d t o be s i m i l a r

t wo m a j o r

demographic

to

variables

The c o n s i s t e n c y b e t w e e n t h e

five-college

population

about the population

data.

of f a c u l t y

under-representation

respondents

on t h e s e

and t h e

is

I n 1978

of p r o f e s s o r s .

and c o l l e g e ) .

inferences

respondents'

the

in our r e s p o n d e n t

over-representation

the

we s e e t h a t

from S o c i al

When we c o m p a r e o u r r e s p o n d e n t s

4).

by

s u r v e y was f a i r l y

five-college

and L e t t e r s ;

(see

respondents

we ha d an u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

respondents

in S p r i n g ,

( N= 3 7 2 ) r e s p o n d e d

whi ch c o mp a r e s f a c u l t y

college

consistent

was s e n t

was h i g h

enough

c o u l d be made f r o m t h e

58

TABLE
COMPARI SON

OF FACULTY RE S P ONDE NT S
F I V E - C O L L E G E P O P U L A T I ON

F aculty
1977
N
A r t s and
L etters

R espondents
1978

X

3

N

N

THE

C ollege

P opulation

1977

1981
X

WITH

X

1978

198 L

N

X

N

X

N

127

37

71

28

147

40

265

38

365

46

337

45

Co mmu n i c a t 1 o n
A rts

31

9

22

9

19

5

53

8

53

7

50

7

E nglneerIng

49

14

33

13

60

16

95

14

89

11

93

12

Human
E cology

37

11

21

8

23

6

73

10

58

7

49

6

Soc i al
Sc i e n c e

103

30

103

41

123

33

214

31

229

29

220

29

T otal

347

100

250

100

372

100

700

C o lle g e P o p u l a ti o n f i g u r e s were ta k e n from
(M arch 2 3, 1983) s u p p l i e d by t h e O f f i c e o f

100

794

100

749

th e " U n iv e r s i ty D ata
P l a n n i n g and B u d g e t.

Book"

100

TABLE 4
SAMPLE AND POPULATION BY RANK, 1977, 1978 AND 1981

Academic Rank

F a c u l t y Respondents
1977

Five-College Population

1978

1981

19771

19782

X

N

U niversity Population

1981

X

N

1977

X

N

1978
X

N

1981

___________________________ N

X

N

X

N

X

N

X

N

X

Instructor

6

2

18

8

16

4

13

2

57

8

64

8

32

2

214

8

232

8

Assistant
Professor

82

27

50

20

85

24

149

24

168

24

219

26

432

21

587

22

647

23

Associate
Professor

78

25

54

22

96

27

169

27

171

24

207

25

570

28

632

24

629

23

Professor

143

46

123

50

159

45

289

47

304

44

354

42

1014

49

1190

45

1280

46

Total

309

100

245

100

356

100

6 20

100

700

100

844

100

2048

100

2623

100

2788

100

*I n 1977, t h e o n l y p o p u l a t i o n d a t a t h a t c o u l d b e s e c u r e d we r e f o r t e n u r e t r a c k f a c u l t y .
For c o m p a r a b i l i t y p u r p o s e s w i t h t h e
f i v e - c o l l e g e p o p u l a t i o n , we h a v e o m i t t e d 38 c a s e s u n d e r f a c u l t y r e s p o n d e n t s 1n t h i s t a b l e as t h e y we r e n o t t e n u r e - t r a c k .

2
Thes e f i g u r e s r e p r e s e n t a l l

f a c u l t y ( b o t h t e n u r e and n o n - t e n u r e ) .

IV.

One o f t h e f i r s t
was t o

subject

analysis.
smaller

all

Factor

procedures

used t o

block questions
analysis

to

covariation
stated

variables)

that

analyze the data

an e x p l o r a t o r y f a c t o r

assumes t h e

n u mb e r o f u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r s

nu mb e r o f o b s e r v e d

has

ANALYSI S

presence

(i.e.,

factor

some

smaller

are responsible

among t h e o b s e r v e d v a r i a b l e s .
that

of

than
for

Kim ( 1 9 7 8 ,

the

the
p.

9)

analysis:

" . . . m a y b e u s e d a s an e x p e d i e n t way o f a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e
mi ni mum n u mb e r o f h y p o t h e t i c a l f a c t o r s t h a t c a n a c c o u n t
f o r t h e o b s e r v e d c o v a r i a t i o n , and as a me a n s o f
exploring the data for possible data redu ction."
Wh i l e f a c t o r

analysis

our d a t a

are o r d in a l,

identify

underlying

we s t i l l

di mens i o n s

For c o n s i s t e n c y p u r p o s e s ,
correlation

assumes

coefficients

data

analysis

and h e l p

select

used

to

Pearson's

is

in the

level

measures

literature

variables.
r

as
This

on o r d i n a l

(Blau,

1973;

and

to

on t h e new i n d e x v a r i a b l e s .

interval

documented

level

used f a c t o r

we l a t e r

p rocedure of using
well

interval

data

Cohen and

Cohen, 19 75) .
Ba s e d on t h e
the

items

are

orthogonal

uncorrelated)

factor

we s e l e c t e d

in Table 5 f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n
variables.
respective

loadings

together.

60

assumes

the variab les

o f new c o m p o s i t e o r

T h e s e new i t e m s w e r e c r e a t e d
scores

(which

by a d d i n g

listed

index
all

their

61

TABLE 5
QU E S T I O NNA I R E

Index

V ariable

I TEMS

USEO TO CONSTRUCT NEW INDEX

Item s

Included

in

Index

VARIABLES1

V ariables

Col 1e c t 1v e
B a r g a i n 1ng
Im pact

C o l l e c t i v e B a rg a in in g w ould: im prove th e
econom ic s t a t u s of f a c u l t y ; a c q u i r e
a d d i t i o n a l fu n d s from th e
l e g i s l a tu r e ; give fa c u lty g re a te r
in v o lv e m e n t in d e c i s i o n m a k in g ; p r o v i d e
g re a te r job s e c u rity .

P olicy
Agreem ent

Agreement w ith u n i v e r s i t y p o l i c i e s :
p ro ced u res fo r reap p o in tm en t of f a c u l ty
are f a i r ; th e u n i v e r s i t y is d e a lin g w ith
i t s c u r r e n t b u d g e tin g p ro b lem s in th e
m o s t r e a s o n a b l e way p o s s i b l e ; c u r r e n t
g riev an ce procedures fo r fa c u lty are
adequate.

Group
In f 1uence

A reas f a c u l t y as a group have I n f l u e n c e
on:
c u r r i c u l u m ; h i r i n g new f a c u l t y ;
developm ent of f a c u lty p erso n n el
p o l i c i e s ; s e l e c t i o n of d e p a rtm e n t
c h a i r p e r s o n and a c a d e m ic d e a n .

Personal
In f 1uence

F a c u lty re sp o n d en ts have in flu e n c e
c u r r i c u l u m ; h i r i n g new f a c u l t y ;
developm ent of f a c u lty p erso n n el
p o l i c i e s ; s e l e c t i o n of d e p a rtm e n t
c h a i r p e r s o n and a ca d e m ic d e a n .

S atisfactio n

Both p e r s o n a l and p e r c e p t i o n of
f a c u l t y m em bers' s a t i s f a c t i o n .

Com m unication

R espondents d is c u s s id eas w ith :
d ep artm en t c h a ir p e r s o n ; f a c u l t y in t h e i r
d ep artm en t; c h a irp e rs o n s of sp e c ia l
departm ental com m ittees.

U ndergraduate
Emphasi s

E m p h a sis s h o u l d be p l a c e d o n :
in stru c­
tio n of u n d e rg ra d u a te m a jo rs; advisem ent
of u n d e rg ra d u a te m ajo rs; in s t r u c t i o n of
undergraduate non-m ajors.

G raduate
Emphas i s

E m p h a s is s h o u l d be p l a c e d o n :
instruc­
tio n of g ra d u a te s tu d e n ts ; advisem ent of
graduate m a jo rs.

A ppendix C c o n t a i n s a c o m p le te l i s t i n g
i n c l u d e d i n t h e new i n d e x v a r i a b l e s a nd
scores.

on:

other

of th e v a r i a b l e s
th e ir fa c to r loading

62
The i t e m s t h a t
remained

the

exception

me n t

of

c a s e was f o r

In 1981,

the

at

MSU" was

"in

agent

added t o t h i s

loaded

well,

for

in t h e

index

variable

long r u n ,

establish­

will

lower t h e

q u a l i t y of

question.

comparability sake,

P o lic y Agreement.

to e x p l o r e our h y p o th e s e s .

1;

personal

t h e mean s c o r e f o r
F a c u l t y gave t h e
hiring

The h i g h e r
higher the

influence
PPI

this

newly c o n s t r u c t e d

t h e academic r a n k , t h e
personal influence.

items

increases

highest

o f new f a c u l t y

chairperson.

scores

and t h e

The i t e m s

by a c a d e m i c
(PPI).

the

on

each y e a r ,

rank.
curriculum,

of d e p a r t m e n t

lowest

a mo u n t

academic

F a c u l t y re sp o n d in g to our q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

themselves

a mo u n t

influence

of

reported
deal

of

as e x e r c i s i n g
on e v e r y i t e m

extreme r esponses
influence.

and s e l e c t i o n

a slight
asked,

of

o f PPI

budget

perceived

allocation

with

influencing

selection

scoring

Within

slightly
to

rank,

were d e p a r t m e n t
dean.

it

I n d i v i d u a l s who t h e m s e l v e s o r wh o s e
p e e r s (in academic rank) p a r t i c i p a t e in
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n maki ng p e r c e i v e
t h e m s e l v e s t o be i n f l u e n t i a l .

T a b l e 6 s hows t h e mean s c o r e s ,
perceived

also

included

Throughout

index

Hypothesis

Whi l e i t

we h a v e n o t

p r i m a r i l y on t h e s e

1;

Policy

the

rely

Proposition

The o n l y

5 regarding

c h a p t e r we w i l l
variables

.5 or b e t t e r )

survey periods.

Question

item,

a faculty bargaining

faculty

(approximately

same o v e r t h e t h r e e

to th is

Statements.

loaded well

an

to moderate

and f e w f a c u l t y

o f no i n f l u e n c e

at

all

or

a great

PERCEIVED PERSONAL INFLUENCE, BYRANK, 1977, 1978, 1981 (MEANS)

Influence over:

1977

Instructor
1978

1981

Assistant Prof.
1977
1978
1981

Associate Prof.
1977
1978
1981

1977

F u l l Pr of
1978

1981

1977

Ai l Rank;
1978
’ 1981

Curriculum

1.6

2.5

2.1

2.1

2.8

2.6

2.2

2.8

2.9

2.2

3.1

3.0

2.0

2.9

2.7

• H i r i n g o f new
faculty

1.5

2.6

1.8

1.8

2.5

2.3

2.0

2.7

2.7

2.0

3.0

2.8

1.8

2.8

2.4

• Deve l opme nt o f
f a c u l ty personnel
policies

1.4

1.9

1.4

1.6

2.1

1.9

1.9

2.2

2.5

2.0

2.9

2.8

1.7

2.5

2.2

• S e l e c t i o n o f De p t ,
chairpersons

1.6

2.1

1.6

1.9

2.5

2.2

1.9

2.4

2.6

2.1

2.9

2.8

1.9

2.7

2.3

De par t ment b u d g e t
allocations

1.5

1.3

1.3

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.8

1.9

2.0

1.8

2.1

2.0

1.7

1.9

1. 7

F a c u l t y l oad
determination

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.8

2.0

2.1

1.9

2.4

2.2

1.7

2.1

2.0

Selection of
a ca d emi c dean

1.5

1.6

1.4

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.9

2.2

1.9

1.7

2.0

1.7

Mean

1.5

1.9

1.6

1.8

2.1

2.0

1.9

2.3

2.4

2.0

2.6

2.5

1.8

2.4

2.1

Scale:

Great deal o f I n f l u e n c e = 4

•Used i n S c a l e o f P e r s o n a l

Influence

Mo d e r a t e amount * 3

S l i g h t amount = 2

No I n f l u e n c e a t a l l = 1

64

The z e r o - o r d e r
personal
that

influence

correlation

between t h e

and a c a d e m i c

were c o n s i s t e n t

rank

over the th r e e

show t h e s e c o r r e l a t i o n s

index v a r i a b l e

s howe d s i m i l a r

results

survey periods.

over th e t h r e e

Table 7

survey periods

(see

Appendi x E f o r t h e c o m p l e t e m a t r i x ) .
TABLE 7
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN RANK AND TWO TYPES OF
INFLUENCE OVER TIME
Types of I n f l u e n c e
Y e a r s _____________________P e r s o n a l _________ O t h e r
1977

.37

.27

1 9 78

.33

.26

1981

.37

.15

That
using

PPI

increases

analysis

significant
influence
faculty

of

(not

Higher

each

but

academic

ranked f a c u l t y
organization

rank.

personal

history"

w h i c h s howe d

the

are b e t t e r

personal

That h i g h e r
influence

is

a r e mo r e l i k e l y

not
to

their

own d e p a r t m e n t

university organization.

integrated

as c a n be i n f e r r e d

ranked

have

a

wh i c h h a s e n a b l e d t h e m t o

only within

also within

a l s o c o n f i r m e d by

s h o wn )

ranked f a c u l t y

"institutional
not

was

b e t w e e n mean p e r c e i v e d

r e p o r t mo r e p e r c e i v e d

develop contacts
college

variance

differences

scores

surprising.
longer

of

with rank

into the

from t h e i r

and/or
Higher

university

communication

65

patterns

( t o be d i s c u s s e d

i n mo r e d e t a i l

under h y p o th e sis

5).
Ba s e d on t h e
that

PPI

above f i n d i n g s ,

increases

Hypothesis

with

2:

we a c c e p t

scored

group

Non-tenured f a c u l t y will perceive
g r o u p i n f l u e n c e t o be h i g h e r t h a n
personal influence.

department
lowest

influence

hiring

of

were a l s o t h e

a c a d e mi c r a n k were
In 1 9 8 1 ,

s ame as

i n PPI

and t h e

selection

Similarly,

the

(selection

of

items

correlations

at

correlations
.27 in

previous

between

rank

1977,

of the

influence

than t h e i r

.26

rank

i n 1978 a nd

the
and

Tables

professors

any o t h e r f a c u l t y

faculty

are

of group

rank

of f a c u l t y group

less

clear

PGI t h a n f o r

In g e n e r a l ,
PPI.

a better
own

influence.

the
for

scored c o n s is te n tl y

rank.

is

of t h e i r

6 and 8 s how t h a t

rank

.15 in 1981.

a nd PGI t o t h o s e b e t w e e n

perception

perception

by a c a d e m i c

h i g h e r me a n s f o r

scoring

When we c o m p a r e t h e s e

we s e e t h a t

individual's

Comparisons of

On l y f u l l

of

( T a b l e 7) b e t w e e n PGI and

times.

academic

and P P I ,

predictor

differences

(i.e.,

academi c dean

a c a d e m i c r a n k was a w e a k e r p r e d i c t o r

in flu e n c e than

academic

s ame

The i t e m s t h a t

allocations).

The z e r o - o r d e r

than

(PGI).

new f a c u l t y

chairperson).

department budget

PPI.

items

by a c a d e m i c r a n k on t h e

t h e h i g h e s t me a n s w e r e t h e

curriculum,

1,

academic r a n k .

T a b l e 8 s h o ws t h e mean s c o r e
perceived

hypothesis

PGI t h a n f o r
higher

faculty

on PGI

have

Faculty see themselves

TABLE 8
PERCEIVED FACULTY GROUP INFLUENCE, BY RANK, 1977, 1978, 1981 (MEANS)

Instructor
1978
1981

Assistant Prof.
1977
1978
1981

Associate Prof.
1977
1978
1981

1977

3.7

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

2.8

3.2

3.3

3.5

3.3

3.3

3.2

3.3

3. 4

3.6

3.4

3.3

3. 4

3.3

2.6

2.6

2.8

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.9

2.8

2.9

3. 2

3.4

3.0

3.0

3.0

2.8

♦ S e l e c t i o n o f De p t ,
chairpersons

2.9

2.9

2.9

3.1

3. 2

2.9

3.0

2.9

3.0

3. 4

3.5

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.0

Depar t ment bu d ge t
allocations

1.9

1.8

1. 9

2.0

1.8

1.9

1.9

1.8

2.1

2.0

2.2

2.2

2.0

2.0

2.0

F a c u l t y l oad
determination

2.2

2.2

2. 4

2.3

1. 9

2.3

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.6

2.7

2.6

2.4

2.4

2. 4

S e l e c t io n of
academi c dean

2.3

2.0

2.2

2.2

2. 1

1.9

2.3

2.2

2.0

2.6

2.6

2.1

2.4

2.3

2.1

Mean

2.6

2.5

2.7

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.7

2.7

2.7

3.0

3. 1

2.9

2.8

2.8

2.8

Influence over:

1977

Curriculum

3.4

3.3

♦ Hi r i n g o f new
faculty

3.0

♦Development o f
f a c u l t y personnel
policies

Scale:

Gr e a t d e a l o f i n f l u e n c e = 4

♦Used i n S c a l e o f Group I n f l u e n c e

Moder at e amount = 3

S l i g h t amount - 2

Full P r o f .
1978
1981

No i n f l u e n c e a t a l l = 1

1977

Al l Ranks
1978
1981

67

as b e i n g mo r e i n f l u e n t i a l
yet

as

rank

decreases.
from

increases,
For

1978 and

the d is p a rity

instructors,

. 6 i n 1978 t o

professors,

as a g r o u p t h a n

1.1

in

individuals,

b e t w e e n PPI

the differences

1977 a n d 1 9 8 1 .

the differences

as

i n me a n s r a n g e

For f u l l

r a ng e from 1 . 0 in

me a n s on PGI t h a n

Hypothesis

PPI,

3:

we a c c e p t

hypothesis

between t h e

index

a nd t h e b l o c k

variables

item

(Question

impact

of c o l l e c t i v e

salary

increases

for

9).

viewed

a considerable
for

of personal

scored

higher

2.

on t h e

salary

across-the-board

the

influence

perceived

reduction

of m e r i t

T h o s e f a c u l t y who r e p o r t e d

a collective

effect

correlations

and g r o u p

3) c o n c e r n i n g

bargaining

(Table

influence

or j u s t i f i c a t i o n
instead

.5 in

The l o w e r t h e p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e , t h e
h i g h e r t h e p e r c e i v e d impact of a
c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g u n i t on i s s u e s o f
s a l a r y , d e c i s i o n m a k i n g and j o b
securi t y .

I n A p p e n d i x F we h a v e s hown z e r o - o r d e r

having

1977,

.4 in 1981.

Because lower r a nk ed f a c u l t y c o n s i s t e n t l y

personal

a nd PGI

bargaining

on e l i m i n a t i n g m e r i t
increases
increases

and,

unit
as

perhaps,

regardless

high
as

a basis
pushing

of m e r i t .

68
TABLE 9

CORRELATION BETWEEN IMPACT OF COLLECTION BARGAINING
WOULD REDUCE MERIT AS A JUSTI FI CATI ON FOR RAISES
AND TYPES OF INFLUENCE OVER TIME.
Types of
Personal

Years
1977

.16

.09

1978

29

27

1981

21

.24

Faculty reporting
a collective
status,
give

job

exercising

a great

envision

not

of t h e o p i n i o n

improve t h e i r

This

deal

of p er so n al

If

bargaining

anything,

in d e c i s i o n maki ng or
is

hardly surprising.

diminishing

their

personal

influence
unit

as

as

and t h e y do
increasing

we wo u l d a r g u e t h a t

a collective
influence

that

economic

already perceive themselves

anticipate

bargaining

this

unit

by a t t e m p t i n g

as
to

spread

resources.

F a c u l t y me mb e r s w i t h
bargaining

unit

them g r e a t e r

would

job

current

grievance

the

security.

l ow PPI

in d e c i s i o n

In 1 9 7 8 ,

procedures

zero-order

reported

improve t h e i r

involvement

greater

1981,

wo u l d

security.

g r o u p wo u l d

out the

are

involvement

a collective

well-being.

PPI

unit

g i v e them g r e a t e r

them g r e a t e r

their

high

bargaining

T h e s e f a c u l t y me mb e r s

not

Influence
Other

that

economic s t a t u s ,

correlations

give

m a k i n g and p r o v i d e

we a d d e d t h e

for

a collective

faculty".
between

item

"improve

In b o t h
PPI

and

19 78 and

69

improvement of c u r r e n t
moderately strong

(-.47

The s t r o n g e s t
collective
observed

in

bargaining
1978.

heightened

unusually strong.
and s i g n i f i c a n c e
1981,

impact

at

that

greater

that

impact.

collective
and j o b

involvement

hypothesis

University.

we s e e t h e

preceeded the

we f i n d

PPI

status

a collective

between th e c o r r e l a t i o n

bargaining

economic

reader that

the

1978

bargaining
Because

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

Nevertheless,

collective
report

after

sensitivity,

PPI a n d t h e

( A p p e n d i x F) w e r e

Michigan S t a t e

when no e l e c t i o n
In g e n e r a l ,

between

items

o n e week

were o n l y

respectively).

We m u s t r e m i n d t h e

r e f e r e n d u m was h e l d
this

procedures

and - . 2 0

correlations

s u r v e y was c o n d u c t e d

of

grievance

PPI

is

s ame d i r e c t i o n

items

in

1977 and

survey.
a good p r e d i c t o r

of

Those f a c u l t y r e p o r t i n g

bargaining

security

l ow

wo u l d i m p r o v e t h e i r

as w e l l

in d e c i s i o n making.

as g i v e t h e m
We t h e r e f o r e

accept

3.

Proposition

Hypothesis

2:

4:

L e n g t h o f e m p l o y m e n t a f f e c t s an
i n d i v i d u a l ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the
uni v e r s i t y .
The l o n g e r t h e f a c u l t y m e m b e r ' s
empl oyment a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y , t h e
high er the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the
university.
Likewise,

we wo u l d e x p e c t :

The s h o r t e r t h e f a c u l t y m e m b e r ' s
empl oyment a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y , t h e
h i g h e r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the
discipline.

70

Wh i l e t h e
in both

the

question
the

question

1978 a n d 1981 s u r v e y ,

concerning

university.

length

concerning reference

the

examine t h e i r
In T a b l e
distributions

respondents

B e f o r e we l o o k

o f employment

relationship

with

of

academic

rank

professors

have been employed

half
for

associate

a nd f u l l

of

ten

to twenty y ears.
at

the

1977,

higher

in
the

of time

in c u r r e n t

a nd a s s i s t a n t

to twenty years.
at

the

to

Al mo s t

s ame i n s t i t u t i o n
by r a n k w e r e

p < .05 l e v e l .

correlation

r=.49

first

and p e r c e n t

The mean d i f f e r e n c e s

As we s h o we d e a r l i e r
positive

between

have been employed f i v e

ten

at

u n i v e r s i t y from one t o

of our s a mp l e ha s been employed

significant

the

instructors

professors

we w i l l

a

key v a r i a b l e s .

and l e n g t h

at the

o f empl oyment

relationship

group,

other

professors

1981 d i d we a s k

length

10 we s e e t h e f r e q u e n c i e s

The m a j o r i t y

ten years

in

at the

and r e f e r e n c e

position.

four years,

only

g r o u p was a s k e d

(Appendix

between

is

a strong

a g e and a c a d e m i c r a n k

1 9 7 8 and r = . 6 3

in

academic

the

rank,

E) t h e r e

1981)

wh i c h

older

(r=.65

indicates

the occupant

in

that

of t h a t

rank.
In T a b l e
the

professors

professors
years.
higher
current
this

10 we s e e t h a t

and t w e n t y - e i g h t

have been

From t h i s

position

in t h e i r

we f e e l

ranked f a c u l t y

assumption

almost

it

percent

current

in mind,

than

of the

position

reasonable

are both o l d e r

longer

seventy-five

to

of

associate
ten to twenty

a s s u me t h a t

and h a v e b e e n i n t h e i r

lower ranked

we w i l l

percent

faculty.

now e x a m i n e T a b l e s

Wi t h
11 and

71

TABLE 10

FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF
LENGTH OF TIME IN CURRENT POSITION BY ACADEMIC RANK:

In stru c to r
N

Years

%

A s s i s ta n t
P ro fe s s o r
N

%

A sso ciate
P ro fe s so r

1981

P ro fe s so r

N

%

N

%

N

%

2

12

13

15

2

3

2

3

19

6

1 - 4

11

69

44

54

15

17

11

7

81

24

5 -1 0

3

19

23

27

48

51

21

14

95

28

10 - 20

0

0

3

4

27

28

117

75

147

43

16

100

83

100

92

100

151

100

342

100

< -

1

Total

P < .001
X2 = 2 0 2 . 8
Degrees of Freedom = 12

72

12 wh i c h g i v e s

the frequencies

g r o u p by a c a d e m i c r a n k .
reported

that

assistant
their
t wo

For b o t h y e a r s ,

t h e d e p a r t m e n t was t h e i r

a nd a s s o c i a t e

reference

group,

(discipline

professors

understand

these

discussion

and c o m m u n i c a t i o n p a t t e r n s .
much y o u n g e r t h a n

unreasonable to

the

those

Gi v e n t h e i r

full-time

department

within

are

promotion to

obtaining

these

tenure

full

evaluate

their

occupying

faculty

first
in

to

and g u i d a n c e .

establish

other

in t h e i r

decision

themselves

hand,

have t o

department

wh i c h w i l l

some

and a r e

affect

them.

(who a l r e a d y h a v e t e n u r e b u t

that

are

likely,

as g r o u p s ,

wo u l d h e l p t h e m i n

We wo u l d e x p e c t

and t o b e t t e r

their

other

are

wo u l d n o t be

as t h e i r m a j o r r e f e r e n c e

status

within

as a g r o u p ,

information

professor)

promotions.

discipline

it

we mu s t

group t h e o r y

m i g h t be t h e i r

on t h e

professors

in r e s e a r c h

to th e ir

credentials

between t h e

Because t h e y a r e n o v i c e s

for

themselves

Th e y and a s s o c i a t e

be i n v o l v e d

as

setting.

professors,

to

of r e f e r e n c e

attempting to

the departmental

now c o mi n g c l o s e r

to

are s p l i t

we wo u l d e x p e c t t h e m t o t u r n

colleagues

degree e s ta b lis h e d

desire

this

appointment.

they

Assistant

group while

distributions,

individuals

assume t h a t

faculty

In d o i n g s o ,

reference

Instructors,

a g e and r a n k ,

academic p r o f e s s i o n ,

their

instructors

viewed t h e d i s c i p l i n e

and p r o f e s s o r s

on o u r e a r l i e r

ranks.

of r e f e r e n c e

and d e p a r t m e n t ) .

In o r d e r t o
reflect

and p e r c e n t a g e s

department.

establish

them t o t u r n
group,
their

to

73

TABLE 11

REFERENCE GROUP BY ACADEMIC RANK:

Reference
Group

In stru cto r
N
%

A s s is ta n t
P ro fe s so r
N
%

A sso ciate
P ro fe s s o r
N
%

1978

P ro fe s so r
N
%

N

%

Di s c i p l i n e

7

39

20

41

27

52

49

41

103

43

Department

10

56

19

39

14

27

48

40

91

38

U n iv e r s ity

1

6

10

20

11

21

23

19

45

19

18

100

49

100

52

100

120

100

239

100

Total
P > .38

X2 = 6 .4
Degrees of Freedom = 6

TABLE 12
REFERENCE GROUP BY ACADEMIC RANK:

R eference
Group

In stru c to r
N
%

A s s is ta n t
P ro fe s so r
N
%

A sso c ia te
P ro fe s s o r
N
%

1981

P ro fe s so r
N
%

N

%

Di s c i p l i n e

8

50

44

54

49

54

68

45

169

50

Department

8

50

35

43

37

41

64

43

144

43

U n iv e r s ity

0

0

3

4

5

6

19

13

27

8

16

100

82

100

91

100

151

100

340

100

Total
P > .15

X2 = 9.5
Degrees of Freedom = 6

74

A fair
university

p e r c e n t a g e of p r o f e s s o r s
served

as t h e i r m a j o r r e f e r e n c e

1 9 7 8 a nd 13% i n 1 9 8 1 ) .

Indeed,

t h o s e who r e p o r t e d

the

that

g r o u p c l e a r l y came f r o m t h e

identified
However,

associate
the

in 1981,

the over-all

percentage

as t h e i r

p e r c e n t a g e of

1978 t o

There has been

across
the

all

ranks

university

data to

in

v e r i f y our

assumptions,

dramatic

change

over-all

dissatisfaction

in

of th e se

light

viewing the

in t h e

as

of

time

in c u r r e n t

identified

their

identified

their

university.
difference
.07)

it

Wh i l e we h a v e no

economic

situation

and

d e c i s i o n s made

a significant

reference

the

affect

in r e f e r e n c e

the categories

50% o f

the f a c u lty

as t h e i r

reference

the

to the

g r o u p by l e n g t h

data to

of

length

respondents
group;

42%

discipline

university

o f empl oyment

an a n a l y s i s

( p>

of v a r i a n c e

and d e p a r t m e n t

reference

on

group.

d e p a r t m e n t and 8% i d e n t i f i e d t h e
2
Wh i l e t h e X s i g n i f i c a n c e i n d i e a t e d l i t t l e

a p o o l e d mean f o r

compared

identifying

across

position,

discipline

we s u b j e c t e d

obtain

ha d

the

f r o m 19% i n

we w o u l d a r g u e t h a t

a major

I n T a b l e 13 we s e e t h a t

group.

faculty

administrative

circumstances

university

professors

a c o n s i d e r a b l y drop

group.

university's
with

assistant

group d e c l i n e d

reference

reference

f a c u l t y who r e p o r t e d

the p e r c e n t a g e of

as t h e i r

of

reference

reference

1981.

(19% i n

professors.

a nd f u l l

u n i v e r s i t y was t h e i r
8% i n

group

the

th e m a j o r i t y of

rank of f u l l

professors

university

that

u n i v e r s i t y was t h e i r

I n 19 78 an a l m o s t e q u a l
professors,

reported

g r o u p me a n .

to

and
The

75

p o o l e d mean f o r t h e
was 2 . 9 7
for
less

the

(or

less

groups

current
ranked

position
faculty.
13 t h a t

reference

group,

it

group

on t h e j o b )

was 3 . 4 6

(or

Earlier

university,

(Table

10)

we

ha d b e e n i n t h e i r

for

of time than

period

These r e s u l t s ,
length
leads

coupled with th e

of empl oyment
us t o

accept

the

versus

lower ranked f a c u l t y
a shorter

and

slightly

When we c o n t r a s t e d

discipline/department

that

in Table

group

p< . 0 2 .

reference

five years

on t h e j o b ) .

T s c o r e was - 2 . 4 ,

established

than

reference

eight years

reference
the

slightly

university

than

discipline/department

does

higher

information

influence

hypothesis

4.

TABLE 13
LENGTH OF TIME IN CURRENT POSITION BY REFERENCE GROUP:

Di s c i p l i n e
N
%

Time in C urrent
P o s itio n

Department
N
%

U n iv e r s ity
N
%

1981

Total
N

%

< -

1

11

58

7

37

1

5

19

100

1 -

4

42

51

36

43

5

6

83

100

5 -1 0

50

54

41

44

2

2

93

100

10 - 20

68

46

59

40

20

14

147

100

342

100

Total
(

P > .07
X2 = 11.4
Degrees of Freedom = 6

171
50 %)

143
(42%)

28
(8%)

76

Proposition

3:

The c l o s e r f a c u l t y me mb e r s a r e i n
a c a d e m i c r a n k , t h e mo r e l i k e l y t h e y
are to i n t e r a c t .

Hypothesis

5:

The h i g h e r t h e a c a d e m i c r a n k , t h e
mo r e t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t h e l e s s t h e
communication with g r a d u a te s t u d e n t s
and u n i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

Hypothesis

6:

F a c u l t y who c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h AAUP
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s have a h i g h e r academic
r a n k t h a n t h o s e f a c u l t y who d i s c u s s
i d e a s w i t h MSUFA r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

Communication with A d m i n i s t r a t o r s
I n 1978 and 1 9 8 1 ,
an i t e m c o n c e r n i n g
administrative
department
Table

w ere v i r t u a l l y

on t h e

and u n i v e r s i t y

no d i f f e r e n c e s
the

we a g a i n

witnessed

a mean o f 2 . 5 )

units

little

by r a n k c o n c e r n e d c h a i r p e r s o n s

professors

(instructors

(instructors'

associate

professors

In o r d e r
zero-order

i n mean s c o r e was

to t e s t

1.2

assistant

a mean o f

variance

1.9.

i n mean

w i t h t h e most
of

special

h a d a mean o f

and f a c u l t y

mean was

I n 19 78 t h e r e

administrators;

The t wo i t e m s

committees

hypothesis:

in communication

ha d a mean o f 1 . 4 a nd p r o f e s s o r s

department

or

item.

difference

university

this

Two

administrators.

each

by r a n k

largest

by a c a d e m i c r a n k .

variance

survey instrument

were us ed t o t e s t

t h e mean s c o r e s f o r

item c o n c e r n in g

In 1 9 8 1 ,
scores

positions

Indeed,

professors

in t h e

f a c u l t y communication p a t t e r n s .

chairpersons

14 g i v e s

patterns.

we i n c l u d e d

in o t h e r

1 . 8 and

departments

and a s s i s t a n t

and

ha d a mean o f 2 . 0 ) .
hypothesis

correlations

5,

( T a b le 15,

we w i l l
also

again

use simple

see Appendi x G f o r

TABLE 14
FACULTY COMMUNICATION, BY RANK, 1978, 1981 (MEANS)

In s tru c to r
1978
1981

A s s is ta n t P ro f.
1978
1981

A s s o c ia t e P r o f .
1978
1981

F u ll P r o f .
1978
1981

A ll Ranks
1978
1981

♦ C h a irp e rs o n o f own
d e p a rtm e n t

3 .1

2 .7

2 .9

3 .0

3 .1

3 .1

3 .1

2 .9

3 .0

2 .9

♦ F a c u lty In own
d e p a rtm e n t

3 .4

3 .0

3 .2

3 .3

3 .2

3 .3

3 .2

3 .2

3 2

3 .2

♦ C h a irp e rs o n s o f
s p e c i a l d e p t , c o m m itte e s

2.6

1.8

2 .5

2.1

2.6

2 .4

2 .7

2 .5

2. 6

2. 2

G ra d u a te s t u d e n t s

2 .4

2 .5

2 .4

2 .4

2.2

2.0

2 .3

2 .1

2 .3

2 .3

F a c u lt y in o t h e r d e p t s .
o r u n its

2.1

1. 2

1 .9

2.0

2.2

2.0

2 .1

1 .9

2. 1

1. 8

U n iv e rs ity a d m in is tr a to r s
( e .g ., p re s id e n t,
p ro v o s t, dean)

1.6

1.0

1 .4

1 .2

1 .7

1 .4

1 .9

1 .5

1 .7

1 .3

Mean

2 .5

2 .0

2 .4

2 .3

2 .5

2 .4

2 .6

2 .4

2 .5

2 .3

S c a le :

G re a t e x t e n t = 4

Some e x t e n t = 3

♦Used 1n S c a le o f C om m unication

S lig h t e x te n t = 2

No e x t e n t a t a l l * 1

*vl

■VI

78

the complete m a t r i x ) .

The c o r r e l a t i o n

and c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h

chairperson

in

1981.

1978,

and - . 0 1

in

was a v e r y weak p r e d i c t o r

with

the

administrators

in 1978,

of communication

of discussing

(r=.16,

academic

of t h e d e p a r t m e n t

In g e n e r a l ,

rank

exception

between

ideas

with

was

rank
.05

academic
patterns

university

p<.05).

TABLE 15
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ACADEMIC RANK
AND COMMUNICATION ITEMS; 1978 & 1981
Communication w i t h :

1978

Ye a r
1981

Chai r p e r s o n

.05

-.01

Faculty

. 01

-.03

. 02

.17

Graduate Students

-.07

-.11

Faculty

-.01

.08

. 16

.21

i n own d e p a r t m e n t

Chairpersons
Commi t t e e s

of Special

department

in Other De pa r tme nt s

University Administrators
AAUP

NA*

.12

MSUFA

NA*

.09

*Not

asked

i n 1978

As s t a t e d

above,

a c a d e m i c r a n k was

communicating with o n e ' s
However,
years

there

between

university

is

chairperson

a significant

academic

rank

administrators

in

a weak p r e d i c t o r
1978 and 1 9 8 1 .

positive

correlation

in both

and c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h

indicating

of

that

higher

ranked

79

faculty discuss

their

mo r e o f t e n

do l o w e r r a n k e d f a c u l t y .

than

B a s e d on t h e
reject

is

with

zero-order

hypothesis

chairperson

Ideas

5:

not

communication with

university

correlations,

administrators

we p a r t i a l l y

f re q u e n c y of communication with

related

to

university

academic rank

but f r e q u e n c y of

administrators

is

related

to

academic r a n k .

Communication wi t h
In T a b l e
between

Graduate Students

15 we saw t h a t

academic rank

students

was - . 0 7

1981 c o r r e l a t i o n
.4 s e p a r a t e s

in

give

negative

and no r a n k

administrators

In 1981,
that

level,

and b o t h

chairperson

sits

only a

show a

administrators

in a middle

and g r a d u a t e

the

l ow r e l a t i o n s h i p s

to our h y p o t h e s i s .

communicating with

to

support

graduate

hypothesis

do

Nevertheless,

f a c u l t y communicating with

tends

Communication wi th

t h e p<.05

pattern.

Obviously,

support

and h i g h e r r a n k e d

at

Wh i l e o n l y t h e

a p p ea r s t o have a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a l

access.

strong

graduate

in 1981.

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

department

lower ranked f a c u l t y

groups

1978 and - . 1 1

between u n i v e r s i t y

communication
not

and c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h

t h e t wo s e t s

Clearly the

students,

zero-order correlations

was s i g n i f i c a n t

l o w and c o n s i s t e n t l y

position

the

students

university

5.

Un i o n R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

we a d d e d t h e AAUP and MSUFA t o t h e

f a c u l t y me mb e r s c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h .

list

The

of

80

zero-order
rank

correlations

( T a b l e 15 )

we r e

.12 f o r

academic

and c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h AAUP r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ,

between
of t h e
p<.05

academic rank
MSUFA.

lower,

So t h e

higher

union r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

union

positive

representatives

If

so,

in

academic

our t h i r d

cover t h i s

are s e n i o r ,

proposition,

faculty,

case,

communicate with
also

that

with

come t o mi n d f o r

tenured

the closer

this

f a c u l t y members.
f a c u l t y me mb e r s

are to

interact,

intervene

represent atives

involvement
affairs.
and t r y

to

are

woul d

researchers

to

of

will
age,

gain

support

persuade

to

unionization

bargaining.

this

from f a c u l t y ,

In

ages

finding.

s t r a t e g y might d i c t a t e

attempts.

made up 6 9 % o f t h e

lower ranked

representatives

f a c u l t y me mb e r s who h a v e h i s t o r i c a l l y

unfavorable

1ower

S e n i o r f a c u l t y may be

have t o p u r su e
union

are

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

v i e w s on c o l l e c t i v e

we h a v e no d a t a on u n i o n

t o make i n r o a d s

professors

indicate

P e r h a p s many o f t h e

union

a nd u n i v e r s i t y

Irrespective

senior

if

w o u l d be t h e

who h o l d o p p o s i n g

a nd o t h e r

and n o t t h e

finding.

mo r e c o m m i t t e d t o

either

explanations

r a n k t h e mo r e l i k e l y t h e y

in department

staff

ideas

correlation.

Another p o s s i b i l i t y ,
ranked

discuss

at the

o f t h e AAUP t h a n t h e MSUFA.

A n u mb e r o f p o s s i b l e
significant

hypothesized,

The c o r r e l a t i o n s

ranked f a c u l t y

representatives

we r e s i g n i f i c a n t

ranked f a c u l t y ,

a s we ha d o r i g i n a l l y

mo r e h i g h e r

.09

and c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

Bot h c o r r e l a t i o n s

level.

and

how

and wi n o v e r
been

Associate

and f u l l

u niversity population

in

1981

81

(Table 4 ).
contact,

From o u r d a t a ,

and o u r

have r e p o r t e d

sample of high

that

representatives

we c a n n o t

sought

as

perhaps,

developing

senior facu lty ,
historic

bias

union

s t r a t e g y of
Wh i l e t h e s e

those

initiating

positive

parts

of

faculty discussing
discussing
higher

with

ideas

ideas

union

hypothesis

6,

academic

collective
contact

correlations,

us t o

a

reconcile

we m u s t n e v e r t h e l e s s

with

students.

mo r e h i g h e r

ranked

and n o t

We c a n

ideas

than

of

and

such

5 concerning higher

do d i s c u s s

w i t h AAUP r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

proportion

affairs,

help

with c h a i r p e r s o n s

that

and

wo u l d make g o o d s e n s e .

variables

graduate

group

bargaining,

representatives.

and n o t

this

and t h e i r

Knowi ng t h e

in

hypothesis

ranked f a c u l t y

administrators
accept

against

intervening

conceptually the
reject

influence

with

out

union

o u t t h e f a c u l t y me mb e r s

mo r e s u p p o r t .

their

their

union

but because the

a way o f m a k i n g c o n t a c t

the

i n 1981 may

b e c a u s e t h e f a c u l t y me mb e r s s o u g h t

th e union r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ,

opinions

who i n i t i a t e d

ranked f a c u l t y

t h e y communicate with

not

representatives

tell

accept

that

university
We c a n

also

ranked f a c u l t y

discuss

w i t h MSUFA

representatives.
Prior

to

be t h e b e s t

our

predictor

g o od p r e d i c t o r
students
eight

analysis,

with

of communication

t wo o f t h e

and u n i v e r s i t y

groups

committees,

in

1981

graduate

we h a d e x p e c t e d

six

(chairperson
students,

patterns,

groups

administrators)
of

academic rank t o
is

i n 1 97 8 ( g r a d u a t e

and f i v e

special

university

and i t

of t h e

departmental

administrators,

a

82

AAUP and MSUFA r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ) .
over-all

predictor

w h e r e we o b t a i n e d
the

of
our

item concerning

faculty

who d i s c u s s

department
with

all

faculty

ideas

ar e of hi gh

the other

zero-order

in t h e i r

listed

rank

and i n d e e d ,
correlations,

own d e p a r t m e n t .

with the f a c u l t y

academic

groups

an e v e n b e t t e r

communication

strongest

faculty

But

in t h e i r

and a l s o

in t h i s

Those
own

discuss

question

was

ideas

(Table

16).
TABLE 16
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMMUNICATION WITH CHAIRPERSON
AND OTHER COMMUNICATION ITEMS:
1 97 8 AND 1981
Ye a r
Communication w i t h :
Faculty

i n own d e p a r t m e n t

Chairpersons
Committees
Graduate
Other

of

Special

Faculty

University Administrators

Hypothesis

4:

7:

1981

.51

. 41

.39

.37

.30

.19

.24

.09

.36

.24

department

Students

Proposition

1978

C h a n g e s i n j o b s e c u r i t y and
d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of f a c u l t y with
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s and d e c i s i o n s
w i l l l e a d b o t h t e n u r e d and n o n - t e n u r e d
f a c u l t y t o be mo r e l i k e l y t o s e e k j o b
p r o t e c t i o n from o r g a n i z a t i o n s o u t s i d e
the u n iv e rsity .
The d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e v a r i o u s
f a c u l t y g r o u p s ' ( i . e . , r a n k c o l l e g e and
age) a t t i t u d e toward c o l l e c t i v e
b a r g a i n i n g w i l l n a r r o w b e t w e e n 1 97 8 and
1981.

83

Rank
The q u e s t i o n
favor
the

concerning the extent

the establishment

of

a collective

u n i v e r s i t y was a s i n g l e

T a b l e 17 g i v e s

faculty favoring

professors
in

in

1978

19 70 ( X = 3 . 0 ) .

professors

bargaining

favoring
reported

average

of

no d i f f e r e n c e s
This

argument

is

collective

bargaining

correlation
was - . 1 8 ,
was n o t

between

but

by 1981

(X=2.8)

significant

conclude th a t
attitudes

towards

(Table

argue t h a t ,

In 1 9 7 7 ,

collective

e v e r y rank

1981, t h e r e

at the

and f a v o r

the

zero-order

was - . 1 9 ,

in

The c o r r e l a t i o n
whi ch l e a d s

little

influence

bargaining.

are

bargaining.

when we l o o k

.05 l e v e l
has

in

collective

was - . 0 9 .

rank

for

academic rank

18).

and

of f a c u l t y

increased

t wo v a r i a b l e s

at the

academic

has

the

(X=2.4).

t h e mean s c o r e s

between

it

by i n s t r u c t o r s

bargaining

lowest

of

by f u l l

collective

supported

these

by r a n k ,

reported

in f a v o r i n g

zero-order correlations

all"

professors

the

further

at

be

assistant

We wo u l d

by r a n k

favor

at

The l o w e s t mean f o r

was r e p o r t e d

bargaining

.4).

unit

could

and m e a n s ,

and t h e h i g h e s t

B e t we e n 1 97 8 an d 1 9 8 1 ,

(an

that

" do n o t

bargaining.

(X=1.7),

favoring c o lle c tiv e

to

the percentages

In 1981,

h i g h e s t mean f o r
full

(4),

collective

favoring c o llectiv e

bargaining

item q u e s ti o n

s c o r e d from " g r e a t l y f a v o r "
(1).

t o wh i c h f a c u l t y

1978 i t
in

us t o
on

1981

TABLE 17
PERCENTAGE OF FACULTY FAVORING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, BY RANK, 197 0 , 1 9 7 7 , 197B, 1981

*70

In s tr u c to r
*77
'7 8

'8 1

A s s is ta n t P ro fe sso r
'7 0
’ 77
'7 8
'8 1

A s s o c ia t e P r o f e s s o r
'7 0
'7 7
'7 8
'8 1

'7 0

F u ll P r o f e s s o r
'7 7
'7 8
'8 1

G r e a t l y F av o r

36

19

22

31

47

24

23

30

21

27

22

27

28

12

11

25

Somewhat F a v o r

41

31

28

19

17

32

29

36

25

22

26

27

21

20

11

24

S l i g h tly Favor

9

15

6

19

10

20

10

18

13

22

13

11

21

20

18

16

14

35

44

31

27

25

38

17

42

30

39

35

31

48

60

35

T o ta l

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Mean

3 .0

2 .3

2 .3

2 .5

2 .8

2 .5

2 .4

2 .8

2 .3

2 .4

2 .3

2 .5

2 .5

2 .0

1 .7

2 .4

22

26

18

16

30

92

48

84

24

79

54

93

39

142

121

158

Do Not F av o r
At A ll

N

S c a le :

G re a tly fa v o r = A

Some*4iat f a v o r = 3

S lig h tly fa v o r = 2

Do n o t f a v o r a t a l l * 1

85

TABLE 18

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ACADEMIC RANK AND FAVOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OVER TIME
Ye a r ___________________________ F a v o r C o l l e c t i v e

1977

-.19

1 97 8

-.18

1981

-.09

Bargaining

Col 1e g e
In 1 9 8 1 , t h e
favorable

to

follows:

Arts

Engineering
rank

least

little

does
the

even over

similarity.

favoring co llectiv e
the

highest.

again

in

of t h e

favorable

and L e t t e r s ,

Indeed,

ordering;

order

not

Social

apply to the

19).

no c o n s i s t e n t

is

this

in p r e v i o u s
pattern

of

1977 - 1978 s u r v e y p e r i o d t h e r e

bargaining

vary,

decline

in

as

Communications,

Ho we v e r ,

findings

Wh i l e t h e mean s c o r e s

The me a n s

f r o m mo s t

bargaining

Sciences,

(Table

data yields
the

five colleges

on c o l l e c t i v e

and Human E c o l o g y

ordering

years.

rank

of c o l l e g e

in g e n e r a l ,

is

faculty

1 97 0 was

1977 and 1 9 7 8 , b u t

rise

1981.

A one-way a n a l y s i s
differences

of v a r i a n c e

among c o l l e g e s

favored c o lle c tiv e

revealed

in t h e e x t e n t

bargaining

were n o t

that

the

t o wh i c h t h e y

significant

i n 1970

TABLE 19
MEAN SCORE OF FACULTY FAVORING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,
BY COLLEGE, 197 0 , 197 7 , 197 8 , 1981

A r ts and L e t t e r s
'7 0
'7 7
'7 8
*81

■70

C om m unication
'7 7
'7 8
‘81

■70

E n g in e e rin g
'7 7
'7 8

'81

•70

Human E c o lo g y
'7 7
*78
'8 1

•70

S o c ia l S c ie n c e
•77
*78
■81

'7 0

5 C o lle g e s
'7 7
'7 8

'81

2 .9

2 .4

2 .1

2 .9

2 .7

2 .2

2 .0

2 .2

1 .9

1 .8

1 .8

2 .1

2 .7

2 .0

1 .8

1 .8

2 .5

2 .5

2 .1

2 .5

2 .6

2 .3

2 .0

2 .S

N

43

121

67

144

9

31

21

18

13

49

33

59

10

37

21

22

40

102

101

118

115

340

243

361

S c a le :

G re a tly fa v o r = 4

MEAN

Somewhat f a v o r = 3

S lig h tly fav o r = 2

Do n o t f a v o r a t a l l = 1
00
(T>

87

( p > . 16)

or

1978 ( p > . 4 1 ) .

differences

in

There were,

however,

significant
In 1977,

1977

( p >-01)

and 1981

(p>.001).

E n g i n e e r i n g was t h e

college

with th e

l o w e s t mean s c o r e f o r

favoring

bargaining

collective

Human E c o l o g y t h a t
interesting

to

Engineering,
1981 t h a n
is

not

does

scored

note

that

statistically

f r o m Human E c o l o g y .

extent

their

extent

t o wh i c h f a c u l t y

faculties

bargaining

anticipated.
a nd f a v o r i n g

19 s h o ws t h a t

range

between 1.8 t o

high

is

collective

not
is

collective

bargaining,

little

be a g o o d p r e d i c t o r

in

Engineering
but

colleges

1981,

a s we ha d

in c o l l e g e
argue

by c o l l e g e

examination

2.9

The

favor

difference

1.8 to

in th e

bargaining.

w e r e mo r e a l i k e

we wo u l d

namely

other colleges,

as homogeneous

2.1 versus

is

bargaining

1981,

was

Human E c o l o g y and Communi ­

bargaining

colleges

it

It

colleges,

1 97 0 - 1981 p e r i o d

degree of v a r a b i l i t y

collective

from t h e

in t h e f i v e

Wh i l e t h e r e

Table

the

favor

in

1981,

(T=1.8).

applied

Indeed,

over th e

in

to c o lle c tiv e

difference

have d e c l i n e d

collective

one o f our

years.

cation

while

l o w e s t mean

i s mo r e f a v o r a b l e

in p r e v i o u s

differ

the

( X= 1 . 8 )

in

in

1978

1981).

of
(X's
Gi v e n

a nd f a v o r

that

c o l l e g e may n o t

variable.

Age
T a b l e 20 g i v e s
favoring
1970,

collective

there

bargaining

t h e mean s c o r e ,
bargaining

were c l e a r
by a g e .

for

differences

The me a n s

by a g e o f f a c u l t y
all
in

survey years.
support

are higher fo r

for
all

In

collective
groups

88

under

a g e 44 t h a n

similar,
1977,
all

for

but weaker,

faculty

other

under

all

a g e g r o u p s 45 and o v e r .

patterns

was o b s e r v e d

a g e 34 ha d a s l i g h t l y

respondents,

but

again,

the

By 1 9 8 1 , t h e r e w e r e no l o n g e r c l e a r
support
under

for

collective

bargaining

between f a v o r i n g c o l l e c t i v e
1977,

-.1 1

in

1 97 8 an d

w ere s i g n i f i c a n t
in

1981.

in

little,

if

collective

any,

.0 3 i n

differences

faculty

unionization

h a v e mo r e j o b

in

Wh i l e t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s
t h e y w e re n o t

between

in

for

significant
a nd z e r o -

there

is

a g e and f a v o r i n g

hypothesis

attitudes

ma k e s t h e m l e s s

is

of

towards

academic

older,

collective

in t h e

higher ranked f a c u l t y
wh i c h d i s t i n g u i s h e s

collective

This

supposedly

bargaining.

between y o u n g e r / o l d e r

r a n k on f a v o r i n g

by 1 9 8 1 .

on c a m p u s ,

that

We wo u l d
tenured

we

considerably

and l o w e r r a n k e d f a c u l t y .

di f f e r e n c e s

7 then,

an a s s u m p t i o n

and p r e r o g a t i v e s

l i k e l y to favor

suggest that

have d e c r e a s e d

There

literature

security

them from y o unge r

changes

groups.

and a g e was - . 1 0

by a g e and r a n k h a v e d e c r e a s e d

1 9 7 8 and 1 9 8 1 .

low/high

in r ep o rted

correlations

us t o c o n c l u d e t h a t

correlation

between

data

other

o f t h e mean d i s t r i b u t i o n s

leads

small.

bargaining.

that

bargaining

1981.

are

On l y r e s p o n d e n t s

zero-order

bargaining

Summarizing o ur f i n d i n g s
conclude

differences

all

In

h i g h e r mean t h a n

by a g e .

1977 and 1 9 7 8 ,

Examination

order correlatio n s

the

1978.

differences

a g e 29 h a d a h i g h e r mean t h a n
I n T a b l e 21 we s e e t h a t

in

A

collective
argue t h a t
faculty

Our

and

bargaining
as a r e s u l t

feel

as

of

insecure

89

TABLE 20

MEAN SCORES OF FACULTY FAVORING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
BY AGE, 1970, 1977, 1978 AND 1981

Age
under 25

T

1970

0

1977

1978

N

T

1.0

1

0

0

N

T

0

N

N

All Years
T
N

0

0

1.0

1

1981

T

25-29

3.2

20

2.5

24

1.9

13

3.2

11

2.7

68

30-34

2.7

18

2.5

56

2.1

30

2.4

41

2 .4

145

35-39

2.9

16

2.2

67

2 .4

49

2.4

60

2.5

192

40-44

2.8

16

2.2

45

2.2

40

2.6

54

2.5

155

45-49

2.1

16

2.1

42

1.7

33

2.7

47

2.2

138

50-54

2.1

14

2.3

31

2 .0

23

2.5

43

2 .2

111

55-59

2.8

5

2.1

37

1.9

29

2.4

42

2 .3

113

60+

2.2

10

2.1

31

1.6

26

2.5

37

2.1

104

2.3

115

2.1

334

1.8

243

2.3

335

2.2

1027

G re a tly f a v o r = 4
Somewhat fav o r = 3
Do not fa v o r a t a l l = 1

S l i g h t l y fa v o r = 2

TABLE 21
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FAVOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AND AGE OVER TIME
Year_________ Age
1977
1978
1981

- .1 0
-.1 1
.03

90

as f o r m e r l y o n l y y o u n g ,
Further
examining the

support

.13 in

in th e

1981,

policies

in

that

their

the

ranks

between

policies

faculty

as

judgement

academic

rank

(Table 22).

The

from

.27 i n

1977 t o

a g r o u p h a v e b eco m e

of

administrative

agreement

with

predictor

of fav or c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining

administration
(Table

c a n be s e e n by

correlations,

a better

and c o l l e c t i v e

antagonism to
particular

correlations

s ame t i m e ,

h a s b e c o me

did.

argument

administrative

suggests

At t h e

bargaining

this

zero-order

mo r e h o m o g e n e o u s
policies.

for

zero-order

a nd a g r e e m e n t w i t h
declines

non-tenured

is

administrative

impact,

suggesting

no l o n g e r c o n f i n e d

that
to

23).

TABLE 22
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ACADEMIC RANK AND
POLICY AGREEMENT OVER TIME
Ye a r

Pol i c y A g r e e m e n t

1977
1978
1981

.2 7
.1 6
.1 3

TABLE 23
CORRELATION BETWEEN POLICY AGREEMENT, FAVOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IMPACT OVER TIME
Favor
Ye a r ________C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g
1977
1 97 8
1981

-.41
-.61
-.58

Collective
B a r g a i n i n g Impact
-.30
-.59
- .50

91

Another

indicator

f a c u l t y of d i f f e r e n t

1 98 1 no l o n g e r

increasing

ranks

clearly distinguishes
in

of

is

h o m o g e n e i t y among

the fact

faculty ranks.

provides

advantages

correlation

been f a i r l y

constant,

PGI h a s d e c l i n e d

is

perception

group

influence

o f o u r s a mp l e were f u l l

professors.

comparing them selves

those

themselves

in

than

others.

these

1981 a s s t i l l
But,

and r a n k

indicates

perceive

themselves

Differences
In 1 9 7 0 ,
the

with t h e

collective
Arts

a nd L e t t e r s ,

Sciences

all

reported

for co llectiv e

part

hypothesis

a g e and r a n k
We r e j e c t

the

bargaining

of s u p p o r t .

to

support
colleges

than

i n PGI

no l o n g e r

s ame p a t t e r n .
reported

while the

In 1 9 8 1 , t h e

on r e p o r t e d

levels

7 referring

idea th a t

influence

College of E ngi nee ri ng

bargaining.

in r e p o r t e d

perceive

shown t h e

was Human E c o l o g y .

higher

I n 1 9 8 1 , 45%

as a g r o u p .

support

This time

Communication, E n g inee ring

support
of

have not

levels

(Table

professors

correlation

an a d v a n t a g e

l o w e s t mean s c o r e

bargaining

rank,

ranked f a c u l t y

collective

higher

in f u l l

h a v i n g mo r e p e r s o n a l

as h a v i n g

for

considerably

Hi gh r a n k e d f a c u l t y ,

of lower

higher

the

and PPI h a s

(Table 8 ) .

the declining

by c o l l e g e

support

reported

college

that

1977 and 1 9 7 8 ,

lowest

others

to

professor

of group

between rank

due m a i n l y t o t h e d e c l i n e

of t h e i r

a full

in t er ms

Wh i l e t h e

This

PGI no l o n g e r

Being

influence.

7).

that

(19 8 1 )

a nd S o c i a l

Human E c o l o g y on

We c a n o n l y a c c e p t
increased

for

for

that

h o m o g e n e i t y by

collective

bargaining.

a r e b e c o m i n g mo r e

92
homogeneous

in th e

reported

support

for

collective

bargaining.

Use o f M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n
Support

for

Collective

In t h e

to

to te s t

whether

exercise

an i n d e p e n d e n t

bargaining,

we c o n c e n t r a t e d

our hypo th ese s.

however,

any of t h e

taking

all

influence

"favor

variable.

In 1977,

1978,

see t h a t

when t h e c o l l e c t i v e

variable

is

bargaining

entered

as

of t h e v a r i a n c e

Indeed,

the

variance
minute

explained,

compared t o

of

a powerful

First,

it

impact

all

in terms

^Collective

impact

other

bargaining

Bargaining

impact

leads

was n o t

bargaining.
of t h e

impact.

There

bargaining

impact

is

is
are
is

bargaining.

a causal

t h e s e t wo v a r i a b l e s .
bargaining

collective

variables

collective

there

we

index

percent

independent

of f a v o r

27)

f o r mo r e t h a n f i f t y

of t h e

o f why c o l l e c t i v e

predictor

of c o l l e c t i v e

24 t h r o u g h

in f a v o r of c o l l e c t i v e

collective

between

we f i r s t

variable,*

accounts

c o u l d be a r g u e d t h a t

relationship

account.

as t h e d e p e n d e n t

(Tables

an i n d e p e n d e n t

contributions,

t wo i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
such

bargaining"

bargaining

for co llectiv e

into

regression,

impact c o n s i s t e n t l y

percent

on s u p p o r t

and 1981

remains,

we h a v e c h o s e n

other predictors

collective

on z e r o - o r d e r

The q u e s t i o n

predictors

Through s t e p w i s e m u l t i p l e
identified

of

Bargaining

above a n a l y s i s ,

correlations

Determine P r e d i c t o r s

The a n t i c i p a t e d

individuals

asked

in

to favor

1970.

93

TABLE 24

FAVOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - 1970

Age
U n d e r g r a d u a t e Emphasis
Sex
Rank
G r a d u a t e Emphasis

Be t a

Jif.

-.16
.15
-.13
-.12
-.07

.06
.07
.08
.08
.09

TABLE 25
FAVOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - 1977
Beta
** P o l i c y S t a t e m e n t
** S a t i s f a c t i o n
Gr o u p I n f l u e n c e
** Rank
Age
Sex
G r a d u a t e Emphasis
Personal Influence
U n d e r g r a d u a t e Emphasi s

-.38
-.13
.15
-.22
.13
-.11
-.05
-.06
-.03

«£
.16
.18
.19
.20
. 21
.22
. 22
.22
.23

FAVOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (WITH COLLECTI
BARGAINING IMPACT) - 1977
** C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g
Impact
** P o l i c y S t a t e m e n t
G r a d u a t e Emphasis
Sex
Satisfaction
Gr o u p I n f l u e n c e
Rank
U n d e r g r a d u a t e Emphasi s
Personal Influence
* P < .05
** P < .01

.66
-.22
-.04
-.04
-.03
-.03
-.02
-.01
-.01

.53
.58
.58
.58
.58
.58
.59
.59
.59

94
TABLE 26

FAVOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - 1978
Beta
Policy Statement
Rank
Sex
Gr oup I n f l u e n c e
Age
G r a d u a t e Emphasis
Personal Influence
Sati s factio n
Communi c a t i on
U n d e r g r a d u a t e Emphasis

-.49
-.20
-.11
-.10
.09
-.06
-.07
-.03
.03
. 02

.37
.40
.42
.42
.43
.43
.44
.44
.44
.44

FAVOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (WITH COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING IMPACT) - 1978
** C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g
I mpact
** P o l i c y S t a t e m e n t
* Rank
* Sex
Personal Influence
Communi c a t i o n
G r a d u a t e Emphasis
Age
U n d e r g r a d u a t e Emphasi s
Gr oup I n f l u e n c e
Sati sfactio n
* P < .05
** P < . 0 1

. 62
-.19
-.11
-.09
-.06
.04
-.03
-.02
-.02
. 01
-.01

.60
.63
.65
.66
.66
.66
.66
.66
.66
.66
.66

95
TABLE 27

FAVOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - 1981
Beta
* *

*

Policy Statement
S a t i s f a c t i on
Gr oup I n f l u e n c e
Gr a d u a t e Emphasis
U n d e r g r a d u a t e Emphasi s
Age
Sex
Rank
C o m m u n i c a t i on
Personal Influence

-.44
-.12
-.10
-.09
.09
-.06
-.07
-.05
-.04
-.01

.31
.33
.35
.35
.36
.36
.36
.37
.37
.37

FAVOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (WITH COLLECT
BARGAINING IMPACT) - 1981

**

C ollective Bargaining
Impact
Policy Statement
Satisfaction
Sex
Communi cat i on
U n d e r g r a d u a t e Emphasi s
Rank
Gr a d u a t e Emphasis
Age
Personal Influence
Gr oup I n f l u e n c e

.58
-.23
-.07
-.05
-.04
.04
-.02
-.02
-.01
-.01
.01

.54
.59
.60
.60
.60
.60
.61
.61
.61
.61
.61

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
FAVOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
IMPACT, BUT INCLUDING DEPARTMENT DATA) - 1981
**
*
★

Policy Statement
Demand
Turnover
Gr ou p I n f l u e n c e
Sex
Personal Influence
G r ad u a t e Emphasis
Satisfaction
Support
Age
Rank
U n d e r g r a d u a t e Emphasis
Communication
* P < .05
** P < .0 1

-.45
-.19
-.16
-.08
-.11
-.07
-.07
-.05
-.05
-.06
-.05
.02
-.01

.28
.34
.36
.38
.39
.40
.40
.40
.40
. 41
.41
.41
.41

96

or oppose c o l l e c t i v e
actions).

A second

sociological
determine
that

both

ideas

leads

attitudinal

(i.e.,

it

support

is

for

not

unions,

ideas

bargaining.

that

but

and v i c e v e r s a )

still

remains

favorable

I n an a t t e m p t

to

of

identifying

attitudes

investigate

this

Pro-Union.

variable

a composite

of

collective

the

bargaining
this

of v a r i a n c e

r^ values

were

In 1981,

.11

classroom

faculty

and f a c u l t y

2

the

s ame

in the
in

size,

Pro-Union
.40 in

salaries

further,

we

1 9 7 8 ^ and

hours

the greatest
variable.

The

.28 in 1981.

d a t a on e n r o l l m e n t s ,
taught,

( A p p e n d i x D) .

A g a i n , we m u s t r e m i n d t h e r e a d e r t h a t
be s o me wh a t i n f l a t e d d u e t o t h e t i m i n g
o n e week a f t e r a r e f e r e n d u m v o t e .

and

three years,

explains

dependent

departmental
credit

collective

T h i s new

Ov e r a l l

statement"

1977,

wh i c h

bargaining"
2
T a b l e 28 g i v e s t h e r

variable.

"policy

we o b t a i n e d

budgets,

"favor

impact".

new i n d e x

index v a r i a b l e

a mount

for

be t h a t

tap

towards

variable,

for

attitudes

support

I t may w e l l

a new i n d e x

values

with

actions

rather,

constructed

"collective

consistent

dimension.

account f o r

is

determine

s o much f a v o r a b l e

attitudes.

determine

The q u e s t i o n
variables

ideas

( Du r k h e i m: 1915)

to favorable

(attitudes

(i.e.,

a r g u m e n t c o u l d be ma d e ,

assumptions

determines

unions

bargaining

turnover

of

Using f a c t o r

a l l 1978 f i g u r e s may
of th e s u rv e y ; i . e . ,

97

TABLE 28
PRO-UNION - 1977
Beta
Policy Statement
Personal Influence
**
Gr oup I n f l u e n c e
* Satisfaction
** Rank
* Age
Sex
U n d e r g r a d u a t e Emphasis
G r ad u a t e Emphasis
**

-.29
-.09
.20
-.16
-.30
.18
-.10
-.04
-.03

R^
.11
.13
.14
.16
.17
.19
.20
.20
.20

PRO-UNION - 1978
**

Policy Statement
Gr oup I n f l u e n c e
** Age
** Rank
G r a d u a t e Emphasis
U n d e r g r a d u a t e Emphasis
Sex
Satisfaction
Personal Influence
Communication

-.50
-.16
.17
-.17
-.06
.05
-.05
-.04
-.03
-.01

.40
.42
.44
.46
.46
.46
.47
.47
.47
. 47

PRO-UNION - 1981
** P o l i c y S t a t e m e n t
** Gr oup I n f l u e n c e
* G r a d u a t e Emphasis
Satisfaction
U n d e r g r a d u a t e Emphasis
Age
Rank
Sex
Communication

* P < .05
** P < . 0 1

-.40
-.17
-.12
-.11
.09
-.10
-.05
-.03
-.02

.28
. 31
.32
.33
.34
.35
.35
.35
.35

analysis,

we i d e n t i f i e d

variables:

Demand,

Size/Supply

(Table

level

29).

regression,

statement"

index

p e r c e n ta g e of the
this

Turnover,

index v a r i a b l e s

multiple

towards

collective

as

respondents

agree

independent

we f i n d

variance
that

with

that

still

the

the

as h a v i n g

the

in t h e
"policy

largest

(Table 30).

predictor

From

of f a v o r a b l e

and p e r c e i v i n g

an i m p a c t ,

administrative

and

attitudinal

bargaining

index

new d e p a r t m e n t

variables

explains

best

level

Services,

in Pro-Union

collective

bargaining

Support

When we u s e d t h e s e

variable

we c a n c o n c l u d e

attitudes

four major department

is

policies

whether or

not

and d e c i s i o n

maki n g .
TABLE 29
ITEMS USED TO CONSTRUCT DEPARTMENT INDEX VARIABLES:
Index

1981

Items I n c l u d e d in
V a r i a b l e _____________ D e p a r t m e n t I n d e x V a r i a b l e s __________

Demand

1980 d e p a r t m e n t f a l l e n r o l l m e n t ,
l o w e r d i v i s i o n u n d e r g r a d u a t e ; 1980
depa rt m ent f a l l e n r o l l m e n t , upper
division under-graduate.

Turnover

A ssociate p r o f e s s o r s not p r e s e n t
1981, p r e s e n t in 1978; a s s i s t a n t
p r o f e s s o r s not p r e s e n t in 1981,
p r e s e n t in 1978.

Support

Services

Size/Support

198 0 g e n e r a l f u n d b u d g e t f o r
s u p p l i e s , a nd e q u i p m e n t .

in

labor,

1980 d e p a r t m e n t f a l l e n r o l l m e n t
d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s ; 1980 d e p a r t m e n t
g e n e r a l f u n d b u d g e t f o r s a l a r y and
to ta l budget.

99

TABLE 30

PRO-UNION (WITH DEPARTMENT LEVEL VARIABLES) - 1981
Beta
Policy Statement
Support
Gr o u p I n f l u e n c e
G r a d u a t e Emphasis
Turnover
Sex
S a t i s f a c t i on
Personal Influence
Age
U n d e r g r a d u a t e Emphasi s
Si ze
Demand
C o m m u n i c a t i on
Rank

* P < . 05
** P < . 01

-.39
-.16
-.14
-.10
-.08
-.09
-.06
-.06
-.06
.04
-.02
-.02
-.01
-.01

.24
.29
.32
.33
.34
.34
.35
.35
.35
.35
.36
.36
.36
.36

100
Summary
This

st u d y has

why f a c u l t y
literature
variables

unionize.
on f a c u l t y

identified

have c o l l e c t e d
the

best

tried

during

predictor

to

identify

unionization
in t h i s
four

bargaining

are f a c u l t y s '

university

policy

structural,

of v a r i a n c e

explained

a nd i n v e s t i g a t e d

body of

literature.

survey periods
attitudes

agreement

issues.

or

variables

of

We h a v e t a k e n c u e s f r o m t h e

of f a v o r a b l e

attitudinal

predictor

Al l

with

other

contribute

in f a v o r

those

D a t a we

h a v e s hown t h a t
towards

collective

administrative/

variables,
little

collective

whether

to the

a mo u n t

bargaining.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS

In t h e b e g i n n i n g
that

theories

tionally
with
the

subjects

the

service

workers

of c o l l e c t i v e

focused

viable

sector.

of t h e

Topics

length

aspects

faculty

to unionize.

towards

provide

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

of concern f o r

us

in

blue-collar

work-issues

studies

satisfaction
Allen

status

of

and p r o b l e m s

(1976)

a nd p r o p e n s i t y

was h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d
bargaining.

less

found t h a t

(especially

militant

attitudes

in terms

of r a t i f y i n g

status

with

Tenured f a c u l t y
and e n j o y mo r e

Similarly,

dissatisfaction

union

Feuille

with

those

in th e

towards employers
a collective

101

and

administra­

and l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s

for

of

and B i g o n e s s

n e e d and d e s i r e f o r

non-tenured.

pay,

conducted concerning

and K e a v e n y ( 1 9 8 1 )

collective

than

insufficient

promotion

e n c o u n t e r e d when

s i m i l a r i t y to

expressed

representation

tion,

problems

who s u p p o s e d l y h a v e h i g h e r

prerogatives,

Blanding

do n o t

o f w o r k i n g d a y and t h e r u l e

of job

found t h a t

members,

wh i c h h a v e t r a d i ­

professionals.

various

attitudes

show

workers,

workers

Th e r e have been numerous

(1978)

we a t t e m p t e d t o

bargaining,

are w h ite - c o lla r

have l i t t l e

confronting

research,

on b l u e - c o l l a r

explanations

(e.g.,

managers)

of t h i s

for

lower r a n k s ) ,

led

to

t h a t may be e x p r e s s e d

bargaining contract.

102
Hammer and Ber man
issue

of

influence

Individuals
favorable
unit,

(1981)

and J o h n s t o n e

t o be c r i t i c a l

who f e l t

powerless

(1981)

to c o lle c tiv e

bargaining.

w e r e f o u n d t o be mo r e

to the establishm ent

of a c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining

wh i c h wo u l d p r e s u m a b l y g i v e t h e m mo r e i n p u t

decision-making,

than

found the

t h o s e who d i d n o t

report

into

feelings

of

p o we r 1e s s n e s s .
Alternative
unions

explanations

have been o f f e r e d

who a r g u e d t h a t
when t h e i r

bargaining

argued

by A s h e n f e l t e r

that

position

(1975),

Brown

professional

Wh i l e many e x p l a n a t i o n s

little

(or

consensus

Duri ng t h e
attempts

to

University
consensus

predictor

unionize

collected
towards

have been

variables

at

in 1977,

collective

p r o p o s e d o f why
unions,

on t h i s

Gi v e n t h e

to t r y

bargaining,

State
lack

of

choose

were i n t e r e s t e d

in

and i d e n t i f y
bargaining.

university,

1978 and 1981 a b o u t

is

phenomena.

Michigan

researchers

this

there

have been t h r e e

of f a v o r c o l l e c t i v e
at

(1967)

to protect

on why f a c u l t i e s

of f a c u l t y

colleges

declined,

and Thomps on

join

there

1 9 7 8 and 1 9 8 2 ) .

the

a union

la bor market

unions

any g r o u p )

literature

to join

(1969)

freedoms.

the facu lty

attitudes

sample of f i v e

join

ten years,

bargaining,

the

and P e n c a v e l

(1970)

among r e s e a r c h e r s

(1972,

collective
probing

indeed,

last

in t h e

in th e

professionals

and i n s u r e t h e i r

professionals

why f a c u l t y j o i n

w o r k e r s we r e mo r e l i k e l y

and Ladd and L i p s e t
have

concerning

d a t a were

faculty

university

Us i n g

attitudes

administration,

a

103

f a c u l t y communication
satisfaction.
study that

We w e r e

tapped

In a d d i t i o n
we a l s o

to

turnover)

it

Pro-Union

index

and T u r n o v e r ,

unit.

percent

zero-order co rrelatio n s,
hypotheses
rejected,
dealt

(Table

with

analysis,

in a l l

variable

other

as s t a t e d .
were us e d

led

us t o

cases,

led

However ,

this

t o be t h e

variance

Demand,

in the

Size/Support

p r i m a r i l y on

a c c e p t most of o ur
that

patterns

by c o l l e g e .
us t o

clearly

were

and on e
Our
accept

our

when t h e m a j o r p r e d i c t o r

in a m u l t i p l e

regression

consistently,

a large

only the

and a c r o s s

percentage

The o t h e r

in e x p l a i n e d

a

amounts.

relying

differences

explained

little

find

for

Of t h e t wo h y p o t h e s e s

in our depend en t v a r i a b l e s .
contributed

trivial

were

Support/Services

The o t h e r s ,

"policy agreement"

survey periods,

not

in our

and f a c u l t y

desire

with communication

attitudinal

hypotheses
variables

31).

o ne d e a l t

salary,

data,

investigation,

variables

t h e wor k s e t t i n g

of t h e e x p l a i n e d

accounted for

and

variables,

These v a r i a b l e s

We d i d

level

variable.

The i n i t i a l

level)

behavior.

Of t h e d e p a r t m e n t

accounts for four

psychological

an i m p a c t on t h e

bargaining

influence

dimensions.

(department

budgets,

of

d r a w on a 1970 Omni bus

was b e l i e v e d t h a t

loads,

wo u l d h a v e

collective

able to

investigating

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

teaching

perceptions

a few of t h e s e

introduced because

case.

also

used s t r u c t u r a l

analysis

(e.g.,

patterns,

of t h e

predictor

variance.

index
all

variance

variables

104

TABLE

31

SUMMARY OF F I N D I N G S

Accept

Hypothes i s
H1

H2

H3

H4

The h i g h e r
the higher
i n f 1u e n c e .

the
the

academic
personal

Reject

rank,
X

Non-tenured fa cu lty will perceive
g r o u p i n f l u e n c e t o be h i g h e r t h a n
personal
Influence.

X

The l o w e r t h e p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e ,
th e h i g h e r the p e r c e i v e d impact of
a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g u n i t on
Iss u es of s a l a r y , d e c i s i o n making
and j o b s e c u r i t y .

X

The l o n g e r t h e f a c u l t y m e m b e r s ;
len g t h of employment at the u n i ­
v e r s ity , the higher the i d e n t i f i ­
c a tio n with the u n i v e r s i t y .

X

L 1k e w i s e :
The s h o r t e r t h e f a c u l t y m e m b e r ’ s
l e n g t h of e mployment at t h e
u n iv ersity , the higher the i d e n t i ­
f i c a t i o n with the d i s c i p l i n e .
H5

H6

H7

The h i g h e r t h e a c a d e m i c r a n k , t h e
more t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h a d m i n i ­
s t r a t o r s and t h e l e s s t h e com­
munication with graduate students
and u n i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

F a c u l t y w h o c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h AAUP
r e p r e s e n t a t 1v e s h a v e a h i g h e r
academic rank than those f a c u l t y
wh o d i s c u s s i d e a s w i t h MSUFA
r e p r e s e n t at 1v e s .
The d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e v a r i o u s
faculty groups'
( i .e ., rank, college
and age) a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d c o l l e c ­
t i v e b a rg ain in g will narrow
b et wee n 1978 and 1981.

X
X

X

(uni v e r s i t y adminstrators &
graduate
students)

(chai rDerson &
un i on
represen­
tatives)

X

X

X
(rank
age)

and

(college)

105

Our s t u d y h a s r e s u l t e d
variable

in f a v o r i n g

been e x p l o r e d
agreement.

a nd g r o u p
patterns

and d e a l i n g

they

are not

turnover,

salary,

significant

areas

Why do we f i n d
issues

has

a mo u n t

of th e

a collective

to

variance?
bargaining

they nevertheless

turned

over to

an " o u t s i d e "

unit.

Rank,

group

age,

level

data

such

What

We t h i n k

university

a large

that

it

of t h e i r

a r e p r o b a b l y t h e t wo m o s t

important

to place

a bargaining

policy

a nd s i g n i f i c a n t

f a c u l ty will

when t h e y t h i n k

the conditions

vote

are

by f a c u l t y .

We t h i n k

will

as

a nd c o m p e t e n c y

t o them.

which f a c u l t y

favor

in t h e i r

legitimacy

account f o r

is meaningful

personal

why f a c u l t y

and b u d g e t s .
of

sex,

that

and c o m m u n i c a t i o n

agreement with

unit

agree whole­

decisions

organization

that

o p p o r t u n i t y to change
a manner t h a t

decision,

perceptions

an a b i l i t y

may n o t

Also i n s i g n i f i c a n t

administrators

with

to favor c o lle c tiv e

in e x p l a i n i n g

enrollments

reappointing

administrative

reference

are

are the

of u n i v e r s i t y

and s a l a r y

in

insignificant

p o we r

likely

individuals

administrations'

bargaining.

explanatory

administration

procedures

influence,

collective

university

seldom

namely p o l i c y

grievance

as a n e g o t i a t i n g

are

literature,

for

enough c o n f i d e n c e

such

wh i c h h a s

procedures

t h e y do n o t wa n t t h e s e
group,

bargaining

view t h e

Wh i l e t h e s e

h e a r t e d l y with

a key p r e d i c t o r

in t h e i r

problems,

bargaining.

exhibit

collective

When f a c u l t y

handling

budgeting

identifying

i n a n y d~epth i n t h e

as b e i n g c o m p e t e n t
faculty,

in

vote for

has the

empl oyment
job

security

issues
unit

in

in

for
an

106

academic

setting.

colleges

and u n i v e r s i t i e s

with

During

the expectations

that

a nd t h e y o u n g e r f a c u l t y
(Birnbaum,

colleges

and u n i v e r s i t i e s

quickly.

Few n o r ms

strators
created

( Br own,

bargaining
stabilize

agent
the

predictions

as t o

in t h e

Bi g T e n ,

them.

The f a c u l t y

argue,

still

was

believe
ranks

that

types

of

attracted

percent

with co n tin u ed

effort.

this

and s o c i a l

chose a c o l l e c t i v e

a contract

wo u l d h e l p

as

behavior.

agent

their

their

T h e s e n or ms

the

department
in t h e i r

Appendix A).

h e l p them r i s e

and t h a t

we wo u l d

over f i f t y

of th e dep ar tm en ts

will

represent

on p a r w i t h

Indeed,
that

as

the

universities,

academics

14,

such

rejected

bargaining

to these

(question

tenure

grew

admini­

We t h i n k

universities,

reported

and s e c u r e

that

or

anxiety

have c o n s i s t e n t l y

own m e r i t

Many

collective

appropriate

of our r e s p o n d e n t s

their

job

and o n e c o u l d make b e t t e r

a collective

nationwide

faster

1977).

faculty

1981).

schools.

discipline

obtain

new s c h o o l s

either

they

wo u l d r i s e

ratified

northeastern

in t h e t o p t e n

didso

institutions

belief

view th e m s e l v e s

prestige

percent

for

mo r e p r e s t i g i o u s

o p p o r t u n i t y to have

high

that

at th e se

the

in a g e n t s ,

Brown and S t o n e ,

a moun t o f p e r s o n a l

the

many

they could

Johnstone,

situation

The l a r g e r ,
those

in

when f a c u l t y i n

salaries

were r e l a t i v e l y

1970;

faculty

their

existed

a sufficient

disruption;

were v o t i n g

1974;

agreements

1970's,

believed

security

bargaining

the

Faculty

through

salaries

sustained

will

the
rise

them t h r o u g h

107

the

1970's

and t h e y h a v e c o n s i s t e n t l y

bargaining

in

university,

attitudes

there

and s o c i a l

sciences

collective

bargaining

than

engineering,

argue t h a t
elastic

in th e

and t h e n a t u r a l

fringe

benefits

another

Faculty

slight

and t e a c h i n g

expectations,

going to

to

schools,

fluctuations

loads.

schools

sciences.

in t h e s e

or t a k i n g

option
their

to
like

We wo u l d
there

is

schools

an

are

in wages,

When t h e s e

t h e y have t h e e x i t

university

by

bargaining:

applied/professional

supply of employees.
t o be s e n s i t i v e

divisions,

t e n d t o be mo r e f a v o r a b l e

applied/professional

likely

their

are c l e a r

towards c o l l e c t i v e

humanities

business,

collective

agents.

Within t h e
college,

rejected

do n o t me e t

by e i t h e r

skills

to

i n d u s t r y or b u s i n e s s .
This
in t h i s

not th e

loads,

option

because

and m u s t

dissatisfaction.
career

case

in t h e h u m a n i t i e s .

c o l l e g e may a l s o be q u i t e

teaching
exit

is

are

rely

inelastic

t o wa g e s

supply,

needed f o r

o r t o me e t e x p e c t a t i o n s

and

they lack

p r i m a r i l y on v o i c e t o

When t h e r e s o u r c e s

advancement,

occupation

of

sensitive

Wh i l e f a c u l t y

an

show t h e i r
either

of the

lacking,

" . . . t h e l a s t hope f o r b r i n g i n g a c h i e v e m e n t s i n t o l i n e
w i t h n e e d s i s t h r o u g h e f f o r t s t o p r o t e c t and e n h a n c e
t h e o c c u p a t i o n i t s e l f . . .Under t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s ,
c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n b e c o me s t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t r a t e g y
f o r c a r e e r b u i l d i n g " ( T h o mp s o n , 1 9 6 7 , p . 1 0 9 ) .
Ba s e d on o u r d a t a ,
collective
a nd n o t

bargaining

attract

however,

we wo u l d a r g u e t h a t

organizations

a m ajority vote

if

will

have

little

they continue

to

appeal,
stress

108

faculty

dissatisfactions

arbitrary
the

lack

and a u t h o r i t a r i a n
of communication

disenchanted
our
of

and l a c k

faculty.

that

or

are a t t r i b u t e d

personal

of t h o s e

1981,

satisfaction

gain f e e l i n g s

loosely

structured

councils
other

and s e n a t e s .

themselves

to

others

dissatisfaction,

is

Limitations

pervade

most o f t h e f a c u l t y

over

that

over

very high
Second,

influence

to

in

or f e e lin g s
reactions

We t h i n k

rewards.

survey periods

sixty-three
fairly

percent

high

from be lon gi ng to

that

their

a

interests

most f a c u l t y ,

satisfaction

arbitrary

the

we wo u l d a r g u e t h a t

represents

who s u f f e r

mo r e

and e c o n o m i c

bargaining

find

obtain

that

Wh i l e f a c u l t y m e m b e r s '

group t h a t

professionals,

social

of

of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

psychological

has d e c l i n e d

( Ap p e n d i x H) .

the

dissatisfaction

negative

reported

faculty

all,

great

we s t i l l

surveyed

of

t o them.

satisfaction

o f 1977 t o

ineptitude

First

any o t h e r

influence,

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

s t u d y do n o t m a n i f e s t
anomie,

of

in

l i k e many

by c o m p a r i n g

mo r e u n e m p l o y m e n t , mo r e j o b
supervision,

Fo r t h e s e

and f e w e r

reasons,

collective

rejected.

of th e

S t u d y and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r

Future

Research
One o f t h e m a j o r
ha d t o do w i t h
in Chapter

issues

III,

seldom s e n s i t i v e
eleven years

problems with

of c o m p a r a b i l i t y .

a survey
to

later.

the

instrument

issues

facing

On l y f i v e

s t u d y we c o n d u c t e d
As we p o i n t e d

designed

i n 1970 i s

a particular

items

from t h e

out

population
1970 d a t a s e t

109

were c o m p a r a b l e t o t h e

1977,

Wh i l e t h e

survey periods

latter

sim ilarities
items

three

in q u e s t i o n s

to the block

l oa d e d well
created

in

index

1978 and 1981 d a t a

asked,

questions.

1981,

s h a r e d mo r e

we h a v e ,

each y e a r ,

Wh i l e some o f t h e s e

we c o u l d n o t

variables

sets.

include

added

new i t e m s

them in t h e

newly

because of t h e problem of compar­

ability.
This

study r e l ie d

towards c o l l e c t i v e
Current

attitudes

experiences.
we l a c k

past

guaranteed

bargaining
are the

Hence,
history

the

on r e s p o n d e n t s '
at four

current
points

accumulation

another

weakness

of p a s t

If

on w h e r e t h e r e s p o n d e n t

or h e r

attitudes

the possible

affects

towards c o l l e c t i v e

who r e c e i v e

their

Ph.D.

University

less

to c o lle c tiv e

individuals
prestige

in t h e

likely

We w e r e a b l e t o
variables

such

as

variables

contributed

ranked

bargaining?

sex

information
we c o u l d

individuals

lower t h an
ratings

to our

mo r e o r

about

down i n

t o where t h e y work;

and r a n k .

little

the

h a v e on

What

notches

over tim e,

that

study

Ph.D.,

Ar e

to favor c o l l e c t i v e

track,

age,

might

university

who c l e a r l y move s e v e r a l

less

we h a d

bargaining.

f r om wher e t h e y s t u d i e d

t h e y mo r e o r

this

from s c h o o l s

Michigan S t a t e
favorable

his

is

and

we h a v e no way o f

u n i v e r s i t y o r w h e r e t h e y came f r o m .

investigate

study

f a c u l t y me mb e r s e n t e r e d

received

attitudes

Because t h e

anonymity of r e s p o n d e n t s ,

k n o w i n g how i n d i v i d u a l

in t i m e .

of t h i s

on r e s p o n d e n t s .

attitudes

are

bargaining?

a few demogr aphi c
However ,

these

understanding

of

110
attitudes
needing

information

received
their

towards c o l l e c t i v e

their

on w h e r e t h e

advanced degrees

publication

received

record

and r e s e a r c h

an " e x i t "
collective

records

option,

department
data.

So f o r

respondent

data,

in College

particular

associate

questions
is

this

individuals'
reference

is

wo u l d be f a v o r a b l e

are

aggregate,

not

X makes.

The

in

we d i d

how d o e s

have t h i s

group;
it

wh a t

with

collective

data
is

may w e l l

of t h e

wha t

this

their

that

individuals

reference

bargaining.

this

group

Wh i l e
little

information

make a d i f f e r e n c e

on

and e x p l a i n

variance.

we wo u l d s u g g e s t

in p u r s u i n g

are:

compare t o h i s / h e r

We wo u l d e x p e c t

consistent
to

College

obtaining

interested

associate

professor

we wo u l d a r g u e t h a t

In s u mma r y ,

another

a

variance,

percent

option.

individual

average

salary explained

larger

calls

know wh a t

if

and

to favor

g r o u p and a g g r e g a t e

basis

research

(1970)

reference

an i n d i v i d u a l

individuals

X ma k e s b u t we d o n ' t

salary?

not

Hirschman

grants

Wh i l e we w e r e a b l e t o o b t a i n

reference

salary;

groups'

wh o s e s a l a r y

who h a v e a c t i v e

we know w h a t t h e

we wo u l d p o s e

individual's

that

anonymity posed yet

these

example,

professor

n e e d t o know

of r e s e a r c h

likely

to
and

than those having only a voice

research.

level

studied

we a l s o

We t h i n k

wo u l d h a v e wh a t

bargaining

in t h i s

and h i s t o r y

and wo u l d be l e s s

Guaranteeing
problem

from,

schools

In a d d i t i o n

respondents

activities.

c o mi n g f r o m p r e s t i g i o u s
publication

bargaining.

this

topic

that

researchers

identify

a cohort

within

a

Ill

colleges,

such

Guarantees
issues.
we f i n d

a s we h a v e c h o s e n ,

of r e s p o n d e n t

However ,

it

is

t o be c r i t i c a l

towards c o l l e c t i v e
advanced de gr ee s
received,

anonymity are
precisely

to

these

understanding

bargaining.

were o b t a i n e d ,

committees

and t r a c k

serve on,

c a n be o b t a i n e d ,

determinants
bargaining

indirectly

o f why f a c u l t y

will

remain

attitudes

or

grants

and s a l a r i e s

respondents

are.

can

Until

i m a g i n a t i v e ways t o

are discovered,

vote for

u n k n o wn .

faculty

data that

records,

individuals

information

"personal"

publication

this

this

sensitive

on w h e r e

by k n o w i n g who t h e

obtain

always

Information

o n l y be o b t a i n e d
information

them o v e r t i m e .

or

reject

many

collective

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AAUP B u l l e t i n .
" P o l i c y on R e p r e s e n t a t i o n
Interests."
1968, 5±, 152-154.

o f Ec o n o mi c

A l l e n , R o b e r t E. and K e a v e n y , T i m o t h y J . " C o r r e l a t e s o f
U n iv e r s ity F acu lty I n t e r e s t in U nionization:
A
R e p l i c a t i o n a nd E x t e n s i o n . "
Journal of Applied
P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 8 1 , _66_, 5 8 2 - 5 8 8 .
A s h e n f e l t e r , O r l e y a nd P e n c a v e l , J o h n N. " A m e r i c a n T r a d e
Un i o n G r o w t h : 1 9 0 0 - 1 9 6 0 " .
Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l of
E c o n o m i c s , 1 9 6 8 , 8 2 , 434-46TT!
B a l d r i d g e , J . V . , C u r t i s , D . V . , E c k e r , G . P . and R i l e y , G. L.
" The I m p a c t o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l S i z e and C o m p l e x i t y on
F a c u l t y Autonomy." J o u r n a l of Higher E d u c a t i o n , 1976,
47, 391-411.
Baldridge, J. Victor.
Ac a d e mi c G o v e r n a n c e .
Berkely,
C a l i f o r n i a : Mc Cu t c h e o n P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1 9 7 1 .
Bass,

B e r n a r d M. a nd M i t c h e l l , C h a r l e s W. " I n f l u e n c e on t h e
F e l t Need f o r C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g by B u s i n e s s and
Science P r o f e s s i o n a l s " . Journal of Applied Psychology,
1 9 7 6 , 61^, 7 7 0 - 7 7 3 .

Bell,

Daniel.
The Comi ng o f t h e P o s t I n d u s t r i a l
1976.
New Yor k :
B a s i c Books , Inc . , 1976.

Society.

B e y e r , J a n i c e M. a nd L o d a h l , Thomas M.
"A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y
o f P a t t e r n s o f I n f l u e n c e i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and
English U n i v e r s it ie s " .
A d m in istrativ e Science
Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 7 6 , 21.. 1 0 4 - TZ T:
Bigoness, William J.
" C o r r e l a t e s of F a c u l t y A t t i t u d e s
Towards C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g . "
J o ur na l of Appl i ed
P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 8 , j>2» 2 2 8 - 2 3 3 .
B i r n b a u m , R.
" Th e E f f e c t s o f C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g on
F a c u l t y Compens ation in Higher E d u c a t i o n " , in
C o l l e c t i v e B ar g ai n i ng in Higher E du c at io n,
P r o c e e d i n g s , S e c o n d Annu a l C o n f e r e n c e , A p r i 1 , 1 9 7 4 .
Blau,

P e t e r M.
The O r g a n i z a t i o n
Yo r k :
J o h n W i l e y and S o n s ,

Blau,

P e t e r M. and S c o t t , W. R i c h a r d .
F o r ma l O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
San F r a n c i s c o :
C h a n d l e r P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1 9 6 3 .

Blau,

P e t e r M. and S c h o e n h e r r ,
Organi z a t i ons .
New Yo r k :

112

o f Ac a d e mi c Wo r k .
1973.

New

R i c h a r d A.
The S t r u c t u r e
B a s i c Books' ^ 1 9 7 l .

of

113

B r o o k s , Thomas R.
T o i l and T r o u b l e .
P u b l i s h i n g Compa ny, 19"71.

New Yo r k :

Dell

Br o wn , R o n a l d C.
" C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g on Campus :
P r o f e s s o r s , A s s o c i a t e s and U n i o n s . "
L a b o r Law
J ou rna l , 1970,
2£, 167-176.
Br o wn , R o n a l d C.
" P r o f e s s o r s and U n i o n s :
The F a c u l t y
S e n a t e - - An
Effective A ltern ativ e to C ollective
B ar qai ni nq in Hiqher E d u c a t io n " .
W i l l i a m and Mar y Law
R e v i e w , 1 9 7 0 , , 12, 2 5 2 - 3 3 2 .
Br o wn , W i l l i a m and S t o n e , C.
" A c a d e mi c U n i o n s i n H i g h e r
Education:
I m p a c t s on F a c u l t y S a l a r y , C o m p o s i t i o n and
P r o m o t i o n s . " E c o n o mi c I n q u i r y , 1 9 7 7 , 1_5, 3 8 5 - 3 9 6 .
C o h e n , J a c o b a nd C o h e n , P a t r i c i a .
A p p l i e d M u l t i pi e
R egression/C orrelation Analysis for the Behaviorial
ScienceTI
N. Y. : J o h n W i l e y and S o n s , 1 9 7 5 .
Cornell U niversity,
1970.

183,

NLRB No.

41,

74 L . R . R . M.

Crozier, Michael.
The B u r e a u c r a t i c P h e n o m e n o n .
The Uni v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1 9 6 3 .
Dean,

1276,
Chicago:

Lois,
" U n i o n A c t i v i t y and Dual L o y a l t y . "
I n d u s t r i al
and L a b o r R e l a t i o n s R e v i e w , 1 9 5 4 , ]_ 5 2 6 - 5 3 6 .

D u n l o p , J o h n T.
" Th e D e v e l o p m e n t o f L a b o r O r g a n i z a t i o n :
A
T h e o r e t i c a l F r a me w o r k " i n R i c h a r d D. Rowan ( e d . )
R e a d i n g s i n L a b o r E c o n o m i c s and L a b o r R e l a t i o n s , 3 r d
edi t i o n .
Homewood, I l l i n o i s :
R i c h a r d U. I r w i n , 1 9 7 6 .
E t z i o n i , Amati.
New J e r s e y :

Moder n O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
E n g l e wo o d C l i f f s ,
P r e n t i c e - H a l 1, I n c . , 1 9 6 4 .

F e u i l l e , P e t e r and B l a n d i n g , J a m e s .
" U n i v e r s i t y F a c u l t y and
A t t i t u d i n a l M i l i t a n c y Towa r d Emp l o y me n t R e l a t i o n s h i p s . "
S o c i o l o g y of E d u c a t i o n , 1976, £ 9 , 139-145.
F r e e m a n , L a b o r Economi c s .
Engl ewood C l i f f s ,
P r e n t i c e - H a l 1, Inc . , 1972.

New J e r s e y :

Friedson, E liot.
" P r o f e s s i o n s and t h e O c c u p a t i o n a l
P r i n c i p l e " in E l i o t Fr ei ds o n ( e d . )
The P r o f e s s i o n s and
T h e i r P r o s p e c t s , ed. B e v e r l y H i l l s C a l i f o r n i a:
Sage
Pub 1 i c a t i o n s , T 9 - 3 3 , 1 9 7 3 .
G a r b a r i n o , J o s e p h W. , F e l l e r , Da v i d E. a nd F i n k e n , Ma t t h e w
W.
F a c u l t y B ar ga in in g in Higher E d u c a t i o n .
San
F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s P u b l i s h e r s , 1977.

114

G e r t h , D o n a l d R. and H a e n , J a me s 0 .
An I n v i s i b l e
San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s P u b l i s n e r s , i 9 / i .

Giant.

Goldberg, A lb ert.
"The R e l e v a n c e o f C o s m o p o l i t a n / L o c a l
O r i e n t a t i o n s t o P r o f e s s i o n a l V a l u e s and B e h a v i o r s .
S o c i o l o g y o f Work and O c c u p a t i o n s ,
1 9 7 6 , 3^, 3 3 1 - 3 5 6 .
Goldstein, Bernard.
"Some A s p e c t s o f t h e N a t u r e o f U n i o n i s m
Among S a l a r i e d P r o f e s s i o n a l s i n I n d u s t r y " .
Ameri can
S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1955, 2£, 199-205.
G o u l d n e r , A l v i n W.
" C o s m o p o l i t a n and L o c a l s :
T o w a r d s an
A n a l y s i s of L a t e n t S o c i a l Roles - I " .
Admi ni s t r a t i ve
S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 5 7 , j?, 2 8 1 - 3 0 6 .
Hage,

Hall,

J e r a l d , A i k e n , M i c h a e l and M a r r e t t , C o r a B.
" O r g a n i z a t i o n S t r u c t u r e and C o m m u n i c a t i o n . "
S o c i o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , 1 9 7 1 , 36.* 8 6 0 - 8 7 1 .

Amer i c a n

R i c h a r d H.
O r g a n i z a t i o n s S t r u c t u r e and P r o c e s s .
E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s : New J e r s e y :
P r e n t i c e - H a l 1, T n c . 1 9 7 2 .

Hammer , Tove H. and Be r ma n , M i c h a e l .
" The R o l e o f
N o n - e c o n o m i c F a c t o r s i n F a c u l t y Un i o n V o t i n g . "
J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 8 1 , j [ 6, 4 1 5 - 4 2 1 .
H i l d e b r a n d , G e o r g e H.
American Unioni sm:
An H i s t o r i c a l
Analytic Survey.
Readi n g , M a s s . :
Addi s o n - W e s 1e y
P u b l i s h i n g Co mp a n y , I n c . , 1 9 7 9 .

and

Hirschman, A l b e r t 0.
E x i t , Vo i c e and L o y a l t y .
Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 19/0.

Cambridge,

Hyman, H e r b e r t H.
"The P s y c h o l o g y of
P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 4 2 , 3J5, 1 5 .

Archives

Status."

of

J o h n s t o n e , R o n a l d L.
The S c o p e o f F a c u l t y C o l l e c t i v e
B a r g a i ni ng .
Westport Conn.:
Gr e e n wo o d P r e s s , T981.
J u r i s , H e r v e y A. a nd Roomki n My r o n , ( e d s . ) , The S h r i n k i n g
P e r i m e t e r : U n i o n i s m a nd L a b o r R e l a t i o n s i n t h e M a n u f a c t u r i n g
Sector.
L e x i n g t o n , M a s s . , : L e x i n g t o n Books, 1980.
Kadish, Sanford.
" Th e S t r i k e and t h e
B u l l e t i n , 1 9 6 8 , 54 1 6 0 - 1 6 9 .
Katz,

Professoriate."

AAUP

D a n i e l and Ka h n , R o b e r t L.
The S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y o f
Organi z a t i o n s .
New Y o r k :
J o h n W i l e y and S o n s , 1 9 6 6 .

K e n e n , P e t e r and K e n e n , R e g i n a .
"Who T h i n k s Wh o ' s i n C h a r g e
Here:
F a c u l t y P e r c e p t i o n s o f I n f l u e n c e and Power i n
the U niversity."
S o c i o l o g y of E d u c a t i o n , 1978, 51,
113-123.

115

Ki m,

Jai .
Introduction to Factor A n a ly s is .
Cali f o r m a : sage P u b l i c a t i o n , 19/ 8.

Beverly H ills ,

K o c h a n , T h o ma s .
"How A m e r i c a n Wo r k e r s Vi ew L a b o r U n i o n s . "
Monthly Labor Re v i e w , 1979, £ 2 , 2 3 - 3 1 .
Kugler, I s r e a l .
" Th e Uni o n S p e a k s f o r
R ec ord , 1968, £ 9 , 414.
Ladd,

E v e r e t t C. and L i p s e t ,
New Yo r k :
McGraw H i l l ,

Itself".

Educational

S e y mo u r M. The D i v i d e d A c a d e m y .
1975.

L e w i s , L i o n e l S. a nd R y a n , M i c h a e l T. " P r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n
and t h e P r o f e s s o r i a t e . "
S o c i a l P r o bl e ms , 1976, 24,
282-298.
L e w i s , L i o n e l S . and R y a n , M i c h a e l T.
" Th e A m e r i c a n
P r o f e s s o r i a t e a nd t h e Movement Towa r d U n i o n i z a t i o n . "
Higher E d u c a t i o n , 1977, £ , 139-164.
L o n d o n , M a n u a l , C h e n e y , L a r r y A. and T r a v i s , R i c h a r d
" Th e R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t we e n C o s m o p o l i t a n - L o c a l
O r i e n t a t i o n s and J o b P e r f o r m a n c e . "
Journal of
V o c a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r , 1 9 7 7 , 1_1, 182-19TT!

L.

L o z i e r , G. G r e g o r y .
Reporton th e M ich ig an S tateU n iv ersity
B a r g a i n i n g Agent E l e c t i o n .
D i v i s i o n of I n s t i t u t i o n a l
R e s e a r c h and P l a n n i n g , P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
1 9 7 2 . mi me o .
L y o n s , Mor gan a nd L y o n s , J u d i t h .
" P o we r a nd t h e U n i v e r s i t y :
A P e r s p e c t i v e on t h e C u r r e n t C r i s i s . "
S o c i o l o g y of
E d u c a t i o n , 1976, 46, 299-314.
McHugh, W i l i l a m F.
" N a t i o n a l L a b o r R e l a t i o n s Bo a r d Goes t o
College."
C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y B u s i n e s s , 1 9 7 0 ,
49, 44.
M a r s h a l l , J o a n L.
" Th e E f f e c t s o f C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g on
F a c u l t y S a l a r i e s in Higher E d u c a t i o n . "
Journal of Higher
E d u c a t i on , 1 9 7 0 , 5T), 3 1 0 - 3 2 2 .
M e r t o n , R o b e r t K. and K i t t , A l i c e S.
"Contributions to the
T h e o r y o f R e f e r e n c e Gr oup B e h a v i o r " , i n R. K. Me r t o n and
P . F . L a z a r s f e d ( e d s . ) C o n t i n u i t i e s in S o c i a l R e s e a r c h :
S t u d i e s i n t h e S c o p e and Me t h o d o f t h e A m e r i c a n
S o l d i e r T Glencoe, I I 1inoi s :
Free P r e s s , 1950, 40-105.
M ille r, Tracey.
S t a t e News ,

" U n i v e r s i t i e s Va r y on U n i o n i z a t i o n . "
7 6 , No. 1 6 2 , Nov e mbe r 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 , 1 - 2 .

The

M o r g a n , Da v i d R. and K e a r n e y , R i c h a r d C.
"Collective
B a r g a i n i n g and F a c u l t y C o m p e n s a t i o n :
A Comparative A n a l y s i s . "
S oc io lo g y of E d u c a t i o n , 1977, £ £ , 28-39.

116

M o r t i m e r , K. and L o z i e r , G.
" C o n t r a c t s o f F o u r Ye a r
I n s t i t u t i o n s " , i n E. D u r y e a , e t . a l . ( e d s . ) F a c u l t y
U n i o n s and C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g .
San F r a n c i s c o :
Jossey-Bass.
1973.
Moskow, M i c h a e l .
T e a c h e r s and U n i o n s .
Philadephia,
U n i v e r s i t y o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , Wh a r t o n S c h o o l o f F i n a n c i n g
Comme r c e , a nd I n d u s t r i a l R e s e a r c h U n i t .
1966.
National

Labor R e l a t i o n s

Act,

29,

U.S.C.A.,

§151,

1947.

N a t i o n 1s B u s i n e s s .
" To u g h S t a n d on P a v i n g t h e Way f o r
U n i o n s . 11
N o v e mb e r , 1 9 7 7 , 1_8, 6 5 .
N i x o n , Howar d L.
" F a c u lty Support of U n i v e r s i t y A u t h o r i t y . "
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 7 5 , 2!0, 1 1 4 - 1 2 3 .
O l s o n , Mancur .
The L o g i c o f C o l l e c t i v e
Schocken Books, 1971.

Action.

New Yo r k :

Parsons, T alcott.
S t r u c t u r e s and P r o c e s s i n Moder n
Soci e t i es .
Glencoe, I l l i n o i s :
F r e e P r e s s , HF60 .
P e r l s t a d t , Harry.
" F a c u l t y O l i g a r c h y and Un i o n D e m o c r a c y :
The L e s s o n s o f M i c h i g a n S t a t e . "
Pr ep ar ed f o r t h e 24th
An n u a l M e e t i n g s o f t h e S o c i e t y f o r t h e S t u d y o f S o c i a l
P r o b l e m s , San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a , A u g u s t 2 3 , 1 9 7 5 .
P f e f f e r , J e f f r e y and S a l a n c i k , G e r a l d .
"Organizational
D e c i s i o n Ma k i n g as a P o l i t i c a l P r o c e s s :
The C a s e o f a
U niversity Budget."
A dm inistrative Science Q uarterly,
1 9 7 4 , 1J9, 1 3 5 - 1 5 1 .
P f e f f e r , J e f f r e y a nd S a l a n c i k , G e r a l d .
The E x t e r n a l C o n t r o l
of O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
New Yo r k :
H a r p e r and Row P u b l i s h e r s ,
1 $ 7 8 . -------------P o n a k , A l l e n M. and Th o mp s o n , Ma r k .
" F a c u l t y A t t i t u d e s and
Scope of C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g . "
Industrial Relations,
1979, 1 8 , 97-102.
Rees,

Albert.
The E c o n o m i c s o f T r a d e U n i o n s .
Uni v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1 9 6 2 .

R h o d e s , A. L e w i s .
"Some C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
M e m b e r s h i p and T h e i r I m p l i c a t i o n . "
1977, 24, 463-469.

Chicago:

The

o f F a c u l t y Un i o n
Social Problems,

R o g e r s , E v e r e t t and A g a u w a l a - R o g e r s , R e k h a .
Communication
in O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
New Yo r k :
F r e e Press'^ 1976.
R o t a n d i , T h o ma s .
" R e f e r e n c e Gr o u p s and L o c a l C o s m o p o l i ­
tanism."
S o c i a l B e h a v i o r and P e r s o n a l i t y , 1 9 7 7 ,
5, 257-262.

117

Schram, Carl J .
"Thompson's Assessment of O r g a n i z a t i o n s :
U n i v e r s i t i e s and t h e AAUP S a l a r y G r a d e . "
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 7 5 , 20^t 8 7 - 9 6 .
S c o t t , W. R i c h a r d .
Organizations, Rational,
Systems.
E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , New J e r s e y :
TfaTT, r 9 8 1 .

N a t u r a l , Open
Prent ice-

S c o t t , W. R i c h a r d .
" P r o f e s s i o n a l s in B u r e a u c r a c i e s :
Areas
o f C o n f l i c t " , i n H.M. V o l l m e r and D. L. M i l l s ( e d s . )
Professionalization.
E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , New J e r s e y :
P r e n t i c e - H a l 1, 1966.
S h i b u t a n i , Tamotsu.
" R e f e r e n c e Gr oup as P e r s p e c t i v e s . "
A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y , 1 9 5 5 , J5(), 5 6 2 - 5 6 9 .
S m i t h , R u s s e l a nd H o p k i n s , Anne H.
" P u b l i c E mp l o y e e
A t t i t u d e s T o wa r d U n i o n . "
I n d u s t r i a l and L a b o r
R e l a t i o n s Review, 1979, 32, 484-495.
S t e i n e r , P e t e r 0 . , E y m o n e r i e , M a r y s e , and W o o l f , W i l l i a m B . ,
"Coping wi t h A d v e r s i t y :
R e p o r t on t h e Ec o n o mi c S t a t u s
of th e P r o f e s s i o n , 1971-1972."
AAUP B u l l e t i n , 1 9 7 2 ,
58, 178-243.
Stonewater, Barbara.
" F a c u l t y and A d m i n i s t r a t o r P e r c e p t i o n s
o f Powe r a nd I n f l u e n c e i n U n i v e r s i t y D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . "
(Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. )
The B u r e a u o f N a t i o n a l A f f a i r s .
Relations Report.
June 19,

G o v e r n m e n t E mp l o y e e
1 9 7 8 , No. 7 6 4 , 1 6 .

The B u r e a u o f N a t i o n a l A f f a i r s .
Government
Relations Report.
D e c e m b e r , 1 9 8 1 , No.
T h o mp s o n , J a me s D.
Organizations
McGraw H i l l , 1967 .

E mp l o y e e
99 0 , 25.

in A c t i o n .

U.S.

News and Wo r l d R e p o r t .
Changes i n Labor Laws. "

U.S.

News and Wo r l d R e p o r t .
"Unions Try t o
I m a g e . “ Mar ch 6 , 1 9 7 8 , J3£, 7 3 - 7 5 .

New Yo r k :

" Th e B a t t l e T h a t ' s B r e w i n g Ove r
J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 7 7 , {^3, 7 7 - 7 8 .
Brighten

von Hof f ma n, N i c h o l a s .
" The L a s t Days o f t h e
Mo v e me n t . "
H a r p e r s , 1978, 257, 22-28.
V e b l e n , T.
The H i g h e r
and Wang"!
1957 .

Learning

in A m e r i c a .

W a l k e r , Ma l c o l m a nd L a w l e r , J o h n J .
P olitical Process."
Industrial
18, 3 2 - 43 .

Their

Labor
New Y o r k :

" Dua l U n i o n s and
R e l a t i o n s , 1979,

Hill

118

We n c e s , R o s a l i o and A b r a m s o n , H . J .
" F a c u l t y O p i n i o n on t h e
I s s u e o f J o b P l a c e m e n t and D i s s e n t i o n i n t h e U n i v e r ­
sity."
S o c i a l P r o b l e m s , 1 9 7 0 , l j J, 2 7 - 3 8 .
Wesley, Edgar.
The NEA:
The F i r s t Hu n d r e d Y e a r s .
Yo r k :
Harper P u b l i s h i n g Co ., 1954.
Wh y t e , W i l l i a m F .
"Who Goes Un i o n a nd Why?"
J o u r n a l , 1 9 4 4 , 23_t 2 1 5 - 2 3 0 .
Wojnar, Rose.
Drive."
1 9 8 2 , 1.

New

Personnel

" C o m p e t i t i v e S a l a r i e s C a l l e d Top I s s u e i n
The S t a t e News, No. 1 6 1 , 76 Nove mbe r 1 2 ,

*U '

W o j n a r , Ro s e and M i l l e r , T r a c e y .
" Un i o n o r No Un i o n ?
F a c u l t y Mixed."
The S t a t e Ne ws , No. 1 6 3 , 7 6 ,
Nove mbe r 1 6 , 1 9 8 2 , 1 - 2 i
Wol man, L e o .
" The E x t e n t o f L a b o r O r g a n i z a t i o n i n t h e
United S t a t e s . "
Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l of Economics, 1916,
30, 486-518.
Y a k e s , Na nc y and A k e y , D e n i s e ( e d s . )
A s s o c i a t i o n s , Vol. I .
Detroit:

t w t .-------------------------------------

Encyclopedi a of
G a l e R e s e a r c h Compa ny,

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE - -

1981

APPENDIX A

FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE - 1.

Whi ch g r o u p SHOULD HAVE t h e m o s t i n f l u e n c e a nd wh i c h
g r o u p ACTUALLY HAS t h e m o s t i n f l u e n c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o
each of t h e f o l l o w i n g items?
Administration
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

2.

Faculty

appointing a department chairperson
A p p o i n t i n g an a c a d e m i c d e a n
C r e a t i n g new e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s
Determining f a c u l t y s a l a r i e s
d e t e r m i n i n g t e n u r e f o r f a c u l t y me mb e r s
determining i n t e r n a l u n i v e r s i t y budget a l l o c a t i o n s
d e t e r m i n i n g u n i v e r s i t y t u i t i o n and f e e s
h i r i n g new f a c u l t y me mb e r s

What i m p a c t do y o u f e e l t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a
c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g u n i t wo u l d h a v e on t h e f o l l o w i n g ?
Great
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

3.

impact

Some i m p a c t

Slight

impact

No i m p a c t

Equalizing fa c u lty sa la rie s across units
I mproving t h e o v e r a l l economic s t a t u s of f a c u l t y
Reducing t h e m e r i t b a s i s of s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s
A c q u i r i n g a d d i t i o n a l f un ds from t h e l e g i s l a t u r e
Giving f a c u l t y g r e a t e r i n vo lv em e nt in d e c i s i o n
mak i ng
Providing g r e a t e r job s e c u r i t y
Improving c u r r e n t g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e s f o r f a c u l t y

To wh a t e x t e n t do you f a v o r
f o r MSU f a c u l t y me mb e r s ?
To a g r e a t e x t e n t
To a s l i g h t e x t e n t

4.

1981

a collective

To some e x t e n t
Do n o t f a v o r a t

bargaining

all

Whi ch o n e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s h o u l d h a v e t h e h i g h e s t
p r io r ity for a facu lty c o lle c tiv e bargaining unit?
a.
b.
c.
d.

salaries
fringe benefits
working c o n d i t i o n s
tenure

119

unit

120
5.

To wh a t e x t e n t
statements?
Agree t o
Agree t o
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
1.

6.

a great extent
a slight extent

of t h e f o l l o w i n g

A g r e e t o some e x t e n t
Do n o t a g r e e a t a l l

Procedures f o r reappointment of f a c u l t y are
g e n e r a l l y f a i r t o t h e f a c u l t y me mb e r s i n v o l v e d .
The m a j o r f u n c t i o n o f a f a c u l t y u n i o n s h o u l d be
striv in g for higher faculty s a la r ie s ,
The u n i v e r s i t y i s d e a l i n g w i t h i t s c u r r e n t
b u d g e t a r y p r o b l e m s i n t h e m o s t r e a s o n a b l e way
possible.
The c u r r e n t g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e s f o r f a c u l t y a r e
adequate.
In t h e l o n g r u n , e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a f a c u l t y
b a r g a i n i n g a g e n t w i l l lower t h e q u a l i t y of t h e
f a c u l t y a t MSU.
Th e r e s h o u l d be g r e a t e r u n i v e r s i t y c o o r d i n a t i o n of
p r o g r a m s , e v e n i f i t me a n s l o s s o f u n i t a u t o n o m y .
A f a c u l t y u n i o n wo u l d p r o v i d e b e t t e r p r o t e c t i o n
a g a in s t dism issal than the te n u re system.
K e e p i n g as many f a c u l t y as p o s s i b l e on t h e j o b
i s mo r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n g i v i n g f a c u l t y a p a y r a i s e .
In t i m e s o f f i n a n c i a l c r i s i s t e n u r e d f a c u l t y
s h o u l d be t h e l a s t t o be f i r e d .
There i s a lack of f a c u l t y i n p u t i n t o t h e
current budgetary decisions,
The c u r r e n t f i n a n c i a l p r o b l e m s o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y
are less s ev ere than they are p o r tr a y e d .
MSU n e e d s a m a j o r r e o r g a n i z a t i o n a t b o t h t h e
c o l l e g e and d e p a r t m e n t l e v e l s .

I n g e n e r a l , how much i n f l u e n c e do U n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y
have o ver t h e f o l l o w i n g m a t t e r s ?
A g r e a t deal
influence
No i n f l u e n c e
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

7.

do you a g r e e w i t h e a c h

of

influence
A m o d e r a t e a mo u n t o f
A s l i g h t a mo u n t o f i n f l u e n c e
at all

curriculum
h i r i n g o f new f a c u l t y
development of f a c u l t y personnel p o l i c i e s
(reappointment, promotion, tenure)
s e l e c t i o n of a department c h a i r p e r s o n
department budget a l l o c a t i o n s
f a c u l t y load d e te r m in a tio n
s e l e c t i o n o f an a c a d e m i c d e a n

Do you f e e l t h a t t h e r e a r e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n wh i c h
s t r i k e o f f a c u l t y wo u l d b e a l e g i t i m a t e me a n s o f
co llectiv e action?
D e f i n i t e l y yes
D e f i n i t e l y not

Probably yes

P r o b a b l y not

a

121
8.

Comp a r e d t o o t h e r f a c u l t y i n y o u r d e p a r t m e n t how much
i n f l u e n c e do you f e e l you h a v e on t h e f o l l o w i n g
department m atters?
A g r e a t deal
influence
No i n f l u e n c e
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

9.

a.

at

satisfaction
Ve r y l ow

is:

A m o d e r a t e a mo u n t
of i n f l u e n c e

of

of o t h e r
high

satisfaction

Ve r y h i g h

How wo u l d y o u d e s c r i b e t h e
f a c u l t y me mb e r s you know?

satisfaction

Fairly

high

of o th e r

f a c u l t y s e e ms t o b e :
F a i r l y l ow

Ve r y

To wh a t e x t e n t do you d i s c u s s y o u r o p i n i o n s and i d e a s
about th e dep ar tm en t with each of th e f o l l o w i n g ?
To a g r e a t e x t e n t
To a s l i g h t e x t e n t
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

11.

a mo u n t

How wo u l d you d e s c r i b e y o u r p e r s o n a l
as a f a c u l t y me mbe r ?

The s a t i s f a c t i o n
high
Fairly
Ve r y l ow
10.

influence
A slight
all

curriculum
h i r i n g o f new f a c u l t y
development of f a c u l t y p e r s o n n e l p o l i c i e s
(reappointment, promotion, tenure)
s e l e c t i o n of a d e p a r t m e n t c h a i r p e r s o n
department budget a l l o c a t i o n s
f a c u l t y load d e te rm in a tio n
s e l e c t i o n o f an a c a d e m i c d e a n

My p e r s o n a l
F a i r l y l ow
b.

of

To some e x t e n t
Do n o t f a v o r a t a l l

t h e c h a i r p e r s o n of your d e p a r t m e n t
f a c u l t y in your d e p a r t m e n t
c h a i r p e r s o n s of s p e c i a l depa r t m e n ta l committees
graduate students
f a c u l t y in o t h e r d e p a r t m e n ts or u n i t s
university administrators (e .g ., provost, president,
dean)
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e AAUP
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e MSUFA

What i s y o u r
Professor
Assistant

academic

rank?

Associate
Professor

Professor
Instructor

Other

122
12.

Co mp a r e d w i t h o t h e r a c a d e m i c d e p a r t m e n t s i n y o u r
d i s c i p l i n e n a t i o n w i d e , how do you r a n k y o u r d e p a r t m e n t
overal 1?
I n t h e t o p 5%
Top 50%

13.

Top 10%
Bo t t o m 50%

How much e m p h a s i s s h o u l d be p l a c e d on e a c h o f t h e
fo ll o w i n g areas w ithin your p a r t i c u l a r department?
A g r e a t emphasis
A s l i g h t emphasis
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

14.

Some e m p h a s i s
No e m p h a s i s a t

In g e n e r a l , do y o u t h i n k o f y o u r s e l f p r i m a r i l y as a
member o f y o u r u n i v e r s i t y , d e p a r t m e n t , o r d i s c i p l i n e ?
Department

To some e x t e n t
Do n o t f a v o r a t a l l

16.

What i s

your sex?

17.

How o l d

we r e you on y o u r

Un d e r 25
35 t o 39
50 t o 54

Femal e

Mal e

last

25 t o 29
40 t o 44
55 t o 59

In wh i c h d e p a r t m e n t
Write

19.

Discipline

To w h a t e x t e n t do you f a v o r a r e f e r e n d u m a t t h i s t i m e on
th e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g agent f o r
MSU f a c u l t y ?
To a g r e a t e x t e n t
To a s l i g h t e x t e n t

18.

all

i n s t r u c t i o n of u n d e r g r a d u a t e majors
i n s t r u c t i o n of g r a d u a t e majors
advisement of grad u ate majors
advisement of undergraduate majors
basic research
applied research
i n s t r u c t i o n of u n d e r g r a d u a t e non-majors

University
15.

Top 25%
Bo t t o m 25%

is your

birthday?
30 t o 34
45-49
60 and o v e r

primary appointment?

In ____________________________________________

Do yo u h a v e mo r e t h a n 25% a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s other than departmental
wo r k ?
Yes

No

committee

123

20.

What

is your t i t l e ?

Instructor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
Department A d m i n i s t r a t o r ( C h a i r , D i r e c t o r ,
A s s o c / A s s t C/ D)
C o l l e g e A d m i n i s t r a t o r ( D e a n , A s s o c / A s s t De a n)
21.

How l o n g h a v e you b e e n i n y o u r c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n
Less t h a n one y e a r
5-10 y e a r s

22.

MSU?

1-4 y e a r s
10-20 y e a r s

What do y o u c o n s i d e r t o
Administration

at

be y o u r

primary r e s p o n s ib ilit y ?

Research

Teaching

APPENDIX B
FACULTY EXCLUDED FROM THE STUDY

APPENDIX B
FACULTY EXCLUDED FROM THE STUDY

F a c u l t y excluded from t h e

st u d y were:

Vi c e P r e s i d e n t
Assistant

Vi c e P r e s i d e n t

Assistant

to the

Associate

Vi c e P r e s i d e n t

Vi c e P r e s i d e n t

Provost
Associate

Provost

Assistant

Provost

Assistant

to the

Provost

Re g i s t r a r
Associate

Registrar

Assistant

Registrar

Dean
Associate

Dean

Assistant

Dean

Di r e c t o r
Associate

Director

Assistant

Director

Chai r p e r s o n
Associate

Chairperson

124

APPENDIX C

VARIABLES USED TO CONSTRUCT NEW INDEX
VARIABLES AND THEIR FACTOR LOADINGS

i

APPENDIX C
VARI ABL ES

D.

E.

F.

C.

D.

VARI ABL ES

1977

1978

1981

NA

. 76

.72

. 78

NA

.67

.72

.60

NA

.83

.60

.77

NA

.68

.26

. 79

Procedures fo r reappointm ent of f a c u l ty
are g e n e ra lly f a ir to the fa c u lty
members i n v o l v e d .

NA

.59

.74

.60

The u n i v e r s i t y i s d e a l i n g w i t h i t s
c u r r e n t b u d g e t i n g p ro b le m s in th e most
r e a s o n a b l e way p o s s i b l e .

NA

.50

.69

.44

The c u r r e n t
fa c u lty are

NA

.80

. 75

. 72

NA

.46

. 55

.47

NA

. 72

.67

.66

NA

.73

. 76

. 74

NA

. 75

. 73

. 74

NA

.62

.67

.57

Bargaining

Improving
facu lty .

the

Impact

overall

Acquiring ad ditional
1e g 1s i a t u r e .

Providing

Group

greater

Agreement

Influence

A.

Curriculum.

B.

Hiring

C.

Development
polic i e s .

of

funds

job

grievance
adequate.

the

in

5)

procedures

for

6)

faculty.
faculty

personnel

D.

Selection

of

department

G.

Selection

of

academic

NA * n o t

from

of

security.

(Questions

of

2)

status

involvement

(Question

new

(Question

economic

Giving f a c u l ty g r e a te r
d e c 1s 1o n - m a k i n g .

Policy
A.

NEW I NOEX
LOADI NGS

1970
C ollective
B.

USED TO CONSTRUCT
ANO T H E I R FACTOR

chairperson.

dean.

asked

125

126

APPENDIX C
VARI ABLES

page

USED TO CONSTRUCT
AND T HE I R FACTOR

NEW I NDEX
LOADI NGS

VARI ABL ES

two
1977

1978

1981

NA

.52

.68

.66

NA

.72

.75

.79

NA

.64

.82

.80

NA

.63

.78

.79

NA

.60

.63

.60

NA

(F ac to r scores not
n e c e s s a r y when
c o m b i n i n g two
simple v a ria b le s )

1970
Personal

Influence

(Question

A.

Curriculum.

8.

Hiring

C.

Development

D.

Selection

of

department

G.

Selection

of

academic

of

new

faculty.

of

faculty

Satisfaction

(Question

A.

Personal

satisfaction.

B.

Other

personnel

policies.

chairperson.

dean.

9)

satisfactio n .

Communication

(Question

A.

The

B.

Faculty

C.

Chairpersons
com m lttees.

chairperson
in

Undergraduate

your
of

Instruction

8.

Advisement

G.

Instruction

of
of
of

Emphasis

B.

Instruction

C.

Advisement

of
of

NA

10)
NA

NA

.68

.51

department.

NA

NA

.68

.62

special

NA

NA

.59

.66

.50

.48

.62

.57

.96

.87

.83

.97

.44

.43

.58

.47

.75

.66

.66

.87

.55

.44

.66

.67

of

Emphasis

A.

Graduate

8)

your

department.

departmental

(Question

undergraduate
undergraduate
undergraduate

(Question
graduate
graduate

13)
majors.
majors.
non-majors.

13)
students.
majors.

AP P E N D I X

D

VARIABLES USED TO CONSTRUCT DEPARTMENT INDEX
VARIABLES AND THEIR FACTOR
LOADINGS, 1981

APPENDIX D

VARIABLES USED TO CONSTRUCT DEPARTMENT INDEX VARIABLES
AND THEIR FACTOR LOADINGS, 1981
Factor

Score

Demand
1 9 80 D e p a r t m e n t F a l l e n r o l l m e n t ,
Lower D i v i s i o n , U n d e r g r a d u a t e

.69

1980 D e p a r t m e n t F a l l E n r o l l m e n t ,
Up p e r D i v i s i o n U n d e r g r a d u a t e

.80

Turnover
A s so ciate P r o fe s s o r not
1 9 8 1 , p r e s e n t i n 1978

present

A s s i s t a n t P r o fe s s o r not
1 9 8 1 , p r e s e n t i n 1978

present

Support

in
.67
in
.66

Services

1980 D e p a r t m e n t

General

Fund B u d g e t

- Labor

1980 D e p a r t m e n t
a nd S e r v i c e s

General

Fund B u d g e t

- Supplies

1980 D e p a r t m e n t

General

.71
.57

Fund B u d g e t

- Equi pment

. 66

Si z e / S u p p l y
1980 D e p a r t m e n t

Fall

Enrollment

1980 D e p a r t m e n t

General

Fund B u d g e t - S a l a r y

.97

1980 D e p a r t m e n t

General

Fund B u d g e t

.96

127

Doctoral

Students

- Total

.87

APPENDIX E

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
INDEX VARIABLES:
1977
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
INDEX VARIABLES:
1978
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
INDEX VARIABLES:
1981

APPENDIX E
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETW
EEN INDEX VARIABLES: 1977
Fa v o r i n g
CB
Group
_________________ CB
Impact I n f l u e n c e
Favori ng
o f CB
CB
Impact

.7 2*

Personal
Influence

Policy
Agr eement

Und e r g r a d .
Emphasi s

Gr a d u a t e
Emphasi s

Satisfaction

Acad.
Rank

Age

-.1 3 *

-.2 2 *

-.4 1 *

-.0 9

-.1 1 *

-.2 8 *

-.1 9 *

-.1 0 *

-.0 8

-.2 3 *

-.3 0 *

-.0 5

-.0 6

-.2 5 *

-.1 7 *

-.0 5

Group
Influence
Personal
Influence
P olicy
Agreement
U ndergraduate
Emphasis
G ra d u a t e
Emphasis
S atisfac tio n
Academic
Rank

C o e f f i c i e n t s a r e b a s e d o n , a t l e a s t , N=307

.37

.46*

.14*

.01

.36*

.27*

.22*

.33*

.01

.03

.30*

.37*

.17*

.12*

.08

.39*

.27 *

-.2 8 *

.34*

.09

.01

.15*

.14*

-.0 2

.05

.07

.03
.65*

APPENDIX E
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETW
EEN INDEX VARIABLES: 1978
Favoring
CB
Group
_________________ CB
Impact I n f l u e n c e
Favoring
o f CB
CB
Impact

.7 7*

Personal
In flu en ce

Policy
Agreement

U ndergrad.
Emphasis

G ra d u a le
Emphasis

S a tisfa ctio n

Acad.
Rank

Age

Communic ation

-.4 8 *

-.4 1 *

-.6 1 *

-.0 5

-.1 5 *

-.4 2 *

-.1 8 *

-.1 1 *

-.2 2 *

-.4 8 *

-.3 7 *

-.5 9 *

.0 0

-.0 9 *

-.4 0 *

-.1 6 *

-.0 4

-.2 3 *

.58*

.58*

.14*

.12*

.50*

.26*

.25*

.31*

.46*

.07

.16*

.44*

.33*

.30*

.40*

.12*

.12*

.54*

.16*

.23*

.30*

.21*

.07

.06

.22*

.07

.11*

.03

.09*

.12*

.16*

.13*

.28*

.49*

.04

Group
Influence
Personal
Influence
P olicy
Agreement
U ndergraduate
Emphasis
G r a d u a te
Emphasis
S a tisfac tio n
Academic
Rank
Age

C o e f f i c i e n t s a r e b a se d o n , a t l e a s t , N=263

.02

APPENDIX E
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INDEX VARIABLES: 1981
Favoring
CB
Group
CB
Im pact I n f l u e n c e
F a v o ri n g
o f CB
CB
Impact

.74*

Personal
In flu en ce

P olicy
Agreement

U n d e rg ra d .
Emphasis
-.0 9

Acad.
Rank

Length of
t im e In
Communi- c u r r e n t
c a tio n P o sitio n

G raduate
Emphasis

S a tisfa c tio n

-.1 4 *

-.3 5 *

-.0 9

.03

- .2 2 *

-.0 5

12*

-.2 6 *

-.0 6

.0 3

-.1 5 *

- . 12*

.0 5

.23*

.03

Age

-.2 8 *

.26*

-.5 8*

-.3 0 *

.19*

-.50*

.09*

.42*

.37*

.01

.06

.36*

.15*

.33*

.01

.01

.36*

.37*

.20*

.52*

. 20*

-.0 6

.03

.44*

.13*

-.0 5 *

.26*

.05

Group
Influence
Personal
Influence
Pol i c y
Agreement

- .

OJ

o
U n d e r g r a d u a te
Emphasis
G r a d u a te
Emphasis
S atisfac tio n
Academic
Rank
Age
Communication

C o e f f i c i e n t s a r e b a se d o n , a t l e a s t , N=290
* P < .05

.07

-.0 6

. 11*

.0 3

-.0 5

.11*

.13*

11*

.13*

.00

07

.00

-.0 4

.35*

- . 02

.63*

.06

.03

.47*

.60*

-.01

APPENDIX F

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING IMPACT ITEMS, RANK AND PERSONAL AND
GROUP INFLUENCE INDEX VARIABLES:
1977
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING IMPACT ITEMS, RANK AND PERSONAL AND
GROUP INFLUENCE INDEX VARIABLES:
1978
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING IMPACT ITEMS, RANK AND PERSONAL AND
GROUP INFLUENCE INDEX VARIABLES:
1981

APPENDIX F
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEENCOLLECTIVE BARGAINING IMPACT ITEMS,
RANKANDPERSONAL ANDGROUP INFLUENCE INDEX VARIABLES: 1977

Academic Personal
Rank Influence
Academic
Rank
Personal
Influence

.3 7*

Group
Influence

E qualize
F ac u lty
S alaries

Improve
Economic
S tatu s

Reduce M e r it
G reater
B asis o f
A c q u ire
Inv olvem en t
S alary
A d d itio n a l
in O ecision
Increases
Funds________ Mak i ng

Job
S e c u rity

Improve
G rie v a n c e
P r o c e d u re s

.27*

.02

-.1 9 *

. 12*

.09*

.15*

.13*

N/A

.37*

- .1 3 *

-.1 6 *

.16*

.1 4*

. 21*

. 22 *

N/A

-.0 5

- . 10*

.09

.02

.08

.06

N/A

.36*

.07

.26*

.29*

.33*

N/A

. 20 *

.57*

.59*

.48*

N/A

.19*

.28*

. 10*

N/A

.54*

.42*

N/A

.63*

N/A

Group
Influence
Equalize F a c u lty
S alaries
Improve Economic
S tatu s
Reduce M e r i t B a s i s
of S alary Increases
A c q u ir e A d d i t i o n a l
Funds
G r e a t e r Inv olvem en t
i n D e c i s i o n Making
Job S e c u r i t y

Coefficients are based on, at least, N= 318

N/A

APPENDIX F
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEENCOLLECTIVE BARGAINING IMPACT ITEMS,
RANKAND PERSONAL ANDGROUP INFLUENCE INDEX VARIABLES: 1978
Academic Personal
Rank Influence
Academic
Rank
Personal
Influence

.33*

Group
In flu en ce

E qualize
F a c u lty
S alaries

Improve
Economic
S ta tu s

Reduce M e r i t
G reater
Basis o f
A c q u ire
Inv o lv em en t
S alary
A dditional
in D ecisio n
Increases
Funds_________ Making

Job
S e c u rity

Improve
G r ie v a n c e
P r o c e d u re s

.26*

.02

.13*

.18*

-.2 4 *

.13*

-.0 6

- . 20*

.58*

-.0 3

.30*

.29*

-.3 0 *

.39*

-.21

-.4 7 *

-.0 5

.35*

.27*

-.3 9 *

.43 *

-.3 3 *

-.5 0 *

.27*

.04

.26*

.23*

.15*

.16*

.28*

.67*

.67*

.42*

.58*

-.3 3 *

.37*

-.1 9 *

- .3 3 *

.62*

.38*

.51*

.48*

. 68 *

Group
Influence
E qualize F acu lty
S alaries
Improve Economic
S ta tu s
Reduce M e r i t B a s i s
of S a lary Increases
A c q u ir e A d d i t i o n a l
Funds
G r e a t e r In v o lv em en t
i n D e c i s i o n Making
Job S e c u r i t y

Coefficients are based on, at least, N= 231

.63*

APPENDIX F
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETW
EEN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IMPACT ITEMS,
RANKANDPERSONAL ANOGROUP INFLUENCE INDEX VARIABLES: 1981
Academic Personal
Rank Influence
Academic
Rank
Personal
Influence

.37*

Group
In flu en ce

Equalize
F a cu lty
S alaries

Improve
Economic
S ta tu s

Reduce M e r i t
G reater
Basis o f
A c q u ir e
Inv o lv em en t
S alary
A dditional
in D ecisio n
Increases
Funds_________ Making

Job
S e c u rity

Improve
G rie v an c e
Procedures

.15*

.02

-.0 8

. 11*

-.00

. 12 *

-.00

-.0 8

.42*

.07

- . 22*

. 21 *

- . 10 *

. 20 *

- . 10*

- . 20*

.00

-.3 0 *

.24*

-.1 7 *

.25*

-.2 6 *

-.2 3 *

.16*

.27*

.06

.04

.17*

.07

.3 0*

.55*

.5 8*

.5 8*

.58*

-.1 8 *

.34*

-.2 4 *

-.2 6 *

.48*

.46*

.40*

.58*

.62*

Group
Influence
Equalize F a c u lty
S alaries
Improve Economic
S tatu s
Reduce M e r i t B a s i s
of S alary Increases
A c q u ir e A d d i t i o n a l
Funds
G r e a t e r Inv olvem en t
1n D e c i s i o n Making
Job S e c u r i t y

Coefficients are based on, at least, N= 333

.67*

APPENDIX G

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMMUNICATION
ITEMS AND ACADEMIC RANK:
1978
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMMUNICATION
ITEMS AND ACADEMIC RANK:
1981

APPENDIX G

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMMUNICATION ITEMS AND ACADEMIC RANK:

Academic
Rank
Chairperson
Academic
Rank
Chairperson

.05

Faculty in
Own Dept.

Chairpersons
Special
Committees

Graduate
Students
-.0 7

1978

Other
F aculty

U niversity
A dm inistrators

-.01

.16*

.01

.02

.51*

.39*

.30*

.24*

.36*

.44*

.18*

.31*

.31*

.26*

.23*

.28*

.28*

.15*

Faculty in
Own Dept.
Chairpersons of
Special Committees
Graduate
Students
F aculty in
Other Depts.

C o e ffic ie n ts are based on, a t l e a s t, N = 241

.34*

APPENDIX G
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMMUNICATION ITEMS AND ACADEMIC RANK:

Academic
Rank
C h a irp erso n

Academic
Rank
C h a ir p e r s o n

-.01

F acu lty in
Own D e p t.

-.0 3

.41*

F a c u l t y in
Own D ept.
C hairpersons of
S p e c i a l Com mittees
G ra d u a te
S tudents
F a c u lty in
O ther O ep ts.
U n iv e rsity
A dm in istrato rs
AAUP

C o e f f i c i e n t s a r e b a s e d o n , a t l e a s t , N = 299

C hairpersons
S pecial
C om m itte es

1981

G ra d u a te
S tu d en ts

Other
F a c u lty

U n iv e rsity
A d m in istra to rs

.17*

- . 11*

.08

. 21 *

.37*

.19*

.09*

.24*

-.00

.40*

.23*

.37*

.1 9*

.05

.06

.33*

.27*

.29*

.00

-.0 4

.27*

. 22 *

.06

-.02

.35*

. 22 *

.15*

.13*

.06*

AAUP

MSUFA

. 12*

.09*

-.08 *

.71*

APPENDIX H

FACULTY SATISFACTION, 1 9 7 7 , 1 9 7 8 , 1981
ONE' S OWN AND PERCEIVED OF OTHERS

APPENDIX H
FACULTY SATISFACTION, 1 9 7 7 , 19 7 8 , 1981:

P ersonal S a t i s f a c tio n (%)

ONE'S OWN AND PERCEIVED OF OTHERS

P e rc e p tio n of S a t is f a c t io n
o f o th e r F a c u lty (%)

•77

•78

'81

'77

'78

*81

Very high

26

28

17

6

3

2

F a i r l y high

48

52

46

56

70

45

F a i r l y low

21

17

25

36

25

46

5

3

11

2

2

7

T otal

100

100

100

100

100

100

Mean

2 .9

3 .0

2 .6

2 .7

2 .8

2.5

N

337

244

351

326

236

343

Very low

S c a le :

Very hi gh = 4

F a i r l y high = 3

136

F a i r l y low = 2

Very low = 1