m I Academic Workplace: New Demands, Heightened Tensions ASltMSRidhiiker Education Research Report 19&3 Ann E. Austin , Zelda E Garrison , Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Duke University Libraries https://archive.org/details/academicworkplac01aust Academic Workplace: New Demands, Heightened Tensions by Ann E. Austin and Zelda F. Gamson ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 10, 1983 INDEX ISSUE, 1983 SERIES Prepared by Clearinghouse on Higher Education The George Washington University Published by mm Association for the Study of Higher Education Jonathan D. Fife, Series Editor Cite as: Austin, Ann E., and Gamson, Zelda F. Academic Workplace: New Demands, Heightened Tensions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 10. Washington, D.C.; Associa- tion for the Study of Higher Education, 1983. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education invites individuals to submit proposals for writing monographs for the Higher Education Research Report series. Proposals must include: 1. A detailed manuscript proposal of not more than five pages. 2. A 75-word summary to be used by several review committees for the initial screening and rating of each proposal. 3. A vita. 4. A writing sample. ISSN 0737-1292 ISBN 0-913317-09-8 Clearinghouse on Higher Education The George Washington University One Dupont Circle, Suite 630 Washington, D.C. 20036 Association for the Study of Higher Education One Dupont Circle, Suite 630 Washington, D.C. 20036 This publication was partially prepared with funding from the National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. 400-82-001 1 . The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of NIE or the Department. ASHE-ERIC HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH REPORT SERIES CONSULTING EDITORS 1^3 >\A Robert H. Atwell Vice President American Council on Education James L. Bess Professor of Higher Education New York University Hunter R. Boylan Director, Kellogg Institute Appalachian State University K. Patricia Cross Harvard University Estelle A. Fishbein General Counsel The Johns Hopkins University Donald R. Gerth President California State University at Dominguez Hill Fred Harcleroad Professor of Higher Education University of Arizona Richard B. Heydinger Assistant to the Vice President for Academic Affairs University of Minnesota Patricia A. Hollander Lawyer Buffalo, N.Y. Norman D. Kurland Executive Director University of the State of New York The State Education Department John Lombardi Consultant Richard Lonsdale Professor of Educational Administration New York University Linda Kock Lorimer Associate General Counsel Yale University Virginia B. Nordby Director Affirmative Action Programs University of Michigan Eugene Oliver Director, University Office of School & College Relations University of Illinois-Champaign Harold Orlans Lawyer Marianne Phelps Assistant Provost for Affirmative Action The George Washington University Gary K. Probst Professor of Reading Prince Georges Community College Robert A. Scott Director of Academic Affairs State of Indiana Commission for Higher Education Cliff Sjogren Director of Admissions University of Michigan Al Smith Assistant Director of the Institute of Higher Education & Professor of Instructional Leadership & Support University of Elorida CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 External Pressures Affecting the University and College as a Workplace 7 The Social Structure of Colleges and Universities 1 1 The Unique Organizational Structure of Colleges and Universities 1 1 The Culture of Higher Education 14 Summary 15 The Work Experience of Faculty 16 Professionals with a Difference 16 Extrinsic Factors in Faculty Work 18 Intrinsic Dimensions in Faculty Work 29 Faculty Power and Participation in Organizational Decisions 32 Relationship to the Organization: Goal Congruence and Foyalty 36 Outcomes of Faculty Work 37 Summary 44 The Work Experience of Administrators 45 Senior Administrators 45 Middle Administrators 53 A Foot in Administration, A Foot in Academics: Academic Deans and Department Chairs 62 Fower-level Administrators 65 Summary 65 Conclusions and Recommendations 66 Policy Implications 66 Research Agendas 72 Appendix 75 References 92 Subject Index, 1983 Series 1 1 5 Author Index, 1983 Series 122 FOREWORD Higher education institutions have changed dramatically in the past 20 to 30 years as a workplace. Essentially, an institution is a workplace of two cultures: faculty and administrators. In the past, the faculty have been the dominant group affecting the conditions of the workplace with administrators being subservient to the influences of the faculty. Today the role and importance of each group has changed considerably and each affects the other as the institution adjusts to a rapid environmental and social evolution. In this report, by Ann E. Austin, Assistant Professor in the Department of Education Administration and Higher Education, at Oklahoma State University and Zelda F. Gamson, Professor of Education in the Center for the Study of Higher Education and the Residential College at the University of Michigan, the literature on academe as a workplace, is carefully examined. Starting from a postion of reviewing the external pressures and the social structure of colleges and universities, the authors then examine the work experience of both faculty and administrators. From this review, the authors conclude with a series of policy implications and recommendations for future research agendas that will prove to be most helpful as institutional leaders strive to create a better balance between the needs of those working for the institution and the demands being placed in the institution. V Jonathan D. Fife Director and Series Editor ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education The George Washington University IP ^'^inifl-- ■ n,..»itlAt. .■ . -■ J '. , \M rr^WvM ■i^ |ifi« .,^. mint": r »,{'♦« " ""wiDtfc^ y'» ym ::ytiVi (‘-iV 0mp'^': "M '"Ul'f* ' '>■<■ ,;''"i^ < "’ ‘'‘rf V'l ■ I- ilil.lVt* ^ri#4u#r ' tj^ I W.- ■ k. •:%;•■ '■'•■• . ■■• ■ ® ?^f:: ■/:;>•, ,Jf5Pp;»;v r: K'C'"?-f vV5' 'I ■ , ., ^v. ■> $^Ji>?»y/>viji; i-.i ■'■ .‘7;5a ' ^ £ v;: ■ ^v"S''4|if > '■ ; ... .,->::^;:‘->iiv>> ^^■■^^^i''<- jh..:§..^^i '\ V ■ ..( KVvrf•<^^^^<®il3855*i^•?|yff/• \i> * ’. ’•. -■ ./P'’' -. /■ • i ■ '"Vv.-'y ■■Ti'5 ... iV; •.■' ‘ . • H- ' ■ > i< .... ' ''■'^■f5; -®j^ i^': ■i,'’^ ,,' ■■ ■-. ' < A;fJ^,'u-, : ■ ■' ' ' '■:, ■-. .'. .'■ . ':-'-Y ' ■'. '* ^ ■ *' ■ " -M'B >. " ^ ■ Tjr . ® EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For many years, the quality of worklife in universities and colleges has been seen as ideal compared to working condi- tions in other settings. But higher education is now experi- encing pressures from several directions that may alter its assumed advantages for the people working in it. Under conditions of retrenchment, decisions are being made that may have momentous consequences for the quality of life of those who work in higher education and therefore for the quality and productivity of their institutions. More complete knowledge of the work experience of those employed in colleges and universities and greater attention to the quality of the university or college as a workplace could contribute to better performance. How Do Externa! Pressures Affect Universities and Colleges as Workplaces? While the growth rate of revenues to colleges and universi- ties has slowed, necessary expenditures have been increas- ing. With a simultaneous drop in enrollment at many insti- tutions, economic pressures have led to salary cutbacks, the termination of positions, and fewer available resources. Shifts in the labor market have resulted in increased com- petition for available positions. Diminished public support has weakened the prestige of higher education, and in- creased federal and state regulations threaten institutional autonomy. Universities and colleges are mixed organizations, oper- ating basically with a bureaucratic structure on the admin- istrative side and a collegial structure on the academic side (Baldridge 1971a, 1971b; Bess 1982; Corson 1960, 1975; Millett 1962). This duality has complicated decision making in colleges and universities for a long time. As current environmental pressures require the allocation of resources among competing groups, these internal structural tensions are heightened. In the face of rising costs, public demands for accountability, and a tight labor market, the collegial structure of colleges and universities is fragmenting. As more decision making occurs in the bureaucratic structure, power shifts away from the faculty toward the administra- tion. This trend toward centralization changes the culture of colleges and universities, eroding the spirit of collegial- ity, the informal work style, and the support for autonomy characteristic of work within higher education. Higher education is now experiencing pressures . . . that may alter its assumed [career] advantages. Academic Workplace 1 What Approach Can Be Taken to Examine Universities and Colleges as Workplaces? The work experience of faculty, administrators, and sup- port staff can be analyzed according to the characteristics of their work and work environment, the extent of their power and autonomy, and their relationship to the institu- tion. Though variations in work experience undoubtedly relate to such variables as the type, size, and location of the institution and whether the institution is publicly or privately controlled, generalizations about institutions of diverse types are possible. How Do Faculty Members Experience Their Work and Their Workplace? Professors are professionals of a special type. In contrast to professionals in other areas, professors have different bodies of knowledge and responsibilities, which vary according to their disciplines. As members of both a pro- fession and an organization, faculty members often face role conflicts and ambiguous demands concerning their research and teaching. Because a close relationship exists between the college or university where professors are employed and the nature of their academic work, external pressures on their institutions have considerable impact on the worklife of faculty members (Finkelstein 1978). The role of faculty members is characterized by long hours and a variety of tasks (Shulman 1980). The particular allocations of faculty members’ time to teaching, research, service, and publishing relate to the type of college or university where they work, their discipline, their age, and the stage of their career (Blackburn, Behymer, and Hall 1978; Ladd 1979; Pelz and Andrews 1976). The greatest sources of role strain for faculty are excessive demands to do too many discrete tasks (Baldwin and Blackburn 1981; Bess 1982; Finkelstein 1978). As financial pressures affect colleges and universities, professors carry heavier work- loads and face conflicting demands. Restricted opportunity for growth is a major problem as well. Career paths in universities typically have short advancement ladders and flat salary curves (Kanter 1979). Many young scholars fail to find secure positions, and some tenured professors confront program cutbacks and in some cases the closure of programs and institutions. 2 Over the last decade, professors have lost 20 percent of their purchasing power (Anderson 1983). While this figure varies according to the type and geographic location of the institution and the faculty member’s teaching area (Carne- gie Council 1980), the conclusion cannot be refuted that extrinsic rewards for professorial work are declining. It is fortunate that such intrinsic aspects of their work as auton- omy and freedom, intellectual exchange, and the opportu- nity to work with students relate most strongly to faculty members’ satisfaction (Lewis and Becker 1979; McKeachie 1979). While intrinsic factors may be most important in promoting professors’ satisfaction, however, extrinsic aspects of their work have been linked to dissatisfaction (Finkelstein 1978). If financial remuneration drops suffi- ciently low, faculty may express considerable dissatisfac- tion while still valuing the intrinsic motivators. The research on faculty members’ power and participa- tion in organizational decisions indicates that professorial rank and credentials, institutional size, and institutional prestige relate to the degree of professors’ power and autonomy (Baldridge et al. 1973; Cares and Blackburn 1978; Finkelstein 1978; Kenen and Kenen 1978). Current external pressures and the responses of colleges and Uni- versities to those pressures are threatening faculty auton- omy (Carnegie Foundation 1982). Faculty members’ par- ticipation in decision making also has declined over the last decade, especially in community colleges. These lower levels of faculty involvement in decision making and plan- ning have been linked to declining morale among profes- sors (Anderson 1983). How Do Administrators Experience Colleges and Universities as Workplaces? The experience of the senior administrator is changing as external pressures increase. Presidents feel considerable autonomy and power and report general satisfaction with their work. Increased state and federal regulations, how- ever, often weaken the autonomy of campus officials (Kauffman 1980). While lack of time always has caused dissatisfaction, presidents are experiencing more stress as they deal with economic and other problems (Buxton, Pritchard, and Buxton 1976). Deans and department chairs are caught between the differing expectations of faculty Academic Workplace 3 and administrators (Booth 1982; Griffiths and McCarty 1980). As a result of greater budgetary problems and in- creasing demands for accountability, the strains of their positions multiply. Middle administrators, the largest group of administra- tors, have a peculiar role in the mixed organizational struc- ture of colleges and universities. While they implement policy, they seldom make policy decisions (Scott 1978). Despite limited opportunity for advancement, low status, and comparably low salary scales, the commitment of middle administrators to their institutions and to higher education remains high. Reasons for this commitment include the autonomy and freedom generally available in work in higher education, the opportunity to meet interest- ing people, and pride in the contributions higher education makes to society (Austin forthcoming; Thomas 1978). Their satisfaction remains quite high, too, though factors contributing to dissatisfaction include limited opportunities for advancement, limited time, and insufficient resources and staff (Scott 1978; Solomon and Tierney 1977). Given the frustrations middle administrators describe, it is sur- prising that their reported dissatisfaction is not greater. Perhaps the intrinsic rewards they enjoy serve as suffi- cient compensation. But if the extrinsic characteristics de- cline further, their commitment and satisfaction may be threatened. What Conclusions and Policy Recommendations Emerge from the Study of Universities and Colleges as Workplaces? Faculty and administrators traditionally have experienced varied, fairly autonomous work, good working conditions, and strong psychic rewards. Centralization of power and bureaucratization of decision making may be leading to a decline in morale, however. Administrators are not solely responsible for this shift. Rather, it reflects the limitations of the organizational structure of many colleges and uni- versities as they have faced serious pressures from the outside. Competition both across and within departments means that the faculty as a corporate body cannot articu- late their institutions’ purposes or act together. This vac- uum ensures the dominance of the bureaucratic structure. The shift also may mean that the traditionally “normative' 4 orientation of colleges and universities is becoming more “utilitarian.” The conventional response has been to push the struc- tures and the people who work within them to the limits of their strengths. Such an approach will not succeed, except in the very short run. Instead, it is time that we enhance the limited efforts within higher education and the more extensive work in other sectors to improve organizational practice (Kanter 1983; Naisbitt 1982; Peters and Waterman 1982). We must take special care not to squander the strong commitment of many employees in colleges and universities. Leaders of colleges and universities must pay as much attention to the culture of their institutions as to their finances. They must learn how to articulate their institutions’ purposes and to build structures for maintain- ing and increasing the commitment of all employee groups. Task and decision-making structures must be more collaborative. Higher education could learn from the in- creasing attention industrial organizations are giving to management techniques that encourage participation (Powers and Powers 1983). Finally, programs for career planning and employee growth must become more perva- sive. New ideas for expanding the mobility and choices of individuals in higher education include innovative arrange- ments of workload, internships in government or industry, short administrative assignments, and exchange programs (Schurr 1980; Toombs and Marker 1981). We must use the best organizational research and practice so that the qual- ity of worklife in universities and colleges can be im- proved. In the process, so will the quality of employees’ performance. What Are the Most Pressing Questions to Explore? While a body of knowledge is developing about the aca- demic institution as a workplace, further attention should be directed to the experiences of different employee groups in a variety of colleges and universities. Such institutional variables as size, selectivity, and public or private support should be considered. Much more is known about faculty and senior administrators than about other employee groups, particularly clerical staff, women, and part-time and minority employees. Comparative study with other Academic Workplace 5 sectors — business settings, government, and service agen- cies — may provide useful ideas for colleges and universi- ties dealing with retrenchment. EXTERNAL PRESSURES AFFECTING THE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE AS A WORKPLACE The growth of higher education in the several decades before the middle 1960s made universities and colleges desirable places to work, at least for faculty members and administrators. Steady financial support and high public esteem encouraged the feeling that higher education stood at the center of society. Faculty power was unparalleled, administrative opportunity wide open. For the last 15 years, however, several external forces have combined to reduce the appeal of colleges and univer- sities as work environments. Some of these forces have affected institutional structures and milieux directly; others have acted indirectly through their effects on the major actors — administrators, faculty, and staff — who most determine the nature of work in colleges and universities. These forces have deepened tensions that have been present in higher education for a long time. First is economic pressure. The extent of financial sup- port to higher education has been important historically in determining the atmosphere and activities of colleges and universities. The 1950s and 1960s, the “golden years,” saw revenues for higher education increased dramatically. From 1949-50 to 1969-70, annual revenues in constant dollars expanded sixfold. Since 1969-70, the annual growth rate in revenues has leveled off to 5 percent or 6 percent; on a per-student basis, revenues have been increasing at a rate of only 1.5 percent since 1969-70 (Bowen 1978). For three decades, the federal government devoted huge sums of money to financial aid for students, institutional programs, and research; that support has been shrinking — in some categories disappearing altogether. At the same time, state governments have restricted their support for higher education. The increase in state appropriations for 1982-83 was only 6 percent above appropriations for 1981- 82. This situation is in marked contrast to the two previous decades, when state tax appropriations increased at an average of 14 percent per year (Magarrell 1982a). At the same time, expenditures have been increasing. The impact of the U.S. (and world) economy is apparent in the widening gap between income and expenditures in many institutions. While the rate of growth in educational and general expenditures per student dropped in the early 1970s, the number of schools reporting expenditures ex- ceeding income has been rising since the mid-1970s (Na- [External] forces have deepened tensions that have been present in higher education for a long time. Academic Workplace 1 tional Center for Education Statistics 1980). The causes include inflation, rapidly rising energy costs, a more ten- ured and therefore more expensive faculty, and federal programs and regulations that require new administrative staff. In this situation, the drop in enrollments that has already hit some institutions and is projected to hit others very soon means greater costs per student. Institutions have responded to this cost-income squeeze by freezing salaries, by limiting new construction and physical maintenance, and by not filling vacant positions (Mortimer and Tierney 1979). All of these measures have affected the quality of worklife in colleges and universities. Economic stringency, expressed in decreasing levels of state and federal aid to higher education and increasing costs, is the most powerful external pressure for change in the university as a workplace. Its mildest impact is seen in fewer new pieces of equipment and careful monitoring of expenses. Its most severe impact translates into minimal salary increases, program closures, and permanent layoffs. Closely connected to these economic pressures are shifts in the labor market. Universities and colleges are particu- larly susceptible to an “opportunity squeeze”: “More people, including people not traditionally in the work force, want more jobs, with better opportunity for career growth, and more chance for participation in decisions and power over events, at a time when the economy is not automatically expanding — and in educational systems, is even declining” (Kanter 1981, p. 556). Eewer positions, either for new or veteran faculty, pit more people against one another for whatever jobs are available. The young scholars who do manage to find positions have little assur- ance that they will receive the tenure that will guarantee them continuing employment. Those who already have tenure discover that they may have traded mobility for security, because the tight job market limits the opportuni- ties open to them in other academic institutions. Under severe economic stringency, some tenured faculty may even face losing their once-secure jobs. Pessimists among us suggest that fully one-half of all tenured professors are, or soon will be, locked in, blocked, frustrated, stuck, trapped. In addition, we now know that tenure is no protection against irrational 8 termination. There are signs that every year during the mid-SO’s over 5,000 tenured professors may find their positions eliminated. As college closings multiply — as many as 500 could close in the next decade — the faculty members will not be able to count on any institutional base for possible alternate positions. Even should these predictions prove to be far too pessimistic, no one doubts that we are moving into a period when many tenured faculty will need to reevaluate their careers and reassess their economic situation (Schurr 1980, p. 1). The influence of declining enrollments on the financial difficulties of many colleges and universities, especially those that cannot count on attracting traditional students, has already been noted. Enrollment shifts have other effects as well, and declining enrollments lie behind a number of problems. “Most of the troublesome, profes- sional, organizational, collegial, and client-related prob- lems faced by . . . college professors are related in one way or another to the dilemma of attracting students while maintaining high intellectual standards” (Parelius 1981, p. 13). Once colleges and universities had to grow to meet the high demand for their services; now they must find ways to stimulate enough demand. Many find themselves analyzing their “image,” looking into “marketing tech- niques,” and “packaging themselves” to appeal to new “clienteles.” Such changes undoubtedly make institutions more responsive, but they also communicate new and sometimes conflicting messages to their employees. Intertwined with these economic and demographic forces are cultural and political forces. While higher educa- tion was hailed in the 1950s and 1960s as the answer to everyone’s problems, in the more sober 1980s it has lost much of its special role. As a result, the professional status of those who work in colleges and universities has de- clined. To make matters worse, regulations tied to the disbursement of monies from the federal government and statewide master planning have limited institutions’ capac- ity to determine their own fates. . . . The most serious problem encountered by higher education is the cumulative impact of government inter- vention. Taken by itself, any single action may not be Academic Workplace 9 unbearably intrusive, but the combined impact of many actions can nearly sujfocate an institution (Carnegie Foundation 1982, p. 65). The Carnegie Foundation report condemns state and federal demands for greater accountability as “intrusive.” Arguing that these external demands threaten institutional self-governance, it states that “campus leaders, from presidents on down, feel caught in a confusing bureaucratic web that demands accountability but provides few incen- tives for responsible decision making” (1982, p. 67). Because of certain structural tensions and because of limited experience in dealing with contraction, colleges and universities have been especially vulnerable to these exter- nal pressures. The effect has been the erosion of some of the qualities — the spirit of collegiality, the informal work style, the support for autonomy — that university employ- ees, particularly the faculty, have enjoyed. This aspect of the current period of decline is only beginning to be recog- nized in higher education, at the very time that much attention is being given to the quality of worklife in other sectors of the economy. The striking feature of the current situation is that higher education, as it has been forced to deal with severe pressures, may be moving in the opposite direction — toward lower participation, more hierarchy, less job security, and blocked opportunity. 10 THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES While in many respects universities and colleges are simi- lar to other organizations as workplaces, certain factors make them unique. Universities and colleges have tradi- tionally been viewed as comfortable, low-pressure, “good” places to work. The special goals, purposes, and values of universities and colleges contribute to their distinctiveness. So does the complexity of their organiza- tional arrangements, in which bureaucratic and collegial structures operate simultaneously. A good deal has been written about the social structure of colleges and universi- ties and the ways it influences governance. This chapter examines what makes universities and colleges unique as workplaces, taking into consideration the impact of current pressures. The Unique Organizational Structure of Colleges and Universities For years, researchers have debated about the organiza- tional and governance models that best describe colleges and universities. The literature on governance in higher education is oriented more toward the university than other types of institutions; consequently, this section pertains more to the university than to the smaller college in its analysis of organizational and governance models. While some assert that the university has a bureaucratic, i hierarchical structure, others contend that collegial rela- j tionships are more characteristic. “Loosely coupled” / (Weick 1976), “anarchic” (Cohen and March 1974), and / “political” (Baldridge 1971a, 1971b) have been used to / I describe the university environment. ' A number of investigators have ascribed to a bureau- cratic model based on Max Weber’s description of the formal organization of bureaucracy. A bureaucracy is an organization designed to meet its particular goals in the most efficient way possible. To achieve this end, a hierar- chical structure is established by which authority moves downward from a chief executive office through a specified chain of command. Within such a system, authority and “legal rationality” are the dominant modes of interchange rather than friendship or personal loyalty. Promotion is awarded on the basis of competence, and payment is made according to formal criteria. Some assert that the university [is] bureaucratic . . . , others • • • collegial. . . . Academic Workplace 11 Corson (1960, 1975) asserts that universities follow a bureaucratic model in which the academic organization makes academic decisions and the administrative organiza- tion makes administrative decisions. Fixed salary scales, r academic ranks, the tenure system, and the separation of I personal and organizational property are all taken as evi- dence of bureaucracy in higher education. The university is a corporate person by virtue of its state charter, it has a formal hierarchy with established (though sometimes blurry) channels of communication and authority, it has a formal structure of rules and regulations and of record keeping and requirements, and decisions and problems often lie within the domain of a particular office (Baldridge 1971a). Blau (1973) also sees bureaucratic elements in the university’s administrative hierarchy, formal division of labor, and clerical apparatus. I The “collegial model” is a common alternative advanced to describe decision making and governance within the university (Millett 1962; Parsons and Platt 1968). Support- ers of the collegial model point to an informal hierarchy and identify the source of power within the university as f based on professional expertise rather than on official ' position. According to the collegial model, the university is best characterized as a system of informal communication among a community of scholars. These scholars are profes- sional equals who work together to make decisions through group consensus (Mortimer and McConnell 1978). These community-derived decisions are then implemented by the administration. “Compliance in institutions committed to high standards of scholarship and investigation is the \ product of reciprocal relationships depending on colle- gial associations, on the sharing of information, and on discussions and persuasion” (McConnell and Mortimer 1971, p. 3). Baldridge (1971a) finds the collegial model too saniti^d. The reality has a good deal more conflict in it than the collegial model admits. While consensus may occur even- tually about a decision, it comes at the end of considerable dissent and jockeying. Arguing that neither the bureau- cratic nor the collegial model explains faculty strikes, student unrest, and external pressure, Baldridge (1971a. 1971b) offers an alternative, the “political model.” Accord- ing to this model, the university is a pluralistic organization 12 I comprised of many diverse interest groups whose goals are not necessarily in harmony with one another. Each group articulates its own interests and tries to exert pressure on those making decisions. The dynamics of decision making depend on which groups interact and claim interest in a given issue. Through the “dynamic political process” by p which these groups use their power and influence, deci- / sions and policies gradually emerge (Baldridge 1971a, 1971b). Conflict erupts when the customary patterns of behavior guiding groups and positions break down. The coexistence of collegial and bureaucratic frame- works is anomalous: “Faculty govern themselves through ^ peer control and collegial norm enforcement, while staff i ' units commonly are structured bureaucratically and hierar- ; chically. Within these groupings, then, faculty interact with j others of presumably equal status, while staff members j agree to a differentiated power status in their organiza- i tional settings” (Bess 1982, p. 120). The framework of a college or university has “distinct architectural features” (Corson 1979, p. 5). The staff and line employees are in a relationship that is the reverse of what is found in business or government; while “the staff experts, the teachers and researchers, carry out the organization’s production func- tion,” the administrators retain line authority over support stalf (Corson 1979, p. 5). Furthermore, academic employ- ees work within a relatively flat organizational structure, with few levels separating them from top executives, in distinct contrast to most industrial settings. Katz and Kahn (1978) apply their theory of five organi- zational subsystems to colleges and universities: The president, deans, and department chairs constitute the managerial subsystem; the faculty the production system; the clerical and maintenance staff the maintenance subsys- tem; the admissions and other student support staff the supportive subsystem; and the institutional research staff the adaptive subsystem. An individual employee’s work within the university is formulated largely by the demands of the subsystem of which the job is a part. With bureaucratic and professional authority structures existing simultaneously and with a myriad of subgroups and individuals oriented toward their own as well as the institution’s goals, the university is inevitably laden with conflict. Even in normal circumstances, the conflicts be- Academic Workplace 13 tween hierarchical and collegial expectations laid on top of the loosely defined relationships between various univer- sity and college units (Weick 1976) engender “inadequacies in interunit and interpersonal relations in colleges and universities that are greater than in most profit-making organizations” (Bess 1982, p. 92). It is not clear, however, what “normal circumstances” really are. Certainly in the present situation of scarce resources — a situation likely to be normal for the next decade at least — it is clear that many issues arising in colleges and universities have impli- cations for the allocation of resources. The allocation of resources inevitably engenders politics. Under certain conditions, it also leads to the centralization of power. The Culture of Higher Education Another important way to understand universities and colleges as workplaces is based on their culture. The my- thology of academic culture portrays universities and colleges as places in which administrators, professors, and staff members gain satisfaction from their contributions to the intellectual development of students and to the produc- tion of knowledge for society. Since the mid-19th century, novels about university life such as Loring’s Two College Friends (1871), Flandrau’s Harvard Episodes (1897), Barnes’s A Princetonian: A Story of Undergraduate Life at the College of New Jersey (1901), and Gather's The Professor’s House (1925) have supported this view. The culture of an organization has been linked to the kind of compliance system that characterizes the relation- ship between subordinates and superordinates. Compliance is “a relationship consisting of the power employed by superiors to control subordinates and the orientation of the subordinates to this power” (Etzioni 1961, p. xv). Compli- ance structures differ in organizations; in general, organi- zations can be divided into three types — normative, utili- tarian, and coercive — according to their compliance structures. Colleges and universities are predominantly normative, with strong utilitarian elements, especially on the administrative side (Etzioni 1961). Reward systems in colleges and universities are based piimarily on the belief that a university is involved in good work. Given this kind of culture, faculty and administrators “attracted to institu- tions of higher education will likely include individuals 14 possessing much intellectual curiosity . . . [who are] willing to trade greater rewards for a relatively free and unregi- mented work style” (Corson 1979, p. 4). Responses to external pressures seem to be changing the appeal of universities and colleges. External demands for accountability, for example, have led to a greater emphasis on the measurement of outputs and formal evaluation. If faculty, administrators, or staff feel that employment policies made in response to external pressures do not reflect a recognition of the quality of their services and of their commitment, they may withdraw their normative attachment to their institutions and to higher education in general. They may come to perceive their work as more “utilitarian” than “normative” (Etzioni 1961). Summary Because the university or college is a unique workplace with both bureaucratic and collegial structures, it has built- / in tensions. While some employees, such as department chairs and deans, live in both worlds, other employees, such as many mid-level administrators, faculty, and nonac- ademic clerical staff, are more clearly located in one or the other. At times, authority centered in a particular office in the bureaucratic structure may conflict with authority based in the collegial structure. The collegial structure itself has been shaped in recent years by the rapid growth of higher education after World War II and by an “aca- demic revolution” that has weakened institutional (as opposed to disciplinary) loyalty (Jencks and Riesman 1968). The current pressures from the external environ- ment heighten those tensions as resources must be allo- cated in new ways. The collegial structure has become so fractured in many institutions that it can do nothing more than provide the backdrop for departmental competition over scarce resources. One result is that decisions nor- mally reserved for the collegial structure are made in the bureaucratic structure. This shift in power away from faculty toward administrators is probably the most impor- tant change that has occurred in higher education in recent years. It may move the culture of colleges and universities away from normative to more utilitarian values. And it is undoubtedly affecting the way academic workers experi- ence their institutions and their work. Academic Workplace 15 THE WORK EXPERIENCE OF FACULTY The life of a professor has been portrayed as quiet and somewhat sheltered, but whether that portrayal was ever true is uncertain. In any case, as financial pressures and institutional tensions make the life of the professor less secure, “the future looks different from what most profes- sors expected when they got into teaching” (Larkin and Clagett 1981, p. 1). Research on the work experience of faculty is extensive, but it is fragmented and rather unor- ganized. This review identifies the most important charac- teristics of the work experience of faculty members and considers the impact of current environmental pressures on those characteristics, including the extrinsic and intrin- sic elements of faculty members’ work, their power and autonomy, their relationships to the institution, and the outcomes of their work.' Table I in the appendix sum- marizes findings concerning the work experience of fac- ulty members. Professionals with a Difference Those who view college teaching as a typical profession cite the “basic body of abstract knowledge,” the “ideal of service,” the high social status, prestige, educational credentials, and autonomy, and the peer review of profes- sorial work (Blau 1973). In some important respects, how- ever, professors differ significantly from other profession- als. While the work of the academy is based on a body of abstract knowledge, that body of knowledge differs for each discipline. The specific responsibilities of academic work and faculty orientations toward research and teaching also vary across disciplines (Finkelstein 1978). The service ideal of the professional generally requires serving the needs of clients through the exercise of detached, objective expertise. Yet professors are expected to be much more involved with their clients, especially graduate students, than are other professionals. Aside from students, the clients of faculty are diffusely defined and diverse — peers, the general public, and sometimes governmental or private funding agencies (Bess 1982; Blau 1973; Light 1974). The professorial role also differs from other professions in acceptable career routes. While most professions offer I Much of the literature discussed was first analyzed in Finkelstein's comprehensive review (1978). The particular challenges that part-time faculty face are not included in this review. 16 several possible legitimate career routes, in higher educa- tion only one is promoted as the ideal. A graduate of law school will be considered equally successful as a lawyer, judge, law professor, or executive. “In the scholarly pro- fessions, [however,] . . . new members are trained only to be scholars, even though only a fraction of them will pub- lish” (Light 1974, p. 16). Furthermore, more than in other professions, it is the employing institution that defines the professor as a professional; “A doctor is a doctor wher- ever he may be, but a professor is a professor only if em- ployed by a college or university. This close connection with one type of institution means that the structure of the institutions and the nature of academic work have always interacted with each other” (Light 1974, p. 17). For this reason, external pressures on colleges and universities can profoundly affect the worklife of faculty members./^ Not only are universities and colleges different from other workplaces. The position of academic professionals ' within them also has peculiar dynamics. The simultaneous i membership in a profession and an organization often leads to role conflicts (Baldridge 1971a, 1971b; Scott 1966; ' Stonewater 1977). For many faculty members, conflict j often occurs between the organization’s demands for ' productivity as evidenced by research and their preference 1 1 for teaching. Believing that research is the most rewarded i j activity in their institutions, they are troubled if they are 1 1 not engaged in it (Hind 1969; Ladd 1979). Professors’ sense I of what faculty should be doing is not in line with “what I I they actually do and want to do” (Ladd 1979, p. 5). Fac- I j ulty members who see good teaching as a priority for I higher education do not feel they receive encouragement i for it from colleagues, especially at research universities I I (Blau 1973). Faculty often receive mixed signals about i how to allocate their energies among research, teaching, and service to achieve tenure. Assistant professors in par- ticular feel that criteria for review are ambiguous (Rich and Jolicoeur 1978). The strain is greatest when research- oriented faculty are pushed to teach and teaching- I oriented faculty are pressured to do more research (Finkel- stein 1978). In addition to mixed signals about priorities, the fac- ulty’s daily responsibilities add to strain. “The central source of role conflict/strain lies in ‘incongruous demands’ Faculty often receive mixed signals about how to allocate their energies among research^ teaching, and service. . . . Academic Workplace 17 placed upon faculty” (Finkelstein 1978, p. 309). Faculty are often pressured by excessive demands and too many discrete tasks (Barnard 1971; Bess 1982; Larkin and Cla- gett 1981; Parsons and Platt 1968). Teaching load increases role strain (Morgan 1970). The burden is apparently spread unevenly: In Morgan’s study, natural scientists had the lowest teaching load and the least role conflict; humanities and social science faculty carried heavier teaching loads and experienced greater role strain. The research on role conflict is plagued by several prob- lems (Finkelstein 1978). The dependent variable, role conflict, is inconsistently defined across studies. Some- times role conflict is indexed by incompatibilities between teaching and research, while in other studies it is defined as the strain created by conflicting demands from the various members of a professor’s role set. Studies also differ in how they define the members of the professor’s role set; usually students and administrators are treated inconsis- tently. Whatever the solution to these conceptual prob- lems, however, it is clear that as colleges and universities offer tenure to fewer professors, how faculty should spend their time will become a matter of great import. Economic pressures that lead to cutbacks in clerical support, equip- ment, and positions will mean that the remaining faculty will have more work and therefore greater role strain. Extrinsic Factors in Faculty Work The sociological literature on work discusses both extrinsic and intrinsic dimensions of jobs. Extrinsic dimensions focus on the environment and conditions under which the work is done. They usually include workload, working conditions, supervisory practices, rewards, opportunity structures, and other policies regulating the conditions of employment. Intrinsic factors pertain more to the nature of the work itself — how it is done and how it affects the employee. Among intrinsic dimensions are the variety of different activities involved in doing the work, the degree to which the employee performs a task from beginning to end, the autonomy the individual has in doing the work, the responsibility involved, and the amount of feedback concerning performance that the employee receives. This section analyzes the extrinsic aspects of faculty work, focusing especially on workload and activities, opportunity 18 structure, and reward structure. The following section Ifocuses on the intrinsic aspects of faculty work. i^ctivities and workload fin recent years, as universities and colleges have been [pressured to cut costs, the study of faculty workload has [received considerable attention. Increasingly, “higher [education is recognized as a contracting industry experi- jencing the full impact of the problems of today’s economic workplace. . . . These pressures . . . are compelling college Smanagers to seek ways of reducing personnel costs, while ijat the same time striving to deliver a quality output within ja labor-intense framework” (Douglas, Krause, and Wino- igora 1980, p. 1). The literature on faculty workload in- ludes quantitative studies, such as analyses of credit ours taught, contact hours, and student full-time equiva- flent credit hours produced, as well as faculty members’ Ireports of their own activities (Ladd 1979; Parsons and jiPlatt 1968; Shulman 1980; Wendel 1977; Willie and Steck- ein 1981; Yuker, 1974). A common theme in studies of faculty workload is that Ijprofessors are engaged in a wide variety of tasks. As al- [ready noted, excessive demands to perform discrete tasks [are the greatest source of role strain for faculty members (Baldwin and Blackburn 1981; Barnard 1971; Bess 1982; Larkin and Clagett 1981; Morton 1965; Parsons and Platt 11968; Wendel 1977). While variety is important for mean- lingful, satisfying work in less skilled jobs (Hackman and Oldham 1980), too many different responsibilities may -threaten those in highly skilled jobs. ilcl jh- It would appear that college instructors are asked to do many different things and need to spend long hours to accomplish those tasks. If the concerned publics are interested in getting the most out of the professor, they may need to give serious consideration to the problem . . . that many professors work at a lower level of effi- ciency because they are doing too many things (Wendel 1977, p. 84). As faculty and staff positions are cut, fewer professors will pe required to handle more responsibilities, a requirement hat will increase pressures on faculty members’ time. ^Academic Workplace 19 Faculty members report average work weeks of between 44 and 55 hours (Ladd 1979; Shulman 1980; Wendel 1977). Faculty activities have always been divided between teach- ing and scholarship, with service activities more an after- thought. Students of higher education have classified professors as academics with professional orientations or academics with organizational orientations (Lazarsfeld and Thielens 1958), as scholars or educators (Wilson 1964), or as cosmopolitans or locals (Gouldner 1957, 1958). Issues of classification aside, it is clear that the great majority of faculty members express a preference for teaehing. When asked to identify themselves as “scholars’7“scientists’7 “intellectuals” or as “teachers’7“professionals,” 70 per- cent of all faculty members chose the second group of categories (Ladd and Lipset 1975, 1977). Among respon- dents from two-year colleges, 93 percent chose the teacher role, while the figure for faculty in research universities was 50 percent (Ladd 1979). In 1977, 47 percent of professors spent more than 10 hours teaching each week, 30 percent had 13 or more hours in the classroom, and only 17 percent spent four hours or less in class (Ladd 1979). The allocation of time is related to the type of institution, with faculty at elite institutions spending less time teaching than faculty at less prestigious institutions (Fulton and Trow 1974; Parsons and Platt 1968; Shulman 1980; Willie and Stecklein 1981; Wilson 1964). At two-year institutions, 70 percent of faculty time was de- voted to teaching activities, while the comparable figure at four-year colleges was approximately 50 percent and at doctoral-granting institutions 33 percent (Shulman 1980). The median percentage of faculty members’ time spent on such activities in 1980 at four-year institutions was 60 percent compared to 80 percent at community colleges (Willie and Stecklein 1981). A random sample of 75 faculty members at eight California institutions of different types found that 95 percent of junior college faculty spent 75 percent or more of their time on teaching activities com- pared to 30 percent of the faculty members at doctoral- granting universities (Rich and Jolicoeur 1978). University faculty members, however, devote greater proportions of time to research than do faculty at other types of institutions. Less than one-quarter of a group of respondents had published extensively (defined as 20 or 20 more articles or three or more monographs), and more 'than one-half had published “nothing or very little” (Ladd and Lipset 1977). Only 28 percent of the respondents from major research universities published “very little” or not at all, however, in contrast to 87 percent of the faculty from two-year colleges (Ladd 1979). Fifty-five percent of university faculty spent half or more of their time on re- search, while the comparable figure among junior college faculty studied was 3 percent (Rich and Jolicoeur 1978). Faculty in doctoral-granting institutions spent between 50 and 100 percent more time on research and graduate train- ing than did faculty at other types of institutions (Baldridge et al. 1978). At elite institutions, faculty members active in research were also likely to be involved in administration; those not active in research were less active in administration (Fulton and Trow 1974). Allocation of time for teaching did not vary according to research orientation in elite institu- tions. In contrast, at lower-quality institutions, professors who were not active researchers were more likely to take administrative roles. These less active researchers also spent more time teaching than their research-oriented colleagues. Perhaps the faculty role at high-quality institu- tions may be more “integrated,” while at lower-quality institutions, research and teaching are more likely to be distinct, thus causing a more “fragmented” role for faculty (Fulton and Trow 1974). While such comparisons of faculty members’ activities have been made across institutional types, very little research has focused on dilferences in activities among disciplines. Rich and Jolicoeur (1978) did observe that faculty in education and the fine arts, which “focus on individual instruction, have the greatest preference for and the most time involved in teaching” (p. 440). While more than half of the faculty respondents in these areas pre- ferred teaching over research, only 29 percent in the natu- ral sciences and 38 percent in professional studies pre- ferred teaching. The age of the individual and stage in one’s career ap- pear to relate to the way faculty members allocate their time and to their productivity. Professors’ interests shift 'from research to teaching with increasing age (Fulton and Trow 1974). Comparing professors aged 31 to 35 with those Academic Workplace 21 aged 56 to 60, Fulton and Trow found that the percentage who identified themselves as “exclusive teachers” dou- bled, while those who selected the term “strong re- searcher” declined by half. While orientation toward teaching may increase with age, the amount of time actu- ally devoted to class preparation appears to decline as faculty members move up in rank (Thompson 1971). Pro- ductivity as measured by publication follows a saddle- shaped curve (Blackburn, Behymer, and Hall 1978; Pelz and Andrews 1976). While the young professor spends considerable time in research, this productivity drops as associate professorship is reached and rises again when full professorship is reached. The third component of faculty work, service, appears to increase over the years. Faculty members appear to get more involved in service activities as they become more comfortable with their teaching responsibilities and less pressured by demands for scholar- ship (Baldwin and Blackburn 1981). ^ “Internalized standards of professional performance strongly affect faculty members’ use of their time” (Finkel- stein 1978, p. 246). Although four-fifths of the faculty at Stanford felt research was most important in the determi- nation of rewards, they spent most of their time on teach- ing activities (Hind 1969). Similarly, perceptions of what was rewarded were independent of faculty members’ allocation of their time and effort (Borland 1970). Borland concluded that faculty choose what they want to do, which then affects the institution’s goals and workload assign- ments. Professors’ “self-expectations” explained 30 to 40 percent of the variance in time allocation among teaching, research, and administrative work, while the organization’s expectations, as reflected in the workload assignment, explained only 9 to 30 percent of the variance. Expecta- tions of colleagues and chairs explained 0 percent to 3 percent (DeVries 1970). The impact of the work assignment appears to vary with the degree of control faculty exercise (Finkelstein 1978). “In those cases where control over work load is high, self- expectations dominate; in those situations where it is lower, faculty activity patterns are more likely to be sub- 22 2McKeachie (1983) summarizes the research on the effects of aging on faculty members' productivity and offers ideas for enhancing the produc- tivity of older faculty members. |ect to the independent effect of work load assignment” iFinkelstein 1978, p. 246). New Ph.D.’s spent more time in leaching and research than did more established faculty 1 jnembers (Klapper 1967), which may be explained by the I act that young professors have less control over their I vork assignments (Finkelstein 1978). Most of these studies I except Klapper’s) have been conducted at research- (briented institutions. While less systematic information I fs available on time allocation and control at lower- j quality institutions, it is possible that the way such faculty ( inembers spend their time is subject to greater institu- [|ional control than at higher-quality institutions (Finkel- [ stein 1978). j Several recent comparative studies suggest that many acuity, while they may continue to prefer teaching, feel an Increasing need to publish. Dedication to good teaching continues, but professors at all institutional types indicate more interest in doing research (Rich and Jolicoeur 1978). i\mong the California junior college faculty studied, for example, 44 percent reported that they had an interest in research, though only 16 percent preferred research over leaching. In another study, faculty reported spending less i;ime on research activities in 1980 compared to 1968, but they published more (Willie and Stecklein 1981). A reason- jible interpretation of this finding is that the tighter aca- idemic employment market, the steady state of enrollment, jind the decline of resources are forcing faculty members to publish their work more regularly — and perhaps more juickly — than they did in the past. The trend toward a greater emphasis on publishing could have long-term mplications for colleges and universities: It will be interesting to see whether the institutional ' milieu will socialize future academicians into the prevail- ing norms, thus maintaining the large traditional dijfer- ‘ ences between types of colleges, or whether the influx of research-oriented faculty , coupled with pressures from I professional disciplines, will tend to lessen these differ- if ences and thereby bring about the ascendancy of disci- I pline-oriented cosmopolitan values over institution- I oriented local values (Rich and Jolicoeur 1978, p. 443). ' Faculty workload is becoming a significant issue as iniversities and colleges try to do more with less. The Academic Workplace 23 development of allocating workload according to differ- ences in discipline, institutional type, and teaching level is a pressing challenge. In the 1980’ s, workload will develop a dual meaning in institutional terms. It will retain its meaning of how many hours faculty work and what that figure suggests in view of the institution’s need for effectiveness and efficiency. In addition, workload will refer to working conditions for faculty in which the kind or quality of workload is linked to faculty and institutional renewal (Shulman 1980, p. 11). Opportunity structure A concept that has been receiving attention in the sociolo} ical literature in recent years is the structure of opportunit within work organizations. Opportunity is a key variable that determines the nature of individuals’ work experienct Workers can be divided into “the moving,’’ those who expect to move to a higher level, and “the stuck,” those who perceive only a short job ladder with little chance for mobility (Kanter 1977, 1979). Individuals who see them- selves as “stuck” develop lower aspirations and feel lowe self-esteem than “the moving.” Feeling little attachment t' their work, the stuck tend to disengage themselves, becon ing “psychic,” if not actual, dropouts. The stuck are likeb to take few risks, look to peer groups or outside the organ zation for personal attachments to protect their self-esteen and express dissatisfaction through griping and resistance to change. The moving, in contrast, take satisfaction from their work and have high aspirations. They assess their skills and abilities highly and work hard because they see poten tial rewards for their efforts. The moving form political bonds with individuals higher in the organizational struc- ture and identify with those who hold power. When they have a grievance, they are likely to express themselves directly. Ranter’s hypotheses relate degree of opportunity to the person’s entire work experience. Career paths within the university have short advancement ladders, flat salary curves, and limited career paths (Kanter 1979). Growth within a job in higher education often comes through new 24 1 bsponsibilities or a title change rather than a promotion. Higher education is characterized by a “pyramid squeeze” i Kanter 1979); that is, there are few jobs at the top to which employees can aspire. The difficult current eco- nomic situation also contributes to the tight job market land adds to the frustration of those wishing to move up. These various characteristics and factors suggest that fac- ulty and staff may be prone to a sense of being “stuck.” Within the academic community, the assumption continues that “ ‘a good man will take care of himself.’ Meanwhile, ithe failure to provide significant mid-career opportunities, including avenues for beginning new careers, eats at the heart of the academic enterprise” (Kanter 1979, cited in Schurr 1980, p. 2). i The problem involves professors and scholars of several [ypes: (1) secure faculty members who feel stuck; (2) tenured faculty whose programs are being terminated but llvho might be placed in other positions within the institu- tion; (3) tenured faculty in institutions that are closing; and ! 4) scholars unable to secure a position in a university or |;ollege (Keyfitz 1975; Schurr 1980). With fewer academic bositions available, “a displacement process occurs by Iwhich Ph.D.’s from the more highly reputed institutions lake the jobs that in an earlier time would have gone to Ijraduates of less illustrious schools, and the latter then lave to drop down to undergraduate teaching, perhaps in unior colleges” (Keyfitz 1975, p. 8). This domino-like effect means that many scholars are holding faculty posi- ions with responsibilities different from their preferences, while other scholars cannot secure positions at all. Limited opportunity varies according to institutional ype, regional economic situation, and faculty members’ lersonal circumstances (Schurr 1980). Faculty at commu- lity colleges or at research universities are not affected by imited opportunity as much as those at the “second level date universities and colleges” and the “nonelitist private ;olleges,” where faculty are pressured to do research while ilso carrying heavy teaching loads (Schurr 1980, p. 6). I The reasons many tenured faculty in this . . . group of ‘ institutions feel stuck is that they do not perceive their careers to he open-ended. They find themselves confined to a fixed “track” in a closed educational system. Fac- Growth . . . often comes through new responsibilities or a title change rather than a promotion. icademic Workplace 25 idty members who have been trained to think individu- ally, even in isolation, have this self-definition reinforcea by institutional policies which define faculty obligations in terms of specialized competencies and assigned courses (Schurr 1980, p. 67). Limited opportunity is especially severe for faculty at geo- graphically isolated institutions and at institutions located in areas of economic depression. In those situations, avail- able nonacademic jobs may be few. Faculty members at institutions experiencing financial difficulties are also among those most likely to face this problem. In relation- ships involving two people with careers, professors often face additional, usually painful, choices involving not only themselves. “Expanding career horizons for professors is probably inseparable from revitalizing their educational environ- ments” (Schurr 1980, p. 8). Only a few programs deal with the problem directly. The best program, in Schurr's opin- ion, is Loyola University’s “Career Development Pro- gram,” underwritten by the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education. This program addresses the needs of professors who are institutionally “stuck” by providing workshops, internships, and counseling. While some New England and Great Lakes area universities offer programs to deal with the problem, the national picture reflects little planning or innovation. An important aspect of the problem could be approached indirectly, as Schurr suggests, by paying greater attention to the effects of changes in educational environments on the faculty. Thus, for example, participation in new forms of teaching and research that make use of, but go beyond, disciplinary boundaries seems to be one important source of vitality for faculty (Gaff 1983; Gamson forthcoming). These efforts do not speak to the problems of terminated faculty members, who have been largely ignored. As it threatens the commit- ment to and vitality of the academic profession, the prob- lem of restricted opportunity for faculty deserves special attention in institutions and national policy circles (Her- man, McArt, and Belle 1983; Rice 1980). Reward structure Faculty members are bound to their institutions as much by intrinsic rewards — the nature of their work as teachers 26 s I ind researchers and their interactions with colleagues and Students — as by extrinsic rewards like salary and benefits Lewis and Becker 1979). In fact, intrinsic factors may be iiost important in promoting faculty members’ satisfac- iion. Nevertheless, the extrinsic factor of salary has been i jinked to dissatisfaction and, given recent trends, has I tecome a significant problem for faculty members, f i Compensation for faculty has dropped in comparison to |ost-of-living increases over the last decade (Carnegie I [Council 1980). While the average faculty salary has in- jsreased 72.9 percent over the last decade and faculty jnembers of all ranks at all types of institutions earned an iverage salary of $23,650 in 1980-81, average salaries iVould have been $29,345 if they had increased at the rate l»f the cost of living (Magarrell 1981). Faculty have lost 20 i percent of their purchasing power in the last 10 years jlAnderson 1983). It is also significant that faculty compen- |ation has dropped compared to the average compensation j|or civilian employees (Carnegie Council 1980). When Ifomparisons are made between professors, the decline in iaculty salaries in recent years is very apparent. For exam- ple, while dentists and professors earned similar salaries in '940, dentists earned 175 percent more than professors in F980 (Anderson 1983). Because the drop in salaries relates to declining and ' Lifting enrollments (Carnegie Council 1980), “some fac- ility members will be more affected than others: those in ■ |he East and North, in comprehensive colleges, in less I lelective four-year liberal-arts colleges, in doctorate- ijTanting universities, in the humanities, in nontenured i Ijanks, and in closing and merging institutions” (Bucher ■ |981, p. 22). Compensation varies according to institutional •ype, with faculty at doctoral-granting universities earning, I in the average, the highest salaries. In 1980-81 , the aver- : '.ge salary for faculty at all ranks at private doctoral-granting , jiniversities was $27,930, compared to $24,290 at private, ; lonchurch-related institutions, $24,150 at public insti- ; utions, $19,450 at church-related institutions, and $14,440 : ; t church-related junior colleges (Magarrell 1981). The a verage salary for faculty members at all levels in two- and iour-year universities and colleges for 1982-83 was ; 127,430. The average faculty salary at universities was ' | 31,010, compared to $23,700 at two-year colleges and 'Academic Workplace 27 $22,890 at undergraduate four-year institutions (AAUP 1983). When compensation at public and private institutions is compared, faculty members at public institutions earn higher salaries, on the average. Full professors as well as faculty members at all levels in business and management, engineering, and computer science earn, on the average, however, somewhat higher salaries at private institutions than at public ones (Jacobson 1983). In fact, salaries differ by discipline across many types of institutions. In 1982, new assistant professors in business, computer sciences, and engineering received salaries several thousand dollars higher than the average salary of new assistant professors at state colleges, while new assistant professors in foreign languages, history, and English were paid about $2,000 lower than the average (Chronicle 1982). Using data from Ladd and Lipset’s 1975 survey of the professoriate. Marsh and Dillon (1980) examined the rela- tionship between faculty members’ activities and the re- ward system. They found a positive relationship between amount of research and base salary and supplemental income, and between departmental and institutional in- volvement and base salary. In contrast, teaching activities were negatively correlated with both amount of base salar and supplemental income: Indeed, “base salary was more negatively correlated with hours spent teaching than it was positively related to numbers of books published" (p. 551) Their conclusion that teaching is not rewarded in higher education is consistent with the results of a 1973 survey in which a negative correlation was found between faculty salaries and amount of time spent teaching (McLaughlin, Montgomery, and Mahan 1979). Research on salary and compensation is a complex matter, and few good models compare institutions (Batsch 1981). Nevertheless, the available data clearly demonstrat that the extrinsic rewards of faculty work, as expressed b\ salary level, have become less attractive over the last decade, and this trend is likely to continue for at least another decade (Carnegie Council 1980). While the partici lar combinations of attractive extrinsic and intrinsic re- wards vary for faculty at different types of institutions (Smart 1978), all faculty are affected to some extent by th« steady drop in financial compensation. 28 Intrinsic Dimensions in Faculty Work Studies of faculty work “have focused on the outcomes of performance, rather than the explanation of actual per- formance behaviors. Thus, the study of research activity is virtually synonymous with the study of research productiv- ity, as is teaching activity with teaching effectiveness” (Finkelstein 1978, p. 334). Studies of faculty members’ satisfaction shed some light on the intrinsic factors in faculty work, however. Various studies of faculty mem- bers’ satisfaction indicate that intrinsic aspects of their work are more important to faculty members than extrinsic motivators (McKeachie 1979). The intrinsic dimensions of faculty members’ work that traditionally are important to faculty members, at least in terms of contribution to satis- faction, are autonomy and freedom (Eckert and Stecklein 1961; French, Tupper, and Mueller 1965; Gustad 1960; Pelz and Andrews 1976), intellectual interchange (Eckert and Stecklein 1961; Gustad 1960), and the opportunity to work with students (Eckert and Stecklein 1961; Wilson, Woods, and Gaff 1974). Hackman and Oldham’s model of job structure (1980), though it has been applied to academic work only recently ;(Bess 1981, 1982), could be very useful in clarifying the intrinsic nature of faculty members’ work. Three “critical psychological states” — experienced meaningfulness of Work, experienced responsibility for outcomes of the work, land knowledge of the actual results of the work activities — contribute to such outcomes as motivation, satisfaction, Equality performance, and low turnover. Five “core job ;Characteristics” — skill variety, task identity, task signifi- cance, autonomy, and feedback — lead to these three psy- chological states (Hackman and Oldham 1980). Skill variety refers to the variety of different activities involved in a job |(p. 78). Task identity is defined as “the degree to which a job requires completion of a ‘whole’ and identifiable piece jof work, that is, doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome” (p. 78). Task significance refers to the extent to which “the job has a substantial impact on the jives of other people” (p. 79). Autonomy refers to the degree of “freedom, independence, and discretion” that the job involves (p. 79). Feedback concerns the degree to •which the job provides the employee with information about his or her effectiveness (p. 80). Academic Workplace 29 I i I Skill variety is fairly characteristic of the day-to-day work of faculty members. With responsibilities for re- search, teaching, and service, a professor can move from one activity to another when feeling the need for variety. Over a longer cycle, however, as opportunities for mobilit; decrease and pressures for productivity increase, faculty may find themselves doing the same things year after year. Those faculty seeking to increase their scholarly work for intrinsic reasons — not simply to meet the requirements of promotions committees — may feel the need to increase variety. Certainly, faculty development and retraining programs are attempts to encourage skill variety (while also broadening the pool of faculty available to perform highly demanded tasks in their institutions). The question of skill variety, then, is a complicated one. Objectively, it appears that academic work involves a good deal of vari- ety. Subjectively, however, faculty members may experi- ence it differently when they realize that they may be stud in their institutions for the rest of their careers. Kanter's analyses (1977, 1978, 1979) of the opportunity and power structures within organizations imply, however, that effort on the part of institutions to increase variety may be re- sisted by some faculty precisely because they feel stuck and embraced by others because they feel they have op- portunities. In other words, as with many things, those who need it most want it least. The solution to this dilemma lies in the degree to which faculty feel they have power over the things that matter to them. If workers feel they have control over their own work, the structure of broader institutional governance is not as important: The type of control that is most important for alienation . . . is control, not over the product, but over the proces: of one’s work. Ownership, hierarchical position, and division of labor have less effect on workers’ feelings of alienation than do closeness of supervision, routiniza- tion, and substantive complexity (Kohn 1976, pp. 126-27). Faculty members’ work has had considerable autonomy, especially in the past three decades. College teachers and researchers traditionally have been free to determine what they teach and study and how they go about it. Whether or 30 ilot this autonomy is on the decline requires empirical I Jesting, but there is no question that faculty members’ Ji' influence on institutional policies is on the wane (Magarrell ^ |982b). If Kohn is correct in saying that workers are more Honcerned about immediate job characteristics than institu- tional ones, the problem may not be serious. Recent stud- ‘ 'es of faculty members’ reactions as the balance of power shifts away from them, however, point to problems of I declining morale (Anderson 1983; Cares and Blackburn 1978; Larkin and Clagett 1981). Given their professional btatus and their assumption of the right to participate in institutional governance on the basis of their expertise, pculty members may care as much about their institutional 1 power as about their immediate job autonomy. This issue ' Is complex, reflecting the coexistence of bureaucratic and ; ijcollegial structures as well as the interdependence of pro- I jfessors’ work and institutional policies. 5 1 Hackman and Oldham’s concept of task identity, the ( [degree to which a task involves following a project from I [start to finish, is somewhat difficult to assess in terms of I Ifaculty members’ work. In one sense, a single instructor I ijcontributes only a small part to a student’s development ! |(Bess 1982). But in another sense, teaching a course in- . Ivolves organizing material on a particular topic into a E )ackage that can be studied in a term. From this perspec- ive, teaching appears to have a high degree of “whole- less” or “task identity.’’ Similarly, while faculty research nay continually open new questions, the steps involved and the point of closure for any piece of research are under the control of the investigator. All told, task wholeness seems quite strong in the faculty member’s work. I The degree of feedback in professors’ work is hard to determine. The outcomes of teaching are notoriously difficult to assess, especially in the short-term designs that most researchers use, although recent efforts to measure the outcomes of education are attempting to do better (Forrest 1981; Whitla 1977; Winter, McClelland, and Stew- jart 1981). Despite difficulties in such assessments, profes- sors do get some feedback from students’ reactions to their lectures and from the results of examinations and other I student work. Similarly, any immediate results from ser- vice provide some degree of feedback, though long-term effectiveness of service is as difficult to assess as is teach- Academic Workplace 31 ing. Research offers different sorts of feedback from teach ing and service. Research activity does not provide much daily feedback unless it is conducted with others, but faculty receive feedback about their research from col- leagues’ reactions to professional presentations, reviewers critiques, and ultimately publishers’ decisions. How com- mon it is for faculty to work with others on a scholarly project, compared with the solitary way most teach, is a subject worthy of some study, because it may be one source of greater vitality for them (Gaff 1983; Gamson forthcoming). Studies of teaching and research, while plentiful, beg the question of significance in their emphasis on the measure- ment of productivity. Faculty members must assume that their contributions through research, teaching, and service are significant. The difficulty of evaluating specific out- comes of their work, however, also complicates the issue of significance. In an important sense, the whole enterprise of higher education is an assessment of the “task signifi- cance’’ of scholarly work. The study of this as well as other intrinsic dimensions of all three components of fac- ulty work — teaching, scholarship, and service — has been neglected and requires considerable research. Faculty Power and Participation in Organizational Decisions “Formal binding power may lie with the administrator or the trustees, but a great deal of policy is initiated, formed, suggested or more generally influenced by the faculty” (Platt and Parsons 1970, p. 160). Faculty members, in fact, have more influence than power, influence that follows from their status as professionals rather than from their hierarchical position. Because their expertise legitimizes their claim to participation, it is not surprising that faculty members exert most influence on academic appointments and curriculum and least influence on financial matters (Baldridge et al. 1973; Kenen and Kenen 1978; Mortimer. Gunne, and Leslie 1976). Even in highly specialized de- partments where the faculty exercise considerable control over courses, selection of colleagues, and promotions and tenure, “the power of budget allocation is still reserved to the administrators” (Baldridge et al. 1973, p. 538). According to a large survey of the late 1960s and early 32 970s, faculty members perceived a “triumvirate of admin- ;tration, department chairmen, and senior faculty . . . jnning the academic side of the institution, with senior iculty being replaced by trustees in matters of financial ,olicy” (Kenen and Kenen 1978, p. 116). Senior faculty mem- ers were considered most influential, junior professors rela- vely powerless. Women faculty were perceived to be imilar in influence to junior faculty except when they held igh ranks (Kenen and Kenen 1978). A positive relation- hip existed between rank and credentials of faculty members nd their influence (Ross 1977). Administrators perceived fiat “faculty influence over faculty appointments is posi- ively related to productivity” (Ross 1977, p. 211). The rela- lonship between rank and credentials with power strongly jUpports the assertion that status is the key determinant of acuity members’ influence and power. Many studies show that an institution’s size and com- 4exity are strongly related to faculty members’ autonomy nd power (Baldridge et al. 1973; Blau 1973; Boland 1971; ’aplow and McGee 1958; Demerath, Stephens, and Taylor 967; Kenen and Kenen 1978; Ross 1977; Stonewater Sll). Defining professional autonomy as “the ability of Tie faculty to set institutional goals and to structure the rganization to maximize professional concerns,” laldridge et al. (1973) found larger institutions to have I more professional autonomy, fewer bureaucratic con- traints, more individual influence for the academic profes- ional, and greater freedom for disciplinary departments” p. 536). One interpretation of this finding is that larger istitutions have more specialized units. Faculty in such Institutions therefore have a greater claim to external lecognition and therefore to more power. Faculty at large niversities are also engaged in research requiring direct egotiation with funding agencies, which gives them reater autonomy within their institutions (Caplow and TcGee 1958; Demerath, Stephens, and Taylor 1967). An- I'ther explanation is that at larger institutions, the ratio of fac- Ity to administrator is lower and the administration is thus ;iss able to exert control over the faculty (Blau 1973). , Numerous studies indicate that faculty at more presti- gious institutions exercise greater power and have more mtonomy (Baldridge et al. 1973; Ecker 1973; Kenen and ;Lenen 1978; Light 1974; Parsons and Platt 1968). Again, i Academic Workplace 33 Faculty at more prestigious institutions exercise greater power and have more autonomy. expertise seems to be the key variable. Faculty members i at more prestigious institutions are likely to be recognizee i as experts in their areas of study. Because a department s reputation outside the institution is its source of power. i “institutional and departmental authority is more collegiiii at professional schools and more hierarchical as one mo\ei dow'n the academic procession” (Light 1974, p. 21). When faculty appointments and promotions are to be decided, institutional quality is a major factor in determining the i influence faculty w'ill have. In the areas of financial and educational policy, how'ever, differences in institutional quality do not seem as important (Finkelstein 1978, p. 31^ While a number of studies link institutional size, com- plexity, and quality to greater autonomy and power of faculty, not as much is known about differences in faculu members’ power and participation according to institu- tional types. Based on data from the late 1960s and early 1970s, faculty members’ influence “is deemed to be higher at public universities and private nondenominational insti- tutions than at public colleges and denominational institu- tions” (Kenen and Kenen 1978, p. 121 ; see also Cares and Blackburn 1978). External pressures and institutional responses to them may threaten professors’ autonomy in the 1980s. “The ever-increasing role of outside agencies in campus matten is gradually wearing down internal governance structures (Carnegie Foundation 1982, p. 89). Faculty power and participation are endangered: “Traditional structures do not seem to be working well. Faculty participation has declined. . . . The breakdowm of campus governance is perhaps an all too predictable reaction to hard times. Life on a campus in retrenchment becomes tense” (Carnegie Foundation 1982, p. 74). A decade ago, faculty in larger schools may have experienced greater autonomy because institutional size acted as a “buffer” and insulation against environmental pressures and demands (Baldridge et al. 1973, p. 545). Today, however, faculty at even large instit- tions are feeling the effects of these pressures. The Insti- tute of Higher Education at Columbia University recent!) completed a study of financial and educational trends in American higher education during the 1970s (Anderson 1983). The report used financial data collected for five academic years between 1967-68 and 1979-80 as well as 34 fculty survey data collected in the late 1960s and early 170s and again in 1979-80. Analyses of these data sowed, overall, a sharp decline in faculty members’ f rticipation in governance. The proportion of faculty who blieved that their campuses were characterized by the oncept of “shared authority,” with decisions determined jmtly by the faculty and administration, declined from 64 prcent in 1970 to 44 percent in 1980. While 52 percent of te respondents in 1970 agreed that faculty were widely ivolved in decisions about how the institution was run, oly 45 percent believed it in 1980. Such changes, how- eer, were not the same across all institutional types. Iiblic research and doctoral universities and public com- jehensive universities remained quite stable on these leasures. Faculty at community colleges, on the other hnd, reported a great decline in their participation in pvernance. The general conclusion of the study was that ‘:ampuses were governed less ‘democratically’ at the end ( the decade than they were at the beginning” (Anderson »83, p. 83). It is not yet known the extent to which faculty members 'ant to participate in decision making (Marshall 1976; (onewater 1977; Touraine 1974). These questions should h considered: “How strong is the desire of faculty to jirticipate in the actual shaping of policy? Is it likely that <'en those who sense and resent power would eschew' this Igh degree of involvement and opt only to be able to (lallenge policies as issues arise on an ad hoc basis?” Marshall 1976, p. 11). In answering these questions, care nould be taken to distinguish among power, influence, atonomy, and participation, terms often used interchange- oly and uncritically in the literature. Faculty usually 1 cognize the differences, however. Some may resist iirticipating in university committees because they want 1' be left alone to do their own work with a minimum of istitutional interference; they value their autonomy. 'thers may feel that participation does not lead either to .fluence or power. Still others may prefer informal influ- ice to formal participation. If participation and power . e linked to faculty members’ success and satisfaction and 'lack of power is related to stress, then the current de- line in instructors’ participation could have serious nega- ve effects. cademic Workplace 35 Relationship to the Organization: Goal Congruence and Loyalty The congruence between faculty members’ goals and thost of their institutions and the loyalty and commitment of faculty members to their universities and colleges are as yet largely unstudied. Because institutional goals are di- verse, ambiguous, and sometimes contradictory (Baldridge et al. 1978; Cohen and March 1974; Kerr 1963), faculty often experience conflicting messages about which activi- ties will be rewarded. Young faculty find that the institu- tions in which they manage to find jobs do not provide the conditions for carrying on the research they are required te produce for tenure. At the other extreme, faculty members who prefer teaching recognize that their institutions rewarc scholarship. While faculty members may agree with the general goals of their institutions and feel quite loyal, the potential for conflicts on particular issues is fairly high. Several studies of faculty loyalty (Blau 1973; Kenen 1974; Lewis 1967; Nandi 1968; Parsons and Platt 1968; Razak 1969; Spencer 1969) point toward the conclusion that institutional loyalty depends on a faculty member’s status in the institution, the profession, and the discipline (Finkelstein 1978). As status increases (as measured by age, length of service, rank, and tenure), loyalty to the institution increases. Organizational loyalty and profes- sional commitment, however, appear to vary indepen- dently (Razak 1969). Senior professors actively involved in research can therefore express strong commitment to both the institution and the discipline. Faculty members at the highly prestigious, research-oriented institutions identify strongly with their discipline, by participating in profes- sional associations, and with their departmental and insti- tutional colleagues (Blau 1973; Parsons and Platt 1968). The commitment of employees is crucial to the success of any organization; it could be a determining factor in the ability of colleges and universities to cope successfully with problems of finances and enrollment. Among the reasons for leaving an institution are negative assessments of administrative policy, perceptions of a deteriorating work situation, including increased workloads and ne- glected rewards, and a sense that support for faculty mem- bers’ programs or departments is diminishing (Toombs and Marlier 1981). While these findings should not be general- 36 :ed, it would be worthwhile to investigate those factors iiat lessen commitment to the point that professors decide p leave their institutions or even the academic profession, n a more positive perspective, one could learn more about |ie conditions under which professors agree to forgo salary nd benefits to assist their ailing institutions. ! i)utcomes of Faculty Work fhe outcomes of faculty work have been examined in erms of performance, satisfaction, and morale. No single predictor or group of predictors explains much of the jariance in overall performance (Finkelstein 1978). One night expect job satisfaction or amount of time taken for Irofessional leave to make a difference, but neither seems Ip be related to overall performance. The only personality rait that may relate to overall productivity is stress jFinkelstein 1978). Stress has different effects on different personalities; high stress is associated with reduced pro- luctivity in faculty members who are research-oriented, pnxious, and less sociable, while it is related to increased Productivity for individuals with opposite characteristics Oark 1973). Factors relating to overall performance ':annot be generalized, however; the more useful studies ire those dealing with “specific dimensions of academic |>erformance” (Finkelstein 1978, p. 253). j One dimension of academic performance is productivity jis evidenced in research. It appears that “colleague cli- Inate as reflected in institutional quality together with an Individual’s own orientation toward research are the prime jleterminants of research productivity’’ (Finkelstein 1978, ). 262). Though institutional type and quality are both litrong predictors of research productivity (Finkelstein 1 978), quality of the institution is the more important Ibredictor (Fulton and Trow 1974). “Faculty at high quality Colleges were at least as productive as faculty at mid-level iniversities’’ (Finkelstein 1978, p. 256). The weight of research in decisions about promotion at ligh-quality institutions directly affects the choice of new laculty (Blau 1973). Thus, in Blau’s study, professors were jielected as colleagues if they demonstrated qualifications "or research compatible with the institution’s expectations, |ind a faculty member’s feeling of obligation to do research I'lnd the weight assigned to scholarship in decisions about Icademic Workplace 37 tenure had only an indirect effect on involvement in re- search. In the same study, the colleague climate (the per- centage of the faculty holding a doctorate) and the individ- ual’s possession of a doctorate accounted for 30 percent ol the observed variance in involvement in research. In an- other study, a professor’s interest in research and interac- tion with colleagues doing research explained 60 percent o the variance in productivity (Behymer 1974). These facton were more salient than such extrinsic factors as the faculty member’s perception of the pressure to publish. In these and numerous other studies, “institutional quality/colleague climate and individual professional char- acteristics associated with a research orientation emerged as the most powerful predictors of publication activity’’ (Finkelstein 1978, p. 262). Studies of the relationship be- tween departmental characteristics and publication activity indicate that the quality of the department (measured by reputation and the proportion of colleagues holding doctor ates) is the most important predictor. The nature of admin- istrative leadership and size of the department are not very important (Finkelstein 1978). The “productive” faculty member thus holds a doctor- ate, places a strong value on research, and started publish- ing early. He or she spends more time in research than teaching, has little commitment to administrative work, and stays in close contact with colleagues and develop- ments in the discipline (Finkelstein 1978). As more faculty attempt to emulate this pattern under the pressure to publish, it is little wonder that participation in institutional governance has been declining. Across disciplines, natural scientists are most produc- tive, followed by social scientists, and finally by faculty in the humanities, education, and the fine arts (Finkelstein 1978). One factor may be differences in how natural scien- tists, social scientists, and humanists communicate their scholarly work (Biglan 1971; Roe 1972). Humanities faculty write books; natural scientists write journal articles. While multiple authorships are common in the natural sciences and fairly usual in the social sciences, single authorship is the mode in the humanities. Perhaps differences in produc- tivity between disciplines would not seem great if more weight were given to books and articles authored by a single person (Finkelstein 1978). 38 Even after tenure and promotion are no longer concerns, [faculty members continue to publish. While this pattern !may indicate scholars’ internal motivation to engage in i scholarly work, rank does seem to be an important predic- tor of the rate of productivity in research (Finkelstein 1 1978). Perhaps those higher in rank publish faster because i professors of higher rank may have more control over the i amount of their workload (Fulton and Trow 1974). They I also may have more contacts and the know-how to get ‘them through the publishing process. A third possibility is i that those at higher ranks already have a strong publishing > record, which continues at their new rank. J The relationship between age and productivity in re- search follows a saddle-shaped curve, with the specific pattern depending on discipline and institutional quality I (Bayer and Dutton 1977; Blackburn, Behymer, and Hall 1978; Fulton and Trow 1974; Pelz and Andrews 1976; Roe i 1972). During his early career, the young professor devotes I considerable effort to research, pursuing interests started ! in graduate school that are likely to pay off in tenure. This . period of productivity dips as associate professorship is reached and then increases again when full professorship is I gained (Blackburn, Behymer, and Hall 1978). Bayer and I Dutton (1977) report a more continuous decline in research j productivity five to ten years into the career. At elite j institutions, age is not associated with a decline in produc- J tivity (Fulton and Trow 1974). Interests may shift with age; ' as professors get older, their priorities for research shift • from specific, empirical studies to theoretical, interdiscipli- I nary studies (Parsons and Platt 1968). ; The effectiveness of teaching and service is very difficult \ to assess. Studies attempting to measure the effectiveness i of teaching are difficult to compare because they use differ- I ent measurements and criteria and are usually based on I research in a single institution, and studies of the effective- I ness of service are nonexistent. These methodological I problems aside, productivity in research and the effective- j ness of teaching seem quite independent (Finkelstein 1978). * When the effectiveness of teaching is measured by the I intellectual competence demonstrated by the faculty mem- i ber (a criterion often used by faculty), “research produc- 1 tivity and the expertise it engenders or the general ability ■ which it signals does bear a fairly small, but consistently New Demands, Heightened Tensions 39 positive, relationship to good teaching. To the extent that judgments of teaching are based on socio-emotional as- pects of a learning situation (and students appear more disposed to this criterion), then the expertise developed in a research activity appears a largely irrelevant factor” (Finkelstein 1978, p. 288). Time spent in research ap- parently does not detract from teaching responsibilities. Extra time for research is taken from professors’ leisure and family activities rather than from teaching duties (Harry and Goldner 1972). That good research is both a necessary and sufficient condition for good teaching . . . is not resoundingly supported by the evidence. Resoundingly disconfirmed, however, is the notion that research involvement de- tracts from good teaching by channeling professorial time and effort away from the classroom (Finkelstein 1978, pp. 288-89). Faculty members’ satisfaction as an outcome of work has been studied extensively since the late 1960s. Much of the work has been modeled on studies of motivation and satisfaction in government and industry (Finkelstein 1978). Several recent studies suggest that satisfaction among faculty is relatively high. Forty-three percent of the re- spondents in one study said they “liked” their position, and an additional 46 percent said they liked it “very much” (Bennett and Griffitt 1976, p. 2). In another study, 85 percent of the respondents indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied, a result almost identical to re- sponses to the same question in 1968 but a drop from 93 percent in 1956 (Willie and Stecklein 1981). Disaggregated, the 1980 figures show a decline from 1968 in the percentage who reported they were very satisfied in four-year institu- tions, with more saying they were just satisfied, indifferent, and dissatisfied. Early research found no significant relationships be- tween faculty members’ satisfaction and rank, career age, chronological age, length of service, highest degree, or salary (Hill 1965; Theophilus 1967). More recently, re- searchers report that satisfaction increases with rank on several items: tenure and promotion, opportunity for input into policies, allocation of resources to departments, and 40 the location of the university (Bennett and Griffitt 1976). In contrast, satisfaction with fringe benefits decreases with rank. While several studies look at the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors, such as work conditions and tasks per- formed, on faculty members’ job satisfaction (Avakian 1971; Eckert and Williams 1972; Leon 1973; Swierenga 1970; Whitlock 1965), the lack of multivariate analyses in these studies makes it difficult to sort out the precise im- pact of different factors (Finkelstein 1978). Nevertheless, intrinsic factors generally seem more significant than ex- trinsic factors in explaining professors’ satisfaction. A study of faculty at a large public university found that the area of greatest satisfaction was the “general atmosphere or surroundings” (Bennett and Griffitt 1976, p. 2). Five items measured this concept: the academic characteristics of the typical students, the quality of departmental col- leagues, the quality of the university’s faculty in general, the opportunity for interactions outside the department or discipline, and the community in which the institution was located. The factors that seem to bring the most satisfac- tion to faculty include feelings of academic freedom, the nature of the work itself (responsibility, challenge, vari- ety), relations with competent employees, job stability (tenure), and professional and social recognition (Bess 1981). Autonomy, academic freedom, and independence are among the most frequently mentioned items contribut- ing to satisfaction (Winkler 1982). More than a decade ago, research found that satisfaction increased as respondents perceived they were participating in decision making (Barrett 1969). The opportunity to work with students is also a very important intrinsic source of satisfaction KBess 1981; Cohen 1973; Willie and Stecklein 1981; Wink- ler 1982). While intrinsic factors may be particularly important for faculty members’ job satisfaction, extrinsic factors “may be more important determinants of job c//5satisfaction” (Finkelstein 1978, p. 228). Respondents in the Theophilus j study (1967) expressed more dissatisfaction with material incentives than with intrinsic incentives. In another study, tasks and conditions of work were most important in j contributing to job satisfaction, but salary and faculty/ I administrative relationships contributed to job c(/5satisfac- Academic Workplace 41 tion (Eckert and Williams 1972). Salary seems to be one of the single greatest sources of dissatisfaction (Edmundson 1969; Ladd 1979; Winkler 1982), but poor administration and leadership, lack of support (public support, equip- ment, budget, secretarial), and the university’s structure and reward system are other important sources of dissatis- faction (Winkler 1982). Low satisfaction is associated with limited opportunities for promotion and advance- ment, limited prospects for comfortable retirement, and limited prospects for financial security (Bureau of Institu- tional Research 1974). Limited time can also cause stress and unhappiness (Clark and Blackburn 1973; Edmund- son 1969). While considerable research has examined the condi- tions under which faculty have the greatest power and participate most in decision making, less attention has been devoted to the relationship between these variables and the satisfaction and productivity of faculty members. An exploratory study suggests that participation and power may be very important to faculty members' success (Cares and Blackburn 1978). A strong relationship existed between faculty members’ perceptions of the extent of democracy in their departments and control of the environ- ment (defined as the ability to influence practices and policies relating to their work) and their success and satis- faction. A more recent study found that stress among community college professors was related to “not being involved in the decision making, being treated like chil- dren, and overdoing the use of restrictions and regulations to solve problems” (Larkin and Clagett 1981, p. 3). These studies suggest that lack of power and opportunities for participation in decision making may have quite negative effects on faculty members’ satisfaction. The overall conclusion about faculty satisfaction from the research to date is that “faculty tend to derive more satisfaction from the nature of their work itself, while they tend to express dissatisfaction most frequently with extrin- sic factors, such as salary [and] administrative leadership . . .” (Linkelstein 1978, p. 229). As yet, the research does not explain why this observation is so, nor does it satisfac- torily address the question of the relationship between satisfaction and productivity. “Satisfactioadissatisfaction may not be a unidimensional construct, but may rather 42 "exist as two separate continua subject to unique sets of r Ideterminants” (Finkelstein 1978, p. 229). ; The few studies that have examined professors’ satisfac- tion with the academic career generally agree that faculty seem quite satisfied with their careers, regardless of institu- . tional type or their age or sex (DeVries 1970; Gatf and ! Wilson 1975; Willie and Stecklein 1981). One study, com- paring the responses of faculty in two-year and four-year institutions in 1956, 1968, and 1980 showed a decline from ' 1968 to 1980 in the percentage who said they would choose ' to work in an educational institution if they had the oppor- I tunity to decide again (Willie and Stecklein 1981). Of com- munity college faculty, 82 percent answered affirmatively ! in 1968, compared to 71 pecent in 1980. Among faculty at I four-year institutions, the percentage of respondents in I 1968 saying they would choose the same career was 86 ) percent, compared to 72 percent in 1980. While most ' : faculty find their teaching to be satisfying, scholarly activ- I ity seems to provide more satisfaction to natural and social :i scientists than to humanities and professional faculty (Gaff i ;and Wilson 1975). Only Cares (1975) found significant I differences in levels of professors’ satisfaction with career. ; jThe more “self-actualized” faculty, those who felt they ; participated extensively in decision making, and those who ‘felt they had greater influence in the institution experi- : ijenced higher satisfaction. Satisfaction with one’s career ; may thus be more highly related to a professor’s personal- ; 1 ity and perceptions of the career than to professional status - or the employing institution’s status (Finkelstein 1978). I The morale of faculty has been given much less atten- " ! tion. Satisfaction and morale are clearly different. Satisfac- " ition refers to one’s personal contentment and sense of I i well-being, whereas morale relates more to one’s relation- I ship to an organization. Morale is based on such factors as 1 pride in the organization and its goals, faith in its leader- ship, and a sense of shared purpose with and loyalty to I others in the organization. Collective morale can be low at Ithe same time that personal satisfaction is high (Hunter, I I Ventimiglia, and Crow 1980, p. 29). But morale among professors is suffering from some of the same factors that iidiminish satisfaction, particularly faculty members’ in- volvement in decision making and planning. In one study, ' ffhe percentage of faculty members who indicated that their • 'Academic Workplace 43 morale was high fell from 61 percent in 1970 to 51 percent in 1980 (Anderson 1983). Public research and doctorate- granting universities and public comprehensive universities did not experience this drop, however. The drop in morale was most apparent at public community colleges, precisely those institutions where “professors believe that their opinions on college operations are considered less . . . [and] faculty have less confidence in administration . . .” (p. 111). This seeming contradiction between the reports of gen- eral satisfaction and professors' frequently mentioned complaints and dissatisfactions may have a simple explana- tion: “To indicate otherwise, especially in the face of the present interinstitutional immobility in the profession, is to admit that the choice of occupation and institution was a poor life decision, now virtually irrevocable . . .“ (Bess 1981, p. 29). The pressures of the 1980s may force faculty back to more basic needs like security and salary; thus, they may become “a new class of ‘alienated' workers" (Bess 1981, p. 28). This shift may be expressed in more participation in unions or institutional governance or in “the sacrifice of quality for quantity in the striving to secure adequate rewards" (p. 28). At the same time, how- ever, because intrinsic rewards seem highly related to fac- ulty members’ satisfaction, they may be able to tolerate cor siderable stress without a great loss of motivation (p. 35). Summary The problems facing higher education today are making academic life far from idyllic. Faculty are experiencing stress from a decline in extrinsic rewards and increased workloads. The strong intrinsic motivation characteristic of college faculty seems to be threatened. Pressures for more productivity come at the same time that the faculty's power in their institutions is declining. These forces are operating unevenly across disciplines, types of institutions, and levels of prestige. Indeed, the very existence of such variation within and between institutions may be a source of the vulnerability of the academic profession in the face of external pressures on higher education. The effects of these pressures on salary levels, job security, participation in governance, and opportunity for career growth merit close attention in the years ahead. 44 HE WORK EXPERIENCE OF ADMINISTRATORS (Administrator” is a broad term that includes presidents nd vice presidents, deans and department chairs, admis- ^ons directors, financial aid directors, and student person- iel counselors. All of them are likely to experience the iniversity workplace in different ways. The organizational itructure of the university or college and current external jiressures affect the nature of administrators’ work. (Tables ;I, III, and IV in the appendix summarize the recent re- 'earch on the work experience of presidents, mid-level [dministrators, and other administrators, respectively.) 1 | |enior Administrators !fhe university president is at once a friend of students, j colleague of faculty members, and a good fellow who 'ssociates with the alumni (Kerr 1963). By the mid- 1970s, however, the demands on presidents weighed more leavily. A key problem of the president today is how to he ac- 1 countable, be in compliance with an assortment of I external regulations, satisfy the governing hoard that he I or she is providing leadership to meet the current crises j| and the needs of the future, and, at the same time, ( accommodate the expectations of participation and j consultation implied by most internal governance. The I pressures that flow from this quandary are relentless and 1 often disabling. To please the governing hoard is to ! displease the faculty. To satisfy the faculty is to engen- der hostility in the legislature, and on and on (Kauffman I 1980, p. 79). IjThe role, function, and structure of the college presi- ency have undergone dramatic changes. No longer is it a ‘osition of stability and seclusion from an increasingly omplex world” (Buxton, Pritchard, and Buxton 1976, . 79). 'Extrinsic factors in presidents’ work 'residents’ activities and role. A variety of metaphors :ave been advanced to describe the role of a university or ollege president — a politician (particularly a mayor), a l Usiness executive (Cohen and March 1974), a super entre- reneur, a symphony orchestra conductor (Kauffman icademic Workplace 45 1980), a zookeeper, and the operator of a dispensing ma- chine (Monson 1967). These terms suggest the diverse functions, constituencies — and frustrations — to which presidents are subjected. The functions a new president assumes are significantly related to the “type of institution, its history, traditions, and ethos” (Kauffman 1980, p. 41). While the American Council on Education offers seminars for new presidents, no other training is available to prepare a person for the role. How does a new president learn the responsibilities of the role? Chief academic officers traditionally have had a background as faculty and have learned how to be a president on the job. In part, the expectations about the new president’s performance in the role will be determined by social norms, rules, dijfering perspectives, the performances oj previous presidents, and especially by the actor’s per- ception of the expectations of those who observe and react to the performance (Kauffman 1980, p. 41). The actual tasks and functions of the president can be subdivided into several basic areas. One set of tasks relates to the president’s responsibilities for leadership; Senior officers must keep in mind broad vision for the institution and continually shape the institution’s goals. A second area of responsibility involves a “representational, communica- tion, and interpretation function” (Kauffman 1980, p. 13): The president is expected to articulate the essence and value of the institution. The third task involves manage- ment and responsibility for control of the institution as a whole (Kauffman 1980). Presidents may be chosen for their ability to handle a particular difficulty, but they discover quite soon that efforts to effect change ignite considerable resistance. A new president becomes aware very quickly that the posi- tion involves grappling with conflicting expectations from different constituencies (Kauffman 1980). While college presidents may think success depends upon political skill, chief academic officers may stress attention to fiscal issues and educational programs, business officers to promoting ! growth and sound fiscal conditions, and alumni, commu- nity leaders, trustees, faculty, and students to the presi- 46 lent’s acting as a symbol of the institution (Cohen and March 1974). Every president must become accustomed to pleasing some constituencies while disappointing others, and politi- :al skill is an important ingredient of a president’s success. Campus presidents in statewide systems, for example, must implement decisions of the central governing board at the same time they must represent the interests of their campus. Their faculty may view them as too responsive to the central board, while the board may find them too unco- operative. Presidents spend a great deal of time in work-related activities. New presidents, who try to make themselves available to everyone while also learning the intricacies of their responsibilities, report feeling especially severe de- mands on their time (Kauffman 1980). Limited time is in fact one of the less desirable extrinsic aspects of a presi- dent’s job. Sources of dissatisfaction include a “lack of opportunity for teaching and conducting research’’ (Bux- ton, Pritchard, and Buxton 1976, p. 81) and a lack of time for work, family, and leisure (Buxton, Pritchard, and Buxton 1976; Solomon and Tierney 1977). “One [presi- dent] . . . suggested that he spends too much of his 14-hour day in dealing with ‘matters which are peripheral to the academic goals of the college’ ’’ (Buxton, Pritchard, and Buxton 1976, p. 81). . Presidents spend between 50 and 55 hours on work- related activities from Monday through Friday and another five to ten hours over the weekend (Cohen and March ’1974). Despite the long hours, however, their schedules do (lot require that they always be in the office. Work may be !:onducted at home, out of town, or through a president’s |many social engagements. Administrative work involving specific decisions is more likely to occur early in the day and early in the week, and more political interactions fiappen more often in the latter part of the day and the kveek. The specific pattern of allocation is related to sev- eral factors. One is the size of the institution. Presidents at larger schools appear to exhibit a more “local,’’ less “cos- mopolitan” focus in their activities. Another factor is the expectation throughout the academic culture and presi- dents’ own expectations that professors — and therefore presidents — generally work 60-hour weeks. Because presi- The president is expected to articulate the essence and value of the institution. Academic Workplace 47 dential success cannot be linked to any specific behavior, the very ambiguity of expectations leads presidents to work long hours. Finally, presidents are often individuals who have achieved their position partly because they enjo hard work (Cohen and March 1974). Opportunity structure. Presidents have reached their posts from a variety of trajectories and experiences during their careers. Only a very small number of presidents follow completely the normative career trajectory in which an individual moves from faculty member to department char to dean, provost, and president (Moore 1983a, 1983b, 1983c; Moore et al. 1983). Many skip rungs or include other experiences in their career paths. Once individuals do assume the helm, however, they do not experience security; they do indeed serve “at the pleasure of the board” (Kauffman 1980). The average term of office is between five and eight years (Cohen and March 1974; Nason 1980b). Because a presidency is the pinnacle of an academic career, few comparable new positions are avail- able. After leaving the presidency, 14 percent of the re- spondents in one survey took another position in academk administration, usually lower in status, prestige, and power. Ten percent took positions in government, busi- ness, and nonprofit organizations, and the rest went back to positions as faculty members or clergy. Many president expressed the feeling that they did not have good alterna- tives after the presidency (Cohen and March 1974). “Man) college and university presidents may be serving at the displeasure of the board, but, because of board inertia, are perhaps hanging on, feeling trapped in their positions, and would leave if they could find any suitable place to go” (Kauffman 1980, p. ix). Reward structure. The salary levels for academic execu- tive officers are not as high as might be expected, given th pressures of the work. The median salary of chief execu- tive officers of universities and colleges of all types in 1982-83 was $55,624. For presidents at all universities, tht median was $67,760, at four-year colleges $54,000, and at two-year colleges $50,000. Executive vice presidents during the same time period earned a median salary of $49,000 at all institutions, but the median salary differed 48 considerably when institutional types were compared. At ill universities taken together, the median salary was 556,000, at four-year colleges $41,000, and at two-year colleges $46,066 {Chronicle 1983a). Salaries in higher education are considerably lower than salaries for compa- •able positions in business. University and college presi- dents are paid less than one-half the salaries of chief execu- dve officers in business (Bowen 1978). Furthermore, [College and university presidents are expected to contrib- jte to various organizations and charities as well as to subsidize their college-related entertainment. While a iniversity-owned president’s home appears to be a desir- able benefit associated with the position, it can be a finan- cial drain if the president’s family must pay for daily lousekeeping expenses, including utilities. On the other land, if the president’s family does not pay for utilities, t often feels pressured by budget watchers to keep costs down. Recognizing that financial remuneration is minimal for all ;hat the position of president involves, Kauffman (1980) urges that college and university presidents be highly respected for the service they perform: We must restore the concept of service to the role of the presidency. The incentives of honor, security, or material 1 gain are simply not there any longer, if they ever existed. . ... Only the concept of service can be an appropriate • incentive (p. 1). intrinsic dimensions in presidents’ work i-Vot the least drawback of living in an official president’s louse is the sense of living in a fishbowl. Presidents and heir families live under constant scrutiny (Kauffman 1980). Coupled with this factor is the great loneliness of the ob. The president cannot please all faculty members, jitudents, trustees, and alumni. Because of their own so- icialization and identity as faculty members, presidents may eel particular pain when faculty and students disagree with them. ; But the position has its intrinsic rewards, and, on the vhole, presidents are “healthy, positive, energetic people who regard their work as useful and even important’’ Kauffman 1980, p. 84). High status certainly compensates. 'Academic Workplace 49 The president usually occupies impressive quarters and is surrounded by staff to help with most aspects of the job. The presidency is considered the peak of an academic career. The chief executive officer is seen as “heroic,” the person who makes decisions, assumes wide responsibili- ties, and guides the institution (Cohen and March 1974, p. 79). Though all university and college presidents have i high status, the degree of status associated with a presi- j dency depends more on the institution’s quality than on the quality of the president (Cohen and March 1974). Feedback is an important intrinsic dimension of work. | Presidents rarely have a clear sense of the specific expecta- ! tions they should meet or the criteria under which they will i be judged. Not only do presidents often not know what is expected of them but they are also too often judged on inconsis- tent or contradictory standards. . . . Trustees think that \ they make clear to the presidents-elect what is needed and expected, but the presidents report that they are too \ often left in the dark (Nason 1980a, p. 32). The power exercised by presidents Because of their position, presidents exercise a high degree of professional autonomy and hold much power. The strength of a president’s power, however, depends on the degree to which the board delegates authority (Kauffman 1980). When a board and a president agree on expecta- tions, the president can exercise power with more auton- omy. But in recent years, several factors have been erod- ing presidential power. . . . We in higher education have gradually eliminated considerable areas of presidential judgment and discre- tion by adopting uniform procedures, formulas, and policies that command our fealty more than does our good sense (Kauffman 1980, p. 109). State and federal regulations weaken the autonomy of campus officials. State legislative bodies and coordinating boards constrain the power of presidents, particularly in public institutions. Systemwide unions often circumvent the campus president and deal directly with the governor 50 )r legislature. As a result of the process of centralization, campus chancellors in some state systems '‘have been lemoted to middle-level managers” (Kauffman 1980, ). 71). There is growing centralization of authority and decision making. This trend affects faculty governance on the campus level and many system administrators have seen the election of collective bargaining by the faculty as a ' result. Faculty organization further justifies centraliza- tion and strengthens the need for a system office and staff, in addition to strengthening the role of state ojfi- ' dais in higher education governance. The greater in- ' volvement of the state in higher education, in turn, increases systemization and bureaucratization of deci- sion making, altering the role of the campus administra- tor and making it seem less personally significant and rewarding (Kauffman 1980, p. 64). University and college presidents experience their power n an observable pattern as they progress through their 'ears in office. New executive officers tend to overestimate heir power; early mistakes tend to curb this view. As they )egin to recognize their limits, however, they simultane- )usly gain legitimacy, which increases their power. If they ire effective in fund raising and in interactions with their )oard or the legislature, and as they take strong leadership )Ositions, their power grows more (Cohen and March 1974; CauflFman 1980). They must achieve a delicate balance: ’hey must recognize the limits of the office, yet “failure to :ise influence on important matters becomes a sign of v'eakness and has its costs” (Kauffman 1980, p. 48). Presidents can exercise more power in some areas than n others. They may exhibit strong leadership in establish- ig budgetary priorities, long-range planning, personnel olicy and selection, program development, and the physi- al plant. Their role is usually not as pronounced in deci- ions concerning the quality of faculty, the core curricula, nd teaching (Kauffman 1980, p. 49). In those areas, the acuity remains strong. Outcomes of presidents’ work ,'he challenges of the work itself appear to account for luch of the general satisfaction presidents report. Their Icademic Workplace 51 satisfaction is derived from such tasks as “averting dis- aster, saving blood, retaining funding levels, rescuing the system from financial disaster, avoiding cutbacks, and resolving hard differences constructively” (Kanter 1979, p. 3). Among the positive aspects of their work, pres dents of state-controlled colleges and universities list “the challenging nature of their work” and “their role in the community and state” (Buxton, Pritchard, and Buxton 1976, p. 85). Professional autonomy is the source of greatest satisfac- tion (Buxton, Pritchard, and Buxton 1976). Presidents are very satisfied with their “freedom and independence,” with the “power and prestige associated with the office,” and with “presidential participation in institutional policy formulation” (Buxton, Pritchard, and Buxton 1976, pp. 81 85). Similarly, satisfaction and power, influence, challenge responsibility, and autonomy are related positively (Solo- mon and Tierney 1977). Presidents are also satisfied with the “intellectual and social nature of the office,” the “op- portunity to improve the quality of life in the world,” and the “opportunity to shape the future of their institutions” (Buxton, Pritchard, and Buxton 1976, p. 85). They derive great satisfaction from their relationships with students, faculty, and administrators. Some of the dissatisfaction presidents experience is closely related to the external pressures on colleges and universities. The chancellors or presidents of campuses in state systems appear to “have the most complaints about lack of satisfaction in their positions” (Kauffman 1980. p. 70). The governance structure of the system constrains their authority and often forces them into situations of severely conflicting demands. Presidents are particularly concerned about the economic problems associated with declining enrollments and changing state and federal appro priations (Buxton, Pritchard, and Buxton 1976). They do not particularly like fund raising and handling financial affairs, yet it is likely that they will be required to do more The limited time associated with the position is a source ot dissatisfaction. Finally, executive officers are not satisfied with “the amount of recognition that academic presidents receive from members of other professions” (Buxton. Pritchard, and Buxton 1976, p. 83). 52 While the presidency offers an opportunity to make a najor impact on a college or university and on higher education more broadly and while it provides considerable satisfactions, it also is a position of pressure, challenge, and conflict. As outside forces intensify, senior officers of universities and colleges may gain power as decision mak- ng becomes more centralized, but they cannot help also jxperiencing heightened tension and perhaps less satisfac- ;ion. Because strong, creative leaders are vital for the success of colleges and universities, the experience of presidents should continue to be studied. Vice presidents ;oo play an important role, and they have been the focus pf very little research to date. Middle Administrators Scott’s phrase (1979c) “robots or reinsmen” captures the 'undamental dilemma that faces middle-level administra- ;ors. Dubbed “lords, squires, and yeomen” (Scott 1978), Tiiddle administrators include directors and deans of sup- port services and other administrative personnel to whom assistants and first-line supervisors report. Presidents and provosts, academic deans, and librarians are not included n this category. Forces within and without higher educa- ion have contributed to an increase in the number and ype of middle administrative positions, with the specific ype at any particular college or university usually a func- ion of the institution’s size and complexity (Scott 1978). \ffirmative action officers, institutional researchers, coun- selors for specific constituencies, and government relations specialists, though once unusual, can now be found on Wny campuses. Middle administrators sometimes must act as “robots,” .exhibiting only “programmed behavior,” when some would prefer to be the “reinsmen” who exercise their alents from behind the scene (Scott 1979c, p. 17). ! They enter the career field to work with students, hut find that they work mostly with paper. They have high I institutional loyalty, hut must look off-campus for train- , ing, guidance, recognition, colleagueship, and rewards. They are highly oriented to service, hut find increasing 1 pressures to exert both administrative and financial icademic Workplace 53 controls. They have little substantial contact with faculty and senior officers, but want higher status on campus. They exhibit highly desired traits of behavior — tolerance of ambiguity, administrative talent, fiscal ability, and interpersonal skills — but experience a very high rate of turnover iScoit 1979b, p. 93). Middle managers are required to interact with many constituencies within higher education — faculty, other administrators, the president and executive officers, trust- ees, and students. Middle administrators occupy a peculiar role in the university because of their responsibilities to these various groups and to the “mixed organizational structure” within higher education. Acting as “linking pins” between vertical and horizontal levels, middle man- agers implement but seldom develop policy (Scott 1978). Their positions force them to face the conflict between “service for others versus control of others and their actions” (Scott 1978, p. 1). At the same time, they are expected “to be servants to students and faculty, and instruments of institutional policy set by senior administra- tors and trustees. They are to be both servants (as support staff) and policemen (as monitors of procedures)” (Scott 1979c, p. 20). Activities and workload. Middle managers in any organiza- tion usually have diverse functions, and they “contribute the essential knowledge without which the key decisions cannot be made, at least not effectively” (Drucker 1973. p. 450). Similarly, “mid-level administrators perform their tasks in support of an institution’s goals and in control of its activities” (Scott 1978, p. 6). They often serve as liaison with the “suppliers of resources,” they coordinate and implement the allocation of resources and various activities within the institution, and they often work directly with students (Scott 1978, p. 5). Like faculty, administrators find that lack of time is a source of frustration, an issue that is undoubtedly related to other frustrations, such as not enough staff, limited resources, and too much paper- work (Scott 1978). “The functions performed, the organization of functions, and the specialization of functions vary by the size and 54 i complexity of the institution” (Scott 1978, p. 7). Specific iasks also vary, of course, depending on the office (for jixample, admissions, financial aid, institutional research) . ihe administrator occupies. Smaller colleges may combine : iiffices like admissions and registration rather than estab- ish two separate positions. At a small college, the senior jidministrator’s secretary may handle personnel matters; in iiontrast, at a large university, personnel work may involve hany employees handling counseling, staff development, organizational analysis and development, and other activi- |es (Scott 1978). i With increasing size of an institution, tasks become more pecialized, at least for admissions officers and probably brothers (Scott 1976b, 1978; Vinson 1977). In recent l/ears, admissions officers have devoted more time to staff -upervision than to actual admissions work. They are also jess likely to be involved in tangential activities like regis- liration and financial aid (Vinson 1977). This trend toward ipecialization increases the professionalization of middle administrators (Scott 1978). I^pportunity structure. Opportunity structure for adminis- irators in higher education is limited (Kanter 1979; Scott 978, 1979c). With few places at the top and affirmative iction guidelines that often necessitate searches for people leyond those already employed in the lower ranks, middle nanagers tend to remain in their positions for a long time, directors have less mobility than assistants and associates, mt as long as they remain, their subordinates have less )pportunity to advance in the institution (Scott 1979c). “The professional staff office appeared to be, or was, in jhe process of change from the . . . generalist in a position vith limited career opportunities ... to a more specialized, icademically credentialed individual who views higher education administration as a profession and as a step in a Personal career” (Anselm 1980, p. 200). Attrition may (ccur in the face of dead-end careers. If talented adminis- |j j^rators are to be retained in higher education, colleges and iniversities must offer them new kinds of opportunities Imd challenges. ieward structure. Little evidence shows that salary incen- ives can compensate for restricted opportunity and com- icademic Workplace 55 paratively low status. Though middle administrators in universities and colleges have comparable skills to their , counterparts in business and industry, where salary scalt may reach a high level, the salaries for many academic . mid-level administrators are quite low. In 1982-83, medi; salaries for administrators at all universities in such mid- level positions as manager of the payroll, director of stu- dent activities, associate director of food services, direct of accounting, director of annual giving, and director of t: academic computing center ranged from approximately $20,000 to $30,000. Assistants to the president of a unive sity or college earned a median salary of $30,632, across 1 institutions. As the highest paid academic middle admini. trators, assistants to the president of a system, however, earned $36,000. The salary level of these assistants is noticeably higher than that of most middle administrator; (Chronicle 1983b). In the face of severe budgetary con- straints, salary increases are sometimes given to only select employee groups in a university or college. Declin ing morale and resentment can result when the faculty is favored over middle administrators for salary increases. Differences in status are apparent in the more intangible rewards. While administrators must handle the tasks like admission and registration that support the faculty’s wor they receive neither the formal responsibilities nor the rewards bestowed on faculty members. Many are invisib workers who are sometimes passed over in such institu- tional social rituals as presidential receptions (Scott 1979 Intrinsic dimensions in middle administrators' work The intrinsic characteristics of the middle administrator'^ work have never been studied. Variety in work is one of the most important characteristics for a satisfying, motiv- ing job (Hackman and Oldham 1980). Whether variety characterizes the work of middle administrators is difficu to determine independent of the particular job being per- formed. One would expect that directors and associate ai assistant directors of an administrative office would have sufficiently diverse range of tasks to ensure variety in the work. The trend toward specialization in administrative jobs, however, may reduce variety, if indeed it is charac- teristic. 56 The literature focuses especially on the tensions inherent ijthe relationship between faculty and administrators (jaumgartel 1976; Scott 1978; Thomas 1978). Faculty show lltle respect for administrators and resist accepting them ^full members of the academic community. Observing fusion between faculty and mid-level administrative staff if her study at a large university, Anselm (1980) asserts tiat “the relationship between professional staff and fac- ilty was not organizationally defined and the potential for a (j'nflict between them was evident” (p. 199). This tension Hs an obvious structural reason: Faculty members, ori- elted to their respective disciplines, may see issues differ- ejtly from administrators, who are more oriented toward tie bureaucratic structure. Middle administrators seem to b more comparable to business people in their back- ibunds, orientations, and training (Hauser and Lazarsfeld 1:64; Scott 1976a), but it also appears that middle adminis- Mors value collegial ideals (though faculty members may Pt see it) (Bess 1978; Scott 1978). The specific profes- sbnal interests of mid-level administrators reflect the kind '1 fid frequency of their interaction with faculty, the condi- tj)ns of their employment, and their institutions’ incentives (jess 1978; Scott 1978). fProfessional status rests on control over a body of liowledge, and the “science of administration” remains at f'udimentary stage of development. Many middle admin- ifrators have advanced degrees (Scott 1976a) but get their sjecific training on the job (Scott 1978). The increasing slecialization of administrative work as institutions grow I s contributed to the professionalization of academic liddle managers (Scott 1978; Vinson 1977). Some middle f ministrators — admissions officers, financial aid officers, iititutional researchers, student personnel officers — have firmed well-respected regional and national professional (iganizations. These organizations lobby, develop and (jiseminate materials to their constituents, conduct re- garch, and organize conferences. Within their institutions, however, administrators are BDre likely to derive their status from sources other than leir role as professionals — their access to resources, in ijrticular. The position of chief financial officer, for exam- 15, is gaining in prestige (Setoodeh 1981). Current finan- 4 , ^*’ademic Workplace Faculty show little respect for administrators and resist accepting them as full members of the academic community. 57 cial pressures have brought new status and power to somi administrators. The issue of middle administrators’ status is further complicated by shifts in the chain of command. The num-^ ber of middle administrators has increased with the expar sion of institutional size and complexity during the last several decades (Scott 1978). Many middle managers report to individuals whose status in the hierarchy has dropped as new bureaucratic levels have been added. The status of the administrators lower in the hierarchy decline accordingly. Furthermore, when supervisors have not risen through the ranks, they may not understand their subordinates’ frustrations. Power and participation in organizational decisions The autonomy and power of middle administrators are difficult to assess. Middle administrators, unlike faculty, c not have the freedom to determine their work. Their worl is rather the work of the institution, but from this situatioi they gain considerable influence. Mid-level administrators hold considerable authority an have the knowledge to implement policies within their specific spheres, but they generally have little power to make broad institutional policy (Scott 1978). In contrast, the directors of major administrative departments and the assistants to the chief officers — the “professional staff members” — at a major midwestern public research univei i sity were perceived by both administrators and faculty as “holding substantial power to influence the administratioi of . . . policies” (Anselm 1980, p. 196). The two argument are not really contradictory. Mid-level administrators do not have the power to make institutional policy, but their daily responsibilities give them access to privileged infor- mation. The way in which they organize and present this information to senior administrators or faculty committee can have considerable influence. Furthermore, as they administer decisions made by others, they can shape polii in practice. Anselm (1980) found in fact that a majority of the middle administrators and faculty members who re- sponded to her survey believed that “the primary basis o. professional staff power was found in the professional staff’s role as information broker” (p. 146). 58 I Like women, minorities, and other employees whose pwer is restricted (Kanter 1978), mid-level administrators ;-e required to acquiesce to those who hold more power, joth administrators and faculty in Anselm’s study (1980) |reed that mid-level administrators should not be part of lie academic governance system (defined as the university [inate and faculty committees). In this situation, adminis- Sative staff develop ways in their own sphere to deal with bitations on their power: “The professional staff survived ly playing a role that reflected the subservant’s political bumen and which exercised power while denying the iresence of power and which shifted the bases of this lower to fit their organizational and personal relationship ;ith the target office’’ (Anselm 1980, p. 199). i These observations warrant further investigation. To ,fhat extent do mid-level administrators “burrow’’ into leir own offices in response to exclusion from power, not jst influence, in institutional policy making? Is the strat- I igy common or one of several? To what extent and in what iiays do mid-level administrators actually desire to partici- kte in broad decision making? li telationship to the organization: Commitment j/ith all the limitations and frustrations of being a middle iianager, especially in colleges and universities, why do ' ibople want to do it? Why do they stay ? I I Organizational commitment results (as a dependent variable) from a variety of sociological and psychologi- cal circumstances. It also functions as an independent 1 variable and as an intervening variable, producing such f behavioral manifestations as unwillingness to leave the \ organization and the perpetuation of organizational i; mission (Thomas 1978, p. 34). i itrinsic sources rather than extrinsic sources are more Wrongly related to one’s commitment to an organization Thomas 1978). As responsibility, freedom, and status I jicrease, for example, so too does organizational commit- Inent. Individuals’ perceptions of the prestige of their ij jspective positions, of their respective units, and of the i^niversity as a whole and their perceptions of their alterna- 1 1 cademic Workplace 59 tives for a career also relate positively to commitment. Perceptions of equity in salary, an extrinsic dimension ol work, are unrelated to organizational commitment (Thomas 1978). The large majority of mid-level administrators in a larg public research university indicated that their greatest commitment was to the position they held or to the univ{ sity where they worked (Austin forthcoming). Only one- fifth cited a career in higher education as their primary commitment, greater than their commitment to the positi or to the employing university. This group of career-orieml administrators had been employed at the university signi cantly fewer years, on the average, than the administrate who were most committed to the university or the positk they held. Such intrinsic factors as the autonomy experienced in work in higher education, the pride in the contributions higher education makes to society, and the opportunity ti i meet interesting people are especially important reasons ! for commitment. Salary, an extrinsic factor, is not as strong a contributor to commitment to work as the varioi intrinsic factors. If, however, administrators perceive tha their salary slips too far in comparison to their faculty colleagues or that the university does not sufficiently vali their contribution, salary becomes increasingly importan (Austin forthcoming). Much remains to be learned about the sources of aca- i demic middle administrators’ commitment, the factors detracting from that commitment, and the relationship between commitment and various outcomes. The researc i to date suggests that mid-level administrators in higher education are committed largely because they believe in and take pride in what they are doing, because they like the autonomy available in their work, and because they i like the people with whom they deal. One might speculati however, on the effect of conditions that diminish admini i trators’ status. As time passes, one might expect the negi i tive aspects of their jobs to detract from their commitmer to the institution. The existing data suggest, however, tha intrinsic aspects of their work may compensate for the le: attractive extrinsic aspects. Institutional commitment ma increase with length of employment (Austin forthcoming) I but this speculation requires further investigation. 60 It is important to note that, while intrinsic reasons are 'try important in contributing to mid-level administrators’ ommitment, the extrinsic factors should not be neglected. ] administrators feel that they are not valued for their Antributions and not rewarded to at least some reasonable egree, their commitment may be threatened. t iutcomes of middle administrators’ work kculty members’ scholarly work is evaluated carefully fid efforts are made to assess the impact of their teaching, ut administrators’ work is rarely evaluated systematically. Admissions directors will know whether they have suc- teded in bringing in a class of the projected size and iaality, and financial aid directors may know that all stu- ents’ applications have been processed. But how do these dicers — and the institutional researchers, registrars, [rectors of maintenance services, and myriad others — now whether they are doing a good job? ( ‘ When asked about desirable incentives, some middle Iministrators suggested a “performance evaluation’’ to sess “the competence and performance of those who anage’’ (Scott 1978, p. 27). Only a few institutions and Weral professional associations, such as the Council for lie Advancement and Support of Education, presently Ter such evaluation programs (Scott 1978). ‘ Satisfaction is one outcome of administrators’ work that searchers have studied to some extent. A number of udies report that administrators are quite satisfied with jeir jobs (Baldridge et al. 1978; Bess and Lodahl 1969; :ott 1978; Solomon and Tierney 1977). In a study of Iministrators in 22 four-year liberal arts colleges, for .cample, administrators indicated high levels of satisfac- iDn, with only 10 percent saying they were not satisfied wlomon and Tierney 1977). Limited opportunities for llvancement, lack of time for scholarly work, leisure, and Imily activities, and insufficient resources and staff were Actors contributing to dissatisfaction. Given the frustra- jms mid-level administrators experience, it is somewhat 'irprising that their satisfaction is not lower. Perhaps the jtrinsic aspects of their work such as those relating to !eir commitment to the organization also maintain middle Iministrators’ satisfaction, despite their frustrations. :ademic Workplace 61 In sum, the literature suggests that several conflicts are built into the positions of mid-level administrators. Those off campus view them as experts and spokesmen, while those on campus overlook or ignore them. While they sometimes are privy to specialized, pertinent information institutional policy makers often fail to enlist their direct involvement in decision making. Institutional reward sys- tems do not acknowledge their professionalism. Administ- tors must simultaneously serve and control, sometimes wi insufficient resources and staff. Concern with job security opportunities for advancement, and professional recogni- tion are areas contributing to frustration with the job. If one imagines a group of managers whose career potential within their organization is clearly limited, whose roles are relatively ambiguous, who have little opportunity to contribute directly to the organization’s multiple missions, who receive lower salaries than theii industrial or governmental counterparts, and because < their rapid multiplication within the organization are viewed as a sinister influence by a politically powerful faculty, he may have a fairly accurate description of middle level managers employed within American col- leges and universities today (Thomas 1978, p. 16). Increased “federal, state, and corporate requirements for administrative accountability in academic, financial, and personnel matters” backed by strong sanctions (Scoti 1978, p. 2), as well as changing societal expectations of ai needs from higher education, heighten concern with effi- ciency and quality performance in higher education. Midd administrators are essential to the achievement of such oi comes. “If we can provide an environment in which our rJ- die managers are more effective, then we can multiply the effectiveness of the entire organization” (Kay 1974, p. 8). A Foot in Administration, A Foot in Academics: Academic Deans and Department Chairs Academic deans and department chairs have not been included in the discussion of mid-level administrators, as they are also faculty members. Their professorial role giv' them the status not available to administrators without academic appointments. Nevertheless, some of the pres- 62 iires they face are like those of other mid-level administra- ilrs (see Booth 1982 and Griffiths and McCarty 1980 for a •ore intensive review and discussion of the deanship). I Only in recent years has the academic deanship been the 5 )cus of much research (Kapel 1979). Traditionally, the can has been a faculty member appointed by the president iho is expected to stand between the top administration iid the faculty (Gould 1964; Meeth 1971; Okun 1981; Idsniewski 1977). As in industrial settings, where middle ianagers are links between the top management and lower jvels, in higher education deans serve as “linking pins” etween central administration and faculty (Henderson and ienderson 1974, p. 217; Katz and Kahn 1978, p. 321; ikert 1961, pp. 113-15; Scott 1978, p. 10). Deans usually ave had no special administrative training and have held »eir posts for a limited period of time, after which they ave returned to the faculty (see Moore et al. 1983). '! Their power is often rather restricted, as faculty have Il'pically controlled curricular decisions and their own iisearch. A dean is often described as “a mediator, a jlroblem-solver, a consensus-former, a conciliator, but krely as a decision-maker” (Okun 1981, p. 26, citing jaldridge 1971a and Gould 1964). As deans acquire more ontrol over budgets, hiring, and policy making, conflict jetween the faculty and deans may increase (Okun 1981). teans are less satisfied than chief executive officers (Solo- ion and Tierney 1977); perhaps one explanation for the jissatisfaction may be the intermediary role deans play. I Several studies investigate perceptions of the dean’s role ilmong different university constituencies (Dejnozka 1978; j'apel 1979; Scott 1979a). In a national sample used to balyze the role expectations of the deanship of schools of pucation held by central administrators, deans of educa- pn, chairs of education departments, and education iculty, the four groups agreed about the dean’s role in jXternal relations, in evaluation of people and programs, bd in monitoring programs and people. Overall, however, eans and central administrators felt that deans should act ■lore like line officers than did the faculty and department ihairs. Deans identify with top administrators (Dejnozka 1978; Kapel 1979). I While role conflict seems to be built into the dean’s osition, department chairs also experience it. The title of Academic Workplace 63 a recent monograph. The Department Chair: Professional Development and Role Conflict (Booth 1982), underlines the pervasiveness of the experience. Of 39 chairs at Penn- sylvania State University, all but two indicated that they had not received any charge when assuming the position (Bragg 1980). Consequently, they experienced feelings of | conflict and ambiguity. Without realistic priorities or goals i they could not assess their achievement. Without such guidelines, these department chairs focused on whatever i activities each did best (Bragg 1980). Another study in seven Florida universities also found role conflict among department chairs: Department chairs experienced “in- compatible expectations” from deans, other chairs, and faculty (Carroll 1976, p. 245). Department chairs felt the greatest conflict about such personnel decisions as promo- tion and salary level, which are increasingly constrained b limited budgets. That these particular areas cause consid- erable conflict is not surprising, as department chairs are active faculty members as well as administrators. This specific dichotomy is evident in Kapel’s study (1979). Some department chairs’ answers were like faculty; other' answered more like deans and central administrators. A statistically significant correlation exists between the presence of role conflict with decreased job satisfaction fo: department chairs (Carroll 1976). This finding is consistent with observations in many organizational settings, which show that role conflict contributes to low job satisfaction, low confidence in the organization, and high job-related tension (Kahn et al. 1964). Tighter budgets are only likely to heighten these problems. The central problem appears to be the growing demands for accountability in departments at the same time that resources for departments are reduced. This changes th> character of academic leadership so that "leaders must mediate between an increased number of constituencies both within and outside the academic department, constituencies that press a number of conflicting criteria for decision-making’’ (Booth 1982, p. 22, citing Smelser and Content 1980, p. 172). Though aspects of their responsibilities for personnel and program development are apparently satisfying for :)me department chairs (McLaughlin, Montgomery, and [alpass 1975), the position clearly involves considerable i»le conflict. As department chairs make decisions under (jnditions of economic constraint, this conflict becomes ore apparent. ower-level Administrators [any studies have been done on aspects of the work iperience of lower-level and entry-level administrators, articularly in student personnel. These studies are usually arrowly focused, however, and generally do not compre- snsively describe or analyze the work experience of )wer-level administrators. Within the scope of this re- jarch report, it has not been possible to review carefully le many individual studies. The work experience of entry- ivel admissions counselors, financial aid counselors, ersonnel counselors, resident heads, development offi- ;rs, institutional research assistants, and other lower- wet administrators may be similar in some ways to that of lid-level administrators, but a comprehensive and analytic ‘.view of past research and the gaps in it is needed. ummary -dministrators differ in their hierarchical level and their imctional responsibilities. Like faculty, administrators at 11 levels are being asked to do more with less. Administra- )rs are particularly sensitive to their institutions’ dual rganizational structure. Deans and department chairs perate in the bureaucracy and the collegium at the same me — and are subject to the pressures of both worlds, hose who work almost exclusively in the bureaucratic jtructure flfid that the collegial structure impinges on their I'ork and sense of self, even as the bureaucratic structure 1 . gaining in dominance. While they are moving toward .reater professionalization, middle administrators must ontinue to accept lower status, limited participation in istitutional decision making, ambiguous roles, and few pportunities for advancement. 'Academic Workplace 65 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Policy Implications Retrenchment raises questions that have not yet been explored sufficiently in the literature on work. What ap- proaches will enable the widest participation in the diffici decisions that must be made? How can opportunities for professional growth be improved when budgets are being cut and options for mobility frozen? Perhaps the most important question of all concerns the commitment of those who work in higher education. Under the condition colleges and universities will be facing in the 1980s and 1990s, how will the generally high commitment of faculty, administrators, and support staff be maintained? Recent studies of different employee groups show that the intrinsic characteristics of work, satisfaction, and commitment remain quite stable. At the same time, many faculty members and administrators are experiencing a decline in the extrinsic aspects of their work. A general “speed-up” — more work for the same pay — is occurring. Role conflict, stress, and limited time appear to be increas ing. For many faculty and administrators, opportunities fc mobility are very limited and morale is lower. On many campuses, the physical plant is not maintained to the samt standard that it previously was. Though it is open only to speculation, the quality of work life for clerical and sup- port staff is probably also less positive than in years past. What can be done in this situation? The current litera- ture on effective organizations (Kanter 1983; Naisbitt 1982 Peters and Waterman 1982) leads to the following recom- mendations; (1) Leaders of colleges and universities must pay more attention to articulating their institutions' pur- poses; (2) task and decision-making structures must be- come more collaborative and less hierarchical; (3) persua- sive programs for career planning and for the development of all employees must be instituted. Pay more attention to articulating purposes Relatively separate structures for administrators and fac- ulty have been accepted over the years. Now, however, a struggle seems to be underway between the bureaucratic and the collegial structures, and the bureaucratic structure seems to be gaining. This gain is not because senior admin istrators are power-hungry people; many of them are former faculty members (Moore 1983a) who have probably 66 esisted the centralization of power. In fact, many adminis- rators, “from presidents on down, feel almost over- vhelmed by demands of the bureaucracy that call for iiccountability but provide few rewards and give campus eaders little freedom to make their own decisions” (Carne- gie Foundation 1982, p. 89). Presidents, deans, and their staffs do not necessarily gain as the bureaucratic structure expands. j The situation is vastly more complicated, more struc- lural. While individual faculty members may continue to find their lives as academics personally satisfying, the academic corporate body has lost its sense of purpose. Splintered by differences among the disciplines in perspec- ;ive and method and organized into departments, the faculty, particularly in universities, has been unable to act together on anything significant for a long time. This prob- lem was not serious when enrollments were up and re- search money was plentiful. But as funds have shrunk, the faculty has trapped itself in the discipline-bound structure, faculty find themselves competing with one another across departments — now, even within departments — for portions jaf a smaller pie. Individuals or bands of faculty occasion- ally break out, but they pay a high price in lost time, few rewards, and isolation — as they struggle, along with their colleagues, to teach more courses, write more articles, and serve on more committees. I The shift in power to the administration is more than a matter of “governance.” It also affects the “normative (orientation” (Etzioni 1961) — the soul — of higher education. ‘^Utilitarian orientations” curdle idealism. This is an espe- jCially dangerous situation if the tenured faculty, who will Ion the whole stay around, turn their wits to “getting |theirs.” Time servers, apparatchiks, and operators have [always been around, but they were exceptions rather than Ithe rule. I Higher education has always run on the commitment of its employees to do more. Commitment is a precious re- source, one that turns out to be a key to the productivity and effectiveness of most organizations (Katzell, Yanke- jlovich et al. 1975; Peters and Waterman 1982). Employees’ jcommitment is based on a sense that the institution in which they work is worthy and cares about them. Leaders are crucial in shaping the atmosphere that gives rise to Task and decision-making structures must become more collaborative and less hierarchical. Academic Workplace 67 these feelings. Indeed, most effective organizations have leaders who constantly articulate their institutions’ beliefs In coping with financial problems, marry leaders of college and universities have forgotten that the prime activity for managers is to shape the culture of their institutions (Peter and Waterman 1982). These leaders could learn a good dee from colleges of character, which have managed to survive against many odds (Clark 1970; Martin 1982). Make task and decision-making structures more collaborative In business and industry, much attention is being directed to Japanese techniques for management (Ouchi 1981). Cultural differences make importation of such techniques into American settings complex and far from automatic. Nevertheless, certain principles seem to apply to the United States. Effective organizational structures are flexible, staffing is rather lean, and communication fre- quent and direct. Subunits have permeable boundaries, and work groups shift as new needs arise. While their organizational charts may look messy — if they have any at all — and their hierarchies flat, such organizations do their work creatively and efficiently. Colleges and universities are traditional organizations — and rightly so. The commitment to collegiality, to tenure, to the protection of the cultural heritage have all insulated higher education from the vagaries of the market. It is now known from the literature on effective organizations that it is not tradition, which after all is the basis for the sense of purpose in many colleges and universities, but the centrali- zation of power and the bureaucratization of decision mak- ing that threaten higher education, just as they threaten other organizations (Kanter 1983; Naisbitt 1982; Peters and Waterman 1982). For whether they are traditional or non- traditional, effective organizations make the best use of their employees by encouraging collaboration in the pursuit of their goals. People writing about higher education are starting to examine the importance of collaboration in colleges and universities (Nichols 1982; Spiro and Camp- bell 1983). The participatory approach to management — or a consultive approach to decision making in academe — can lead to consensus and better understanding. Consultation involves opening decision-making proc- esses to concerned constituencies holding diverse points 68 - j f of view in the hope that reasoned discourse and patient, v i far-ranging discussion may lead to consensus on issues $ i or to better mutual understanding of the needs, goals, !j ; and interests of each group involved (Powers and I. Powers 1983, p. 219). If I Consultive decision making involves the participation of ) ;mployees at all levels in decisions that affect them. A key i io this participation is full availability of the information Jieeded to make decisions in a form that employees can t. Imderstand and use (Peters and Waterman 1982). A leader does not abdicate responsibility by using a participatory » itpproach. Leaders still must make hard decisions, but they ' do so by involving as many people as possible in develop- I ng ideas, writing and discussing position papers, and . pudding support for the best decision. ' : While time is required for people to develop the skills ;hat contribute to good participatory decision making and a L pertain amount of time is also needed for deliberation, the ; advantages of consultive decision making outweigh the ' disadvantages (Powers and Powers 1983). It generates i many good ideas; because information is gathered widely and the knowledge and skills of many people are used, jbetter decisions result. Consultive decision making also I 'supports people’s needs for personal achievement, auton- fomy, and psychological growth. It often increases the 'productivity of faculty, administrators, and staff who Understand how and why a decision is reached. And, finally, participatory decision making increases the legiti- macy of decisions and the trust and understanding of constituent groups. j These ideas are intriguing, and they are worth pursuing 'seriously as they become perfected in other sectors. The jtranslation of practices suitable for business and industry 'into colleges and universities will require great sensitivity land sophistication. While Powers and Powers (1983) pro- vide a framework for efforts of this kind, specific examples of successful participatory decision making in higher jCducation will take some time to develop. Those colleges and universities where faculty members are collaborating to improve the undergraduate curriculum provide some examples from which we can learn (Gaff 1983; Gamson forthcoming). Academic Workplace 69 These efforts will succeed to the extent that faculty, administrators, and staff members feel that they are full, participating, valued citizens of their institutions. This process will be slow and difficult for the many institutions that have lost — or never had — a community. No simple formulas work under conditions of retrenchment (Jedamus Peterson, and Associates 1980; Mingle and Associates 1981). One obvious aspect of the problem is that workers in higher education — faculty members in particular — are not rewarded for being “citizens.” Institute career planning and development for all employees Faculty, even in teaching-oriented institutions, are pro- moted and given salary increases according to the number of articles and books they publish. While publications may bring luster to scholars in their disciplines and reflected glory (as well as much-coveted overhead monies) to their institutions, they do not help much in the daily life of institutions. Nor do they contribute significantly to the central purpose of most colleges and universities — under- graduate teaching. These schools must stop emulating the research universities, which are more in the business of producing knowledge than of teaching, and rebalance the emphasis on scholarship versus teaching and service. It is only then that faculty will be willing and able to engage in collaborative work and consultive decision making. Coincident with a focus on the reward structure should be an all-out effort to expand the mobility and choice of the individuals working in higher education. Several research- ers have suggested approaches to faculty development, and some of these ideas could be adopted for administrators and staff as well (Schurr 1980; Shulman 1980, 1983; Toombs and Marlier 1981; West 1980). Innovative arrange- ments of workload might be developed to stimulate faculty members’ growth (Shulman 1980). Recommendations include in-house visiting lectureship programs in which professors are selected to serve as resource people to other faculty members and special lecturers for classes other than their own. Professors also could be given short ad- ministrative assignments to expand their knowledge and experience. To retrain professors for new areas of teach- ing, universities and colleges might develop summer or 70 year-long internships in government or industry and ex- change programs with other academic and nonacademic institutions (Schurr 1980; Toombs and Marlier 1981). Op- tions include early retirement plans with cash settlements and partial benefits typically awarded only at retirement. Phased retirement, allowing for several years of part-time employment, is another possibility. The problem of limited mobility must also be faced. Schurr (1980) recommends that foundations or government agencies organize “a concerted program of collecting, refining, developing and disseminating model institutional policies which both involve faculty members in dealing with career constraints and enable faculty members to develop career options” (p. 20). Other ideas include sum- mer workshops at which campus teams could share ideas and develop strategies to deal with problems of mobility, multicampus career planning centers and libraries, and publication programs on career options. Several cooperat- ing institutions or foundations could provide emergency assistance for terminated faculty members (Schurr 1980). Little has been written about the need to provide career I planning and opportunities for growth for administrative I and staff members. The rapid diffusion of human resource development programs and quality circles in business and industry is an important source of ideas for higher educa- tion (Bowles, Gordon, and Weisskopf 1983; Simmons and Mares 1983; Yankelovich and Immerwahr 1983). While the results of the recommended efforts cannot be j predicted exactly, they are clearly worth undertaking. For it is only now that it is being recognized that the structures that worked in the expansionary period are not working ! well now. While colleges and universities do not have much control over their external resources, they can gen- erally choose how to distribute their resources internally, I according to what principles and which procedures. The response to constraint in the past decade has been to push existing structures and the people in them to their limits and hope for the best. But no one seems to gain from such organizational naivete. It is time to learn from the best organizational research and practice. If the imagination and resources that are directed to studying other questions were to be turned to colleges and universities as work- places, we might find that more rational, less costly ways Academic Workplace 71 are available to confront economic problems while remain- ing faithful to the highest ideals of higher education. Research Agendas The enormous amount of literature on higher education hardly ever looks at how colleges and universities operate i as workplaces or how the questions that are investigated — whether they be planning strategies, governance struc- tures, or curricular change — affect the way employees work. On the other hand, the well-developed literature on worklife in business and industry rarely touches public sector organizations, let alone colleges and universities. This report has discussed the peculiarities of colleges and universities as a category — the interpenetrating bu- reaucratic and collegial structures, the strange varieties of organizational politics, the mixtures of centralization and decentralization. Compared to the private sector, wages and salaries in colleges and universities are often lower and opportunities for advancement are more limited. Psy- chic rewards have, however, been high, and work has been more varied and autonomous than in other kinds of organizations. These findings may have been framed by a certain his- torical period. Some evidence already shows that what was thought to be generally true — that faculty, for instance, are motivated primarily by intrinsic rather than extrinsic re- wards — may be most characteristic of the expansionary period. To be sure, changes occur slowly and at different rates (if at all) in different kinds of institutions. On this as well as other matters, comparative research is needed. Making use of instruments developed to describe and diagnose the nature of worklife in other settings (Hackman and Oldham 1980; Institute for Social Research 1980; Quinn and Mangione 1970; Quinn and Shepard 1974) as well as instruments already developed (Austin forthcom- ing; Bowling Green 1980), studies of different employee groupc must be done in a variety of colleges and universi- ties. Account should be taken of the differences related to such variables as size, selectivity, and public or private support that have emerged in several studies as important correlates of work attitudes and activities in higher educa- tion. 72 Throughout the text important questions and gaps are noted. (Tables V, VI, and VII in the appendix summarize areas for future research.) Because there is very little research about the work experience of clerical and other support staff, they are not discussed in this monograph. But these employees have skills that can be used in other types of organizations, and they should be studied. What attracts them to the academic environment? They are essential to the smooth daily operation of their workplaces; understanding the nature of their work and the sources of their frustrations and satisfactions is therefore critical. Women, minorities, and part-time employees, who tend to be concentrated in the lower ranks, should be the focus of more research. Interestingly, the literature on industry and business has focused on the work experience of those lower in the hierarchy and less on those in middle and top management. In contrast, the literature on higher educa- tion has had a more elite bias, more frequently examining faculty and senior administrators with less attention to lower-level administrators and support staff. Another area meriting special attention concerns the measurement of productivity in higher education. It is assumed that satisfaction, opportunities for participation, autonomy, power, and mobility increase productivity and quality, but the literature contains enough controversy about this assumption (Berg et al. 1978; Blumberg 1968; Heckscher 1980; Katz and Kahn 1978) that it is worth special attention in colleges and universities, whose prod- ucts and organizational structures are quite different. Collective bargaining is not considered in this review, I but collective bargaining among university employees may ! be a reaction to the increasing pressures on higher educa- ' tion. While a substantial body of literature is developing on '! this topic (Angell and Kelley 1977; Kemerer and Baldridge ; 1975, 1981; Lee 1978, 1982; Mortimer and McConnell I 1978), research should consider particularly the implica- ! tions of unions for decision-making power, self-perception, f, and role conflict among administrators, faculty, and staff. ; The structure of governance of universities and colleges ‘ and the peculiar role of professors bring vexing questions li as collective bargaining is introduced into higher education. In addition to further study within colleges and universi- ties, research should also compare higher education with I Academic Workplace 73 other sectors. While research funds for large comparative studies are limited, secondary analysis of data sets on worklife in other organizations or from national samples is possible, if not always ideal. Comparisons with business or industrial settings or with government or service agencies may highlight the uniqueness of universities and colleges as well as the ways in which they are similar to other work- places. Do particular groups of university employees — clericals or administrators, for example — experience their work like their counterparts in other organizations, or are they more like other employees in colleges and universi- ties, like the faculty? Comparative study with service and business organizations may provide useful ideas for col- leges and universities dealing with retrenchment. This research agenda has both practical and theoretical implications. Colleges and universities as they function as workplaces are microcosms for investigating basic ques- tions about how organizations and individuals respond to scarcity. In an institutional sector as central as higher education to the fortunes of the nation, this is a critical applied question as well. APPENDIX Tables I, II, III, and IV summarize the research on various aspects of the work experience of faculty members, presi- dents, mid-level administrators, and other administrators, ; respectively. Each table is divided into sections paralleling the major topical areas of the text. The studies that support the major research findings are also listed. Tables V, VI, and VII present important issues and questions not yet answered concerning the work experi- ence of faculty, administrators, and support staff, respec- tively. They too are divided according to the major areas discussed in the text. I |i 1 . Academic Workplace 75 TABLE I SUMMARY OF RECENT RESEARCH ON THE WORK EXPERIENCE OF FACULTY MEMBERS Topic Major Research Findings Extrinsic fac- Activities and workload tors in work • Expectations of others are often ambiguous and conflicting. • The greatest source of role strain is excessive demands to perform discrete tasks. • Work week averages 44 to 55 hours. • The allocation of faculty members’ time is related to the type of institution. The great majority of faculty prefer teaching, but faculty members are directing increasing atten- tion to research and are publishing more in recent years. Bibliographic Reference Blau 1973; Ladd 1979; Rich and Jolicoeur 1978 Baldwin and Blackburn 1981; Bess 1982; Larkin and Clagett 1981; Wendel 1977 Ladd 1979; Shulman 1980; Wendel 1977 Baldridge et al. 1978; Fulton and Trow 1974; Ladd 1979; Rich and Jolicoeur 1978; Shulman 1980; Willie and Stecklein 1981 Ladd and Lip- sett 1975, 1977; Rich and Joli- coeur 1978; Willie and Stecklein 1981 Opportunity structure • Limited opportunity for Keyfitz 1975; mobility exists within Schurr 1980 faculty members' own institutions and into other institutions. Reward structure • Financial compensation for faculty is dropping in comparison to cost-of- living increases. Anderson 1983; Carnegie Coun- cil 1980 Intrinsic dimen- sions in work • Little empirical study has been performed; only observation and specula- tion are available to date. ;Power and participation • Faculty have most influ- ence on academic ap- pointments and least on financial matters. Baldridge et al. 1973; Kenen and Kenen 1978; Mortimer, Gunne, and Leslie 1976 • The size, complexity, and prestige of the institution are strongly and posi- tively related to faculty members’ autonomy and power. Baldridge et al. 1973; Blau 1973; Ecker 1973; Kenen and Kenen 1978; Light 1974; Ross 1977; Stonewater 1977 • Faculty members’ rank and credentials are re- lated positively to their influence; status and expertise are the key variables. Baldridge et al. 1973; Ecker 1973; Kenen and Kenen 1978; Light 1974; Ross 1977 • Faculty influence at pub- lic universities and pri- vate nondenominational institutions is greater than at public colleges and denominational institu- tions. Cares and Blackburn 1978; Kenen and Kenen 1978 • Faculty members’ partici- pation in governance at institutions of all types has declined sharply over the last decade. Anderson 1983 Academic Workplace 77 Relationship to the organization Outcomes • Institutional loyalty is Blau 1973; related to faculty mem- Kenen 1974; bers’ status in the institu- Lewis 1967; tion, profession, and Nandi 1968; discipline. As status in Parsons and the institution increases, Platt 1968; institutional loyalty in- Razak 1969; creases. Spencer 1969 • Organizational loyalty and professional commit- ment seem to vary inde- pendently. Productivity and perfor- mance Razak 1969 • Institutional quality and Behymer 1974; “colleague climate” are Blau 1973; the strongest predictors Finkelstein of productivity as mea- 1978; Fulton sured by the amount of research. and Trow 1974 • The relationship between Bayer and Dut- age and research produc- ton 1977; Black- tivity follows a saddle- burn, Behymer, shaped curve. Satisfaction and Hall 1978; Fulton and Trow 1974; Pelz and Andrews 1976 • Satisfaction among fac- Bennett and ulty is relatively high. Griffitt 1976; though the percentage Willie and reporting indifference or dissatisfaction is increas- ing. Stecklein 1981 • Intrinsic factors are more Bennett and significant than extrinsic Griffitt 1976; factors in explaining job Bess 1981; satisfaction. The nature Cohen 1973; of the work itself, auton- Willie and omy, relations with oth- Stecklein 1981; ers in the institution, and the opportunity to work Winkler 1982 78 with students are espe- cially important factors. • Extrinsic factors — espe- cially salary levels, retire- ment prospects, time constraints, and lack of equipment, budgetary, and secretarial support — appear to be important determinants of job dis- satisfaction. • Faculty are quite satisfied with the academic career in general, regardless of the type of institution or their age or sex. Morale • Faculty morale has been declining over the last decade. • A major factor contribut- ing to positive morale and satisfaction is involve- ment in planning and governance. Bureau of Insti- tutional Re- search 1974; Clark and Blackburn 1973; Ladd 1979 Gaff and Wilson 1975; Willie and Stecklein 1981 Anderson 1983 Anderson 1983 'I Academic Workplace 79 TABLE II SUMMARY OF RECENT RESEARCH ON THE WORK EXPERIENCE OF PRESIDENTS Topic Extrinsic fac- tors in work Intrinsic dimen- sions in work Major Research Findings Activities and workload • Many diverse demands are placed on presidents. • Great time pressures are sometimes a source of dissatisfaction. Opportunity structure • Few opportunities exist for comparable new posi- tions after a presidency. Reward structure • Salary levels for college and university presidents are lower than for compa- rable positions in busi- ness or industry. • The position of president is intrinsically lonely, although it confers high status on the individual. • Expectations are unclear, although the president is under constant scrutiny. • The position confers a high degree of autonomy and power, although current pressures may threaten autonomy, espe- cially in centralized state systems. • The president’s power is especially high in estab- lishing budget priorities, long-range planning, personnel policy and Bibliographic Reference Cohen and March 1974 Buxton, Prit- chard, and Buxton 1976; Kauffman 1980 Cohen and March 1974; Kauffman 1980 Bowen 1978 Cohen and March 1974; Kauffman 1980; Nason 1980a 80 selection, program devel- opment, and decisions concerning the physical plant. Outcomes • Satisfaction results from the challenge of the work, decision making, auton- omy, relationships with students, faculty, and administrators, and con- tributions to society. • Dissatisfaction is asso- ciated with external pres- sures on colleges and universities: economic pressures; limited time; constraints on the author- ity of presidents in cen- tralized state systems. Buxton, Prit- chard, and Buxton 1976; Kanter 1979; Solomon and Tierney 1977 Buxton, Prit- chard, and Buxton 1976; Kauffman 1980 Academic Workplace 81 TABLE III SUMMARY OF RECENT RESEARCH ON THE WORK EXPERIENCE OF MID-LEVEL ADMINISTRATORS Topic Major Research Findings Bibliographic Reference Extrinsic fac- tors in work Activities and workload • Limited time is a source of frustration. Scott 1978 • Actual tasks vary de- pending on the specific area of administration; in general, the trend is to- ward increasing speciali- zation. Anselm 1980; Scott 1978 Opportunity structure • Opportunities for upward mobility are limited. Kanter 1979; Scott 1978, 1979c Reward structure • Salaries are lower than for comparable positions in business or industry. Scott 1978 Intrinsic dimen- sions in work • Tensions are inherent in the relationship between faculty and staff. Anselm 1980; Baumgartel 1976; Scott 1978; Thomas 1978 • With the increasing num- ber of mid-level adminis- trators in recent decades, the status for some has dropped. Scott 1978 Power and participation • The autonomy to imple- ment decisions may be quite high, but the power to make policy is limited. Anselm 1980; Kanter 1978; Scott 1978 • Mid-level administrators have little power to make broad institutional poli- cies but have daily re- Anselm 1980; Kanter 1978; Scott 1978 Relationship to the organization Outcomes sponsibility to implement policies. • Organizational commit- ment is more strongly related to intrinsic factors than to extrinsic factors; organizational commit- ment increases as respon- sibility, freedom, and status increase. • Administrators indicate that they are quite satis- fied with their work. • Dissatisfaction is related to limited opportunities for advancement, limited time, and insufficient resources and staff. Thomas 1978 Baldridge et al. 1978; Scott 1978; Solomon and Tierney 1977 Academic Workplace 83 TABLE IV SUMMARY OF RECENT RESEARCH ON THE WORK EXPERIENCE OF OTHER ADMINISTRATORS Type of Bibliographic Administrator Major Research Findings Reference Deans and department chairs Role conflict • Conflict between deans and faculty increases as deans acquire more con- trol over budgets, hiring, and policy making. Okun 1981 • Role conflict is built into the roles of deans and department chairs. The greatest conflict is over such personnel decisions as promotion and salary levels. Bragg 1980; Carroll 1976 Satisfactions • Deans and department chairs report less job satisfaction than chief executive officers. Solomon and Tierney 1977 • A negative correlation exists between role con- flict and job satisfaction for department chairs. Carroll 1976 Lower-level administrators • While many studies have been done on specific aspects of the work of lower-level administra- tors (especially student personnel administra- tors), few major studies bring together the individ- ual studies. 84 TABLE V DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ON THE WORK EXPERIENCE OF FACULTY MEMBERS Topic Extrinsic fac- tors in work Intrinsic dimen- sions in work Issues and Questions Activities and workload • How do activities of faculty members in the various disciplines differ? • Faculty workload becomes a sensitive and difficult issue in times of retrenchment. How can workload be allocated to take into ac- count discipline, institutional type, and individual interests? • What new mixtures of responsibilities for teaching and research can be designed that reach beyond traditional disciplinary bound- aries? Opportunity structure • How can career options and development be expanded for young scholars as well as for senior faculty members? • The specific problems of terminated faculty members have been largely ignored. How can these individuals be assisted? Reward structure • Few good models exist to enable cross- institutional comparisons of salary and com- pensation. • The intrinsic dimensions of faculty work are largely unstudied. Empirical research should examine the degree of autonomy, variety, and feedback in faculty members’ work. • To what extent is faculty work varied? To what extent is variety diminished in situa- tions where mobility is unlikely? What structural approaches might increase the variety of faculty work despite decreasing options for mobility? • Under the impact of external pressures, are individual faculty members experiencing a decline in their control over their daily work? Academic Workplace 85 • How do faculty members do their scholarly work? Would greater encouragement and reward for collaborative work be one way t increase faculty members’ vitality? Power and • The trend toward centralization of decision participation making in universities and colleges should be examined. What is the extent of this trend and what are its effects on faculty members? • Studies link institutional size, complexity, and quality to greater autonomy and power for faculty, but little research analyzes dif- ferences in faculty power and participation according to institutional type. • To what extent and on what issues do fac- ulty members want to participate in decisioi making? What are the differences between their desire for autonomy over their own work and their desire to participate in deci- sions of an institutional nature? • The terms “power,” “influence,” “auton- omy,” and “participation” must be more clearly distinguished in the literature and research. Relationship to Individual/institutional goal congruence the organization • How does individual/institutional goal con- gruence relate to the nature of faculty mem bers’ work experience? • Under what conditions are institutional goa ambiguity and individual/institutional goal conflict most pronounced and destructive? Loyalty and commitment • Research has not examined the nature of faculty members’ loyalty to their institu- tions. What promotes and what detracts from the organizational loyalty and commit ment of faculty members? • Under what conditions do faculty members forgo salary and benefit advantages in ef- forts to help institutions under economic constraint? 86 )utconies Productivity and performance • Though advances are being made, more research is needed on ways to measure the outcomes of faculty work. • Studies of the effectiveness of teaching are difficult to compare, because different crite- ria and measures are used. More work is needed in this area. Satisfaction • More research is needed concerning the relationship between faculty members’ par- ticipation, autonomy, and power and their satisfaction. • How does institutional stress affect faculty members’ satisfaction? Morale • What promotes and detracts from faculty members’ morale? icademic Workplace 87 TABLE VI DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ON THE WORK EXPERIENCE OF ADMINISTRATORS Topic Extrinsic fac- tors in work Issues and Questions Presidents/Senior Officers • To what extent do college and university presidents feel that their opportunities for mobility are limited? Does a sense of limitec options for mobility affect their work? • What are the effects of economic pressures and centralized decision making on the way in which presidents feel about their posi- tions? How do such pressures affect their satisfaction? Their level of stress? • Vice presidents have not been studied much as a distinct group. While the position may be somewhat similar to the presidency, the dynamics peculiar to that post should be analyzed. Deans/Department Chairs • Role conflict becomes particularly strong fo deans and department chairs when budgets are tight. Further research on the effects of increasing role conflict for these administra- tors is needed. Mid-level Administrators Activities and workload • What will be the effects of increasing spe- cialization on the ways in which mid-level administrators experience their work? Opportunity structure • To what extent do mid-level administrators perceive that their options for advancement are limited? How do their perceptions affec their work experience? • How can colleges and universities provide opportunities for growth for administrators even when movement to new positions is limited? Reward structure • What do mid-level administrators perceive as valuable rewards for their contributions to their institutions? • How can colleges and universities provide a desirable reward system even in times of retrenchment? How can declining morale and increasing resentment be prevented if salary levels do not keep pace with rewards to other employees? tatrinsic dimen- • Much remains to be learned about the intrin- ions in work sic dimensions of administrators’ work: I variety, professional status, autonomy. • What affects the status of mid-level adminis- trators? How are they perceived by others I in their institutions? ower and articipation I • To what extent do mid-level administrators actually desire to participate in broad insti- tutional decision making? • To what extent do mid-level administrators “burrow” into their own offices and respon- sibilities in response to exclusion from power? • How do middle administrators respond when they are excluded from institutional decision making but must implement such decisions? elationship to • What encourages and what detracts from the le organization commitment of mid-level administrators to their institutions? • What is the relationship between the extent of mid-level administrators’ institutional ' commitment and such outcomes as produc- | tivity, performance, and satisfaction? i utcomes Productivity and performance • Administrators’ work rarely is evaluated systematically or regularly. What measures could be used to evaluate the quality of work and productivity of administrators? cademic Workplace 89 1 Satisfaction • Further research on those factors that con- tribute to and detract from administrators’ satisfaction would be useful. Morale • Despite limitations on mobility and salary levels, particularly in periods of retrench- ment, how can institutions build high morale among mid-level administrators? Lower-level Administrators • The research on this administrative group is not very extensive. Studies should examine the tasks, work environment, intrinsic and extrinsic work characteristics, and satisfac- tion of entry- and lower-level administra- tors. TABLE VII DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ON THE WORK EXPERIENCE OF SUPPORT AND CLERICAL STAFF Issues and Questions • What attracts individuals to the academic environment, even though they have skills that make them very employable in other kinds of organizations? • To what extent are they committed to their institutions? Why? • How do the work and the work experience of support and clerical staff in higher educa- tion settings differ from those of similar employees in business, government, or service organizations? «-4 • cademic Workplace 91 REFERENCES The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education abstracts and | indexes the current literature on higher education for the Na- tional Institute of Education’s monthly bibliographic journal j Resources in Education. Most of these publications are availablt ' through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Foi publications cited in this bibliography that are available from ■ EDRS, ordering number and price are included. Readers who ; wish to order a publication should write to the ERIC Document Reproduction Service, P.O. Box 190, Arlington, Virginia 22210. 1 ' When ordering, please specify the document number. Document are available as noted in microfiche (ME) and paper copy (PC). ' Since prices are subject to change, it is advisable to check the latest issue of Resources in Education for current cost based on < " the number of pages in the publication. American Association of University Professors. 1983. The An- nual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 1982- 83. Washington, D.C.: AAUP. Anderson, Richard E. 1983. Higher Education in the 1970s: Preliminary Technical Report for Participating Institutions. New York: Institute of Higher Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. Angell, George W., and Kelley, Edward P., Jr. 1977. Handbook of Faculty Bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Anselm, Carol Marie Williams. 1980. “Perceptions of Organiza- tion, Power, Status, and Conflict Relative to the Office of Professional Staff in a Complex University.” Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Michigan. Astin, Helen S. 1978. “Factors Affecting Women's Scholarly Productivity.” In The Higher Education of Women: Essays in Honor of Rosemary Park, edited by Helen S. Astin and W. Z. Hirsch. New York: Praeger. Astin, Helen S., and Bayer. A. E. 1979. “Pervasive Sex Differ- ences in the Academic Reward System: Scholarship. Marriage and What Else?” In Academic Rewards in Higher Education, edited by D. R. Lewis and W. E. Becker, Jr. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. Astin, Helen S., and Snyder, Mary Beth. July-August 1982. “Affirmative Action 1972-1982: A Decade of Response.” Change 14: 26-31 . Austin, Ann E. Forthcoming. “Work Orientations of University Mid-level Administrators: Patterns, Antecedents, and Out- comes.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan. Avakian, A. Nancy. 1971. “An Analysis of Factors Relating to the Job Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction of Faculty Members i 92 Institutions of Higher Education.” Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Albany. aldridge, J. Victor, ed. 1971a. Academic Governance. Berkeley: McCutchan. . 1971b. Power and Conflict in the University: Research in the Sociology of Complex Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. .aldridge, J. Victor; Curtis, David V.; Ecker, George P.; and Riley, Gary L. October 1973. “The Impact of Institutional Size and Complexity on Faculty Autonomy.” Journal of Higher Education 44: 532^8. ; . 1978. Policy Making and Effective Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. aldwin, Roger G., and Blackburn, Robert T. November- December 1981. “The Academic Career as a Developmental Process: Implications for Higher Education.” Journal of Higher Education 52: 598-614. arnard, William W. 1971. “Role Expectations and Role Conflict in University Faculty Work Activities.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan. arnes, James. 1901. A Princetonian: A Story of Undergraduate Life at the College of New Jersey. New York: G. P. Putnam & Sons. arrett, Thomas C. 1969. Relationship between Perceived Fac- 1 ulty Participation in the Decision-making Process and Job Satisfaction in Community Colleges of North Carolina. Ra- leigh: North Carolina State University. atsche, Catherine N. 1981. Salary and Compensation in Higher , Education: A Cluster Analytic Approach. Normal, III.: Center ( for the Study of Educational Finance and Center for Higher ' Education at Illinois State University. ED 202 415. 48 pp. MF- $1.17; PC not available EDRS. aumgartel, Howard. 1976. “Evaluation of Management Devel- ' opment Efforts in the University Setting: Problems, Program- mers, and Research Model.” New Frontiers in Education — Delhi: 23. ayer, Alan E., and Dutton, Jeffrey E. May-June 1977. “Career Age and Research: Professional Activities of Academic Scien- tists.” Journal of Higher Education 48: 259-82. ehymer, Charles E. 1974. “Institutional and Personal Correlates of Faculty Productivity.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan. enezet, Louis E.; Katz, Joseph; and Magnusson, Francis. 1981. Style and Substance: Leadership and the College Presidency. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. . cademic Workplace 93 Bennett, C. A., and Griffitt, W. B. 1976. Survey of Faculty Opinion at Kansas State University. Research Report No. 35. Manhattan, Kan.; Kansas State University Office of Educa- tional Research. ED 160 017. 21 pp. MF-$1 . 17; PC-$3.74. Berg, Ivar, et al. 1978. Managers and Work Reform. New York: The Free Press. Bess, James L. 1978. “Incentives for Improving Administrative Competence and Performance." Paper presented to the Na- tional Assembly of the American Association of University Administrators, 24 April, Chicago. . 1981. “Intrinsic Satisfaction from Academic versus Othe Professional Work; A Comparative Analysis.” Paper presents at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, March, Washington, D.C. ED 203 805. 52 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$7.24. . 1982. University Organization: A Matrix Analysis of the Academic Professions. New York: Human Sciences Press. Bess, James L., and Lodahl, Thomas M. Spring 1969. “Career Patterns and Satisfactions in University Middle-Management.' Educational Record 50 (2): 220-29. Biglan, Anthony. 1971. “The Relationship of University Depart- ment Organization to the Characteristics of Academic Tasks." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois. Blackburn, Robert T; Behymer, C. E.; and Hall, D. E. April 1978. “Research Note: Correlates of Faculty Publications.” Sociology of Education 5 1 : 132-41 . Blau, P. M. 1973. The Organization of Academic Work. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Blumberg, Paul. 1968. Industrial Democracy: The Sociology of Participation. New York: Schocken Books. Boland, W. R. 1971. “Size, Organization, and Environmental Mediation: A Study of Colleges and Universities.” In Aca- demic Governance, edited by J. V. Baldridge. Berkeley: McCutchan. Booth, David B. 1982. The Department Chair: Professional Development and Role Conflict. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Educa- tion Research Report No. 10. Washington. D.C.: .American Association for Higher Education. ED 226 689. 60 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$7.24. Borland, David. 1970. “The University as an Organization; .An Analysis of the Faculty Rewards System.” Ed.D. dissertation. Indiana University. Bowen, Howard R. 1978. Academic Compensation. New York: Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association. ED 155 994. 139 pp. MF-$1.I7; PC-$12.87. f lowles, Samuel; Gordon, David M.; and Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1983. Beyond the Waste Land: A Democratic Alternative to '■ Economic Decline. New York: Anchor/Doubleday. iowling Green State University. 1980. 1980 BGSU Employee Survey. Bowling Green, Ohio: Office of Institutional Studies, Bowling Green State University. Iragg, Ann Kieffer. 1980. “Relationship between the Role Defini- tion and Socialization of Academic Department Heads." Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, lucher, Glenn R. 27 April 1981. “Deferring Maintenance on a ’ College’s Faculty.” Chronicle of Higher Education: 21. ilureau of Institutional Research. 1974. University of Illinois Employees Job Satisfaction Study. Champaign, III.: University of Illinois, Educational Resources Information Center. ED 132 902. 74 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$7.24. luxton, Thomas H.; Pritchard, Keith W.; and Buxton, Barry M. Spring 1976. “University Presidents: Academic Chameleons.” Educational Record 51 : 79-86. ’ameron, Susan Wilson. 1978. “Women Faculty in Academia: Sponsorship, Informal Networks, and Scholarly Success.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan. Laplow, Theodore, and McGee, Reece J. 1958. The Academic ? Marketplace. New York: Basic Books, carbone, Robert F. 1981. Presidential Passages. Washington, j' D.C.: American Council on Education. Il I’ares, Robert C. 1975. “Self-Actualization Attitudes of Faculty ■ and Their Perceptions of Their Career Success.” Ph.D. disser : tation. University of Michigan. ’ares, Robert C., and Blackburn, Robert T. October 1978. f “Faculty Self-Actualization: Factors Affecting Career Suc- :[ cess." Research in Higher Education 9: 123-36. farnegie Council on Policy Studies. 1980. Three Thousand I Futures: The Next Twenty Years for Higher Education. San ■ Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ED 183 076. 175 pp. MF-$1.I7; PC j not available EDRS. >rnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1982. ■ The Control of the Campus. Lawrenceville, N.J.: Princeton ; University Press. ''arroll, Archie B. Autumn 1976. “The Role Conflict Phenome- ' non: Implications for Department Chairmen and Academic j Faculty.” Improving College and University Teaching 24: I 245^6. jlaston, Geoffrey. 1977. “Conflicts within the University Commu- nity.” Studies in Higher Education 21 : 3-8. \cademic Workplace 95 Gather, Willa. 1925. The Professor’s House. New York: Knopf. Chronicle of Higher Education. 6 October 1982. “New Assistan Professors’ Pay Varies as Much as $5,800 at State Colleges”; •, . 2 March 1983a. “Fact-File: Median Salaries of Adminis- trators, 1982-83”: 26. . 9 March 1983b. “Fact-File: Median Salaries for Admini; trators in Secondary Positions, 1982-83”: 23-24. Clark, Burton R. 1970. The Distinctive College: Antioch, Reed, and Swarthmore. Chicago: Aldine. Clark, Mary Jo. 1973. “A Study of Organizational Stress and Professional Performance of Faculty Members in a Small Fou Year College.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan. Clark, Mary Jo, and Blackburn, Robert T. 1973. “Faculty Per- formance under Stress.” In Proceedings: The First Invitationi Conference on Faculty Effectiveness as Evaluated by Student. edited by Alan L. Sockloff. Philadelphia: Measurement and Research Center, Temple University. Cohen, Arthur M. 1973. Work Satisfaction among Junior Colleg Faculty Members. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education. ED 081 426. 8 pp. MF-Sl.17; PC-S3.74. Cohen, Michael D., and March, James G. 1974. Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President. New York: McGraw-Hill. Corson, John J. 1960. Governance of Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill. . 1975. The Governance of Colleges and Universities: Modernizing Structure and Processes. Rev. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. . 1979. Management of the College or University: H’s Different! TopiceLl Paper No. 16. Tucson: Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of Arizona. ED 177 976. 19 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-S3.74. Dejnozka, Edward L. September-October 1978. “The Dean of Education: A Study of Selected Role Norms.” Journal of Teacher Education 29: 81-84. Demerath, N. J.; Stephens, R. W. ; and Taylor, R. R. 1967. Power, Presidents, and Professors. New York: Basic Books. DeVries, David L. 1970. “The Relationship of Departmental anc Personal Role Expectations to the Role Behaviors of Univer- sity Faculty Members.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois. Douglas, Joel M.; Krause, Loren A.; and Winogora, Leonard. 1980. Workload and Productivity Bargaining in Higher Educa- tion. Monograph No. 3. New York: National Center for the 96 a i Study of Collective Bargaining, City University of New York. i j ED 196 346. 38 pp. MF-$1.17; PC not available EDRS. i prucker, Peter. 1973. Management. New York: Harper & Row. t Scker, George P. 1973. “Pressure, Structure, and Attitude: ( Organizational Structure and Faculty Milieux.” Doctoral j j dissertation, Stanford University. 1 Sckert, Ruth E., and Stecklein, John E. 1961. Job Motivations 1 I and Satisfactions of College Teachers: A Study of Faculty Members in Minnesota Colleges. Washington, D.C.: U.S. . i Government Printing Office. ^ Sckert, Ruth E., and Williams, Howard Y. 1972. College Faculty \ View Themselves and Their Jobs. Minneapolis: College of I Education, University of Minnesota. ED 074 960. 64 pp. •■ii MF-$1.17;PC-$7.24. t. feckstrom, Ruth B. 1979. “Women Faculty, Development, Pro- ' ! motion, and Pay.” Findings 5 (2): 1-5. : admundson, James C. 1969. An Identification of Selected Items 1 . Associated with Faculty Job Satisfaction in the North Carolina I J System of Community Colleges. Raleigh: North Carolina State . i University. ' Elmore, Charles J. 1979. “Black Faculty in White University * Arts and Science Departments: Some Environmental Aspects ^ I Related to Job Satisfaction.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of I Michigan. itzioni, Amitai. 1961. A Comparative Analysis of Complex f Organizations: On Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates. r I 1st ed. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. ;^'erguson, John. 1960. “Job Satisfaction and Job Performance J ;; within a University Faculty.” Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell I University. "inkelstein, Martin J. 1978. “Three Decades of Research on Si I American Academics: A Descriptive Portrait and Synthesis of ■ Findings.” Ph.D. dissertation. State University of New York- ^ Buffalo. ij. ^landrau, Charles M. 1897. Harvard Episodes. Freeport, N.Y.: 'j Books for Libraries Press. 7 (i'orrest, Aubrey. 1981. COMP-ACT: Increasing Student Compe- ; I tence and Persistence: The Best Case for General Education. |!| Iowa City, Iowa: The American College Testing Program. "i [Tances, Carol, and Mensel, R. Frank. Fall 1981. “Women and r j Minorities in Administration of Higher Education Institutions: Employment Patterns and Salary Comparisons 1978-79 and an . ; Analysis of Progress toward Affirmative Action Goals 1975-76 I to 1978-79.” Journal of College and University Personnel ' Administrators 32: 1-77. ! icademic Workplace 97 French, John R. P., Jr.; Tupper, C. J.; and Mueller, E. F. 1965. “Work Load of University Professors.” Unpublished paper. University of Michigan. ED 003 329. 278 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$23.74. Fuchs, Rachel G., and Lovano-Kerr, Jessie. 1981. “Retention, Professional Development, and Quality of Life: A Comparative Study of Male/Female Non-Tenured Faculty.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles. ED 202 416. 26 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$5.49. Fulton, O., and Trow, M. Winter 1974. “Research Activity in American Higher Education.” Sociology of Education 47: 29-73. Furniss, W. Todd, and Graham, Patricia A. 1974. Women in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Gaff, Jerry G. 1983. General Education Today: A Critical Analy- sis of Controversies, Practices, and Reforms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gaff, Jerry G., and Wilson, Robert C. 1975. “Faculty Impact on Students.” In College Professors and Their Impact on Stu- dents, edited by Robert C. Wilson, Jerry G. Gaff, Evelyn R. Dienst, Lynn Wood, and James L. Barry. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Gamson, Zelda F. Forthcoming. Liberating Education: Liberal Education in the 1980s. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gappa, Judith M., and Uehling, Barbara S. 1979. Women in Academe: Steps to Greater Equality. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: Ameri- can Association for Higher Education. ED 169 873. 97 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$9.37. Gould, J. W. 1964. The Academic Deanship. New York: Colum- bia University, Teachers College Press. Gouldner, Alvin W. December 1957. “Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles.” Administrative Science Quarterly 2: 281-306. . March 1958. “Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles.” Administrative Science Quarterly 2: 444—80. Griffiths, Daniel E., and McCarty, Donald J. 1980. The Dilemma of the Deanship. Danville, III.: Interstate Printers and Pub- lishers. Gustad, John W. 1960. The Career Decisions of College Teach- ers. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 98 Haak, Harold H. 1982. Parable of a President. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Colleges and Universi- ties. ED 225 443. 75 pp. MF-$1.17; PC not available EDRS. Hackman, J. Richard, and Oldham, Greg R. 1980. Work Rede- sign. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Harrison, Maijorie R. 1981. “The Role of a Professional Head of |1 Residence: A Comparison of Perceptions.” Ed.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts. Harry, Joseph, and Goldner, Norman S. Winter 1972. “The Null Relationship between Teaching and Research.” Sociology of Education 45(1): 47-60. Hauser, Jane, and Lazarsfeld, Paul. 1964. The Admissions Officer in the American College: An Occupation under Change. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Heckscher, Charles. January-March 1980. “Worker Participation and Management Control.” Journal of Social Reconstruction . 1:77-101. Henderson, Algo, and Henderson, Jean G. 1974. Higher Educa- tion in America: Problems, Priorities, Prospects. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass. » iHerman, Joyce; McArt, Ebba; and Belle, Lawrence. Spring I [ 1983. “New Beginnings: A Study of Faculty Career Changes.” K; Improving College and University Teaching 31: 53-60. ^merzberg, Frederick. 1973. Work and the Nature of Man. Rev. |j ed. Cleveland: World Publishing Company. IjPHill, Winston W. 1965. “Some Organizational Correlates of Sanctions Perceived by Professors to Be Available to Their t Departmental Chairman.” D.B.A. dissertation. University of ^ Washington. ^ Hind, Robert R. 1969. “Evaluation and Authority in a University ? Faculty.” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. S JHollon, Charles J., and Gemmill, Gary R. Winter 1976. “A I - 1 Comparison of Female and Male Professors on Participation in ! , Decision Making, Job Related Tension, Job Involvement, and Job Satisfaction.” Educational Administration Quarterly 12: , ; 80-93. Hornig, Lilli S. March 1980. “Untenured and Tenuous: The |i Status of Women Faculty in Academe.” Annals of the Amen- ta can Academy of Political and Social Science 448: 1 15-25. j'; Hoskins, Robert L. 1978. Black Administrators in Higher Educa- u” tion. New York: Praeger Publishers. i s Howard, Suzanne. 1978. But We Will Persist: A Comparative Research Report on the Status of Women in Academe. Wash- ington, D.C.: American Association of University Women. ED ;; 179 121. 93 pp. MF-$1.17; PC not available EDRS. 99 Academic Workplace Hunter, Mary; Ventimiglia, Joe; and Crow, Mary Lynn. March- April 1980. “Faculty Morale in Higher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education 31: 27-30. Ingraham, Mark H., and King, Francis P. 1968. The Mirror of Brass: The Compensation and Working Conditions of College and University Administrators. Madison: University of Wis- consin Press. Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, and Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. 1980. Survey of Organizations. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research. Jacobson, Robert L. 27 July 1983. “Faculty Pay Found Higher at Public Colleges than at Private Colleges, but Not in All Fields.” Chronicle of Higher Education. Jedamus, Paul; Peterson, Marvin W.; and Associates, eds. 1980. Improving Academic Management: A Handbook of Planning and Institutional Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jencks, Christopher, and Riesman, David. 1968. The Academic Revolution. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor/Doubleday. Johnson, Roosevelt. 1974. Black Scholars on Higher Education in the 70s. Columbus, Ohio: ECCA Publications. Jones, Phillip E. 1977. “The Changing Profile of Black Adminis- trators in Predominately White Colleges and Universities.” Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on Blacks in Higher Education, 14 March, Washington, D.C. ED 138 192. 13 pp. MF-$L17; PC-$3.74. Julius, Daniel J. 1977. Collective Bargaining in Higher Educa- tion: The First Decade. Washington, D.C.: AAHE-ERIC/ Higher Education Research Currents. ED 145 762. 5 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$3.74. Kahn, Robert L., et al. 1964. Organizational Stress. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kanter, Rosabeth. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. . 1978. “The Changing Shape of Work: Psychosocial Trends in America.” Current Issues in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Educa- tion. ED 193 992. 19 pp. MF-$1.17; PC not available EDRS. . 1979. “Changing the Shape of Work: Reform in Aca- deme.” In Perspectives on Leadership. Current Issues in Higher Education No. 1. Washington, D.C.: American Associ- ation for Higher Education. ED 193 997. 26 pp. MF-$1.17; PC not available EDRS. . Summer 1981. “Career Growth and Organizational Power: Issues for Educational Management in the 1980's.” Teachers College Record 82 (4): 553-66. 100 . 1983. The Change Masters: Innovation for Productivity in the American Corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster. Capel, David E. 1979. “The Education Deanship: A Eurther Analysis.” Research in Higher Education 10: 99-112. Catz, Daniel, and Kahn, Robert L. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Catzell, Raymond A., and Yankelovich, Daniel, et al. 1975. Work, Productivity, and Job Satisfaction: An Evaluation of Policy-Related Research. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Cauffman, Joseph F. 1980. At the Pleasure of the Board: The Service of the College and University President. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Cay, Emmanuel. 1974. The Crisis in Middle Management. New York: American Management Association. Cemerer, Frank R., and Baldridge, J. Victor. 1975. Unions on Campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. . 1981. Assessing the Impact of Faculty Collective Bar- gaining. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 8. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Educa- tion. ED 216 653. 66 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$7.24. Cenen, Peter B., and Kenen, Regina H. April 1978. “Who Thinks Who’s in Charge Here: Faculty Perceptions of Influence and Power in the University.” Sociology of Education 51:1 13-23. Cenen, Regina H. 1974. “Professors’ Academic Role Behavior and Attitudes, as Influenced by the Structural Effects and Community Context of the College or University.” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University. Cerr, Clark. 1963. The Uses of the University. New York: Harper & Row. Ceyfitz, Nathan. 1975. “Organizational Processes in Education.” Preliminary minutes of a conference supported by the National Institute of Education, 26 April, Cambridge, Massachusetts. ED 140 726. 34 pp. MF-$1.17; PC not available EDRS. Cilson, M. 1976. “The Status of Women in Higher Education.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1 (2): 935-42. <.lapper, Hope L. 1967. “The College Teacher: A Study of Role Performance, Role Preference, and Role Strain.” Ph.D. disser- tation, Columbia University. Cohn, Melvin L. July 1976. “Occupational Structure and Aliena- tion.” American Journal of Sociology 82: 1 1 1-30. .^add, Everett Carll, Jr. 1979. “The Work Experience of Ameri- ; can College Professors: Some Data and an Argument.” In Faculty Career Development. Current Issues in Higher Educa- tion No. 2. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Icademic Workplace 101 Higher Education. ED 193 998. 44 pp. MF-$1.17; PC not available EDRS. i ! Ladd, Everett C., and Lipset, Seymour M. 1975. Technical j . Report: 1975 Survey of the American Professoriate. Storrs, | Conn.: Social Science Data Center, University of Connecticut. j . 1976. Survey of the Social, Political, and Educational ^ v ' Perspectives of American College and University Faculty': Final Report. Storrs, Conn.: University of Connecticut. ED 135 278. 427 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$35.80. ' " . 1977. Survey of the American Professoriate. Storrs, Conn.: Social Science Data Center, University of Connecticut.! ; Larkin, Paul, and Clagett, Craig. 1981. Sources of Faculty Stress and Strategies for Its Management. Largo, Md.: Office of Institutional Research, Prince Georges Community College. ^ - ED 201 250. 19 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$3.74. Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Thielens, Wagner, Jr. 1958. The Aca- demic Mind: Social Scientists in a Time of Crisis. Glenco, 111.: The Free Press. Lee, Barbara. 1978. Collective Bargaining in Four-Year Colleges. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Educa- - tion. ED 162 542. 85 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$9.37. . Winter 1982. “Contractually Protected Governance Systems at Unionized Colleges.” The Review of Higher Educa- tion 5: 69-85. Leon, Julio. 1973. “An Investigation of the Applicability of the Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction among College and University Professors.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Arkansas. Lewis, Darrell R., and Becker, William E., Jr., eds. 1979. Aca- demic Rewards in Higher Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. Lewis, Lionel. March 1967. “On Prestige and Loyalty of Univer- sity Faculty.” Administrative Science Quarterly 9: 627^2. Lewis, Lionel S., and Ryan, Michael N. 1977. “The American Professoriate and the Movement toward Unionization.” Higher ‘ Educations-. 139-64. Light, Donald, Jr. 1974. “Introduction: The Structure of the Academic Professions.” Sociology of Education 47 (1): 2-28. Likert, Rensis. 1961. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Litwin, James L. 1982. “ ‘Quality of Work Life’ Issues for the University Employee.” Paper presented at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Denver. Loring, Frederick W. 1871. Two College Friends. Boston: Loring Publishers. 102 1 icConnell, Thomas R., and Mortimer, Kenneth P. 1971. The Faculty in University Governance. Berkeley: Center for Re- search and Development in Higher Education, University of California. ED 050 703. 206 pp. ME-$1.17; PC-$18.51. i/lcKeachie, Wilbert J. 1979. “Perspectives from Psychology: Financial Incentives Are Ineffective for Faculty.” In Academic Rewards in Higher Education, edited by Darrell R. Lewis and William E. Becker, Jr. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. . 1983. “Older Faculty Members: Facts and Prescrip- , tions.” AAHE Bulletin 36(3): 8-10. dcLaughlin, Gerald W.; Montgomery, James R.; and Mahan, B.T. 1979. “Pay, Rank, and Growing Old with More of Each.” I Research in Higher Education 11(1): 23-35. dcLaughlin, Gerald W.; Montgomery, James R.; and Malpass, ' Leslie F. 1975. “Selected Characteristics, Roles, Goals, and Satisfactions of Department Chairmen in State and Land-Grant Institutions.” Research in Higher Education 3: 243-59. Vlagarrell, Jack. 15 June 1981. “Faculty Salaries Up.” Chronicle • of Higher Education: \ . . 20 October 1982a. “Recession Hits State Support for College.” Chronicle of Higher Education: 1. . 10 November 1982b. “Decline in Faculty Morale Laid to ; Governance Role, Not Salary.” Chronicle of Higher Educa- tion: 1. Marsh, Herbert W., and Dillon, Kristine E. September-October 1980. “Academic Productivity and Faculty Supplemental Income.” Journal of Higher Education 51: 546-55. I f Marshall, Joan L. 1979. “The Effects of Collective Bargaining on t . Faculty Salaries in Higher Education.” Journal of Higher > ; Education 50: 310-22. f ^Marshall, R. Steven. 1976. “Faculty Views of the University’s I 'ii Organizational Legitimacy: A Case Study.” ED 139 353. 23 pp. I MF-$1. 17; PC not available EDRS. fjMartin, Warren Bryan. 1982. A College of Character: Renewing 'i the Purpose and Content of College Education. San Francisco: ■! Jossey-Bass. Meeth, L. R. 1971. “Administration and Leadership.” In Power I ji and Authority: Transformation of Campus Governance, edited [ ! by H. L. Hodgkinson and L. R. Meeth. San Francisco: Jossey- I Bass. I iMillett, John D. 1962. The Academic Community. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mingle, James R., and Associates. 1981. Challenges of Retrench- ment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Academic Workplace 103 Monson, Charles H., Jr. Winter 1967. “Metaphors for the Uni- versity.” Educational Record 48(1): 20-29. Moore, Kathryn M. May 1983a. “Examining the Myths of Ad- ministrative Careers.” AAHE Bulletin 35: 3-6. . 1983b. “The Top-Line: A Report on Presidents’, Pro- ^ vosts’, and Deans’ Careers.” Leaders in Transition Project. Report No. 83-711. University Park, Pa.: Center for the Study of Higher Education, Pennsylvania State University. ED 231 301. 102 pp. MF-$L 17; PC-$1 1.12. . 1983c. Women and Minorities: Leaders in Transition — A National Study of Higher Education Administrators. Report trt No. 83-310. University Park, Pa.: Center for the Study of Higher Education, Pennsylvania State University. ED 225 459. 64 pp. MF-$L17; PC-$7.24. Moore, Kathryn; Salimbene, Ann M.; Marlier, Joyce D.; and Bragg, Stephen M. September-October 1983. “The Structure of Presidents’ and Deans’ Careers.” Journal of Higher Educa- tion 54(5): 500-16. Moore, Kathryn M., and Wollitzer, Peter A. 1979. Women in Higher Education: A Comtemporary Bibliography. Washing- ton, D.C.: National Association of Women Deans, Administra- tors, and Counselors. ED 175 320. 119 pp. MF-$L17; PC-$1L12. Morgan, Richard H. 1970. “The Conflict between Teaching and Research in the Academic Role.” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University. Mortimer, Kenneth P.; Gunne, Manual G.; and Leslie, David W. 1976. “Perceived Legitimacy of Decision Making and Aca- demic Governance Patterns in Higher Education: A Compara- tive Analysis.” Research in Higher Education 4(3): 273-90. Mortimer, Kenneth P., and McConnell, T. R. 1978. Sharing Authority Effectively. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mortimer, Kenneth P., and Tierney, Michael L. 1979. The Three “R’s” of the Eighties: Reduction, Reallocation, and Retrench- ment. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Educa- tion. ED 172 642. 93 pp. MF-$L17; PC-$9.37. Morton, R. K. Summer 1965. “Teacher’s Job Load.” Improving College and University Teaching 12: 155-56. Naisbitt, John. 1982. Megatrends: Ten New Directions Trans- forming Our Lives. New York: Warner Books. Nandi, Roshanta. 1968. “Career and Life Organization of Profes- sionals: A Study of Contrasts between College and University Professors.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Minnesota. 104 ason, John W. 1980a. Presidential Search: A Guide to the Process of Selecting and Appointing College and University Presidents. Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. j . 1980b. “Responsibilities of the Governing Board.” In f Handbook of College and University Trusteeship, edited by I Richard T. Ingram and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey- jj Bass. . 1980c. “Selecting the Chief Executive.” In Handbook of * College and University Trusteeship, edited by Richard T. Ingram and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jational Center for Education Statistics. 1980. The Condition of I Education. Washington, D.C.: NCES. ED 188 304. 351 pp. i| MF-$1.17; PC not available EDRS. ijichols, D. A. 1 September 1982. “Can ‘Theory Z’ Be Applied I to Academic Management?” Chronicle of Higher Education: I 72. )kun, Kathy Anne. 1981. “Deans’ Perceptions of Their Ability to Promote Change in Schools of Education.” Ph.D. disserta- ij tion. University of Michigan. i|)uchi, W. G. 1981. Theory Z. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. [?arelius, Robert James. 1981. “The Troubles with Teaching 1 Undergraduates: Problems Arising from Organizational, Pro- j fessional. Collegial, and Client Relationships.” Paper presented i| at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Social I Problems, August, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. ED 210 985. 22 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$3.74. '^arsons, Talcott, and Platt, Gerald M. 1968. The Academic Profession: A Pilot Study. Washington, D.C.: National Science ' Foundation. i?eck, Robert P. Winter 1983. “The Entrepreneurial College I Presidency.” Educational Record 64: 18-25. Pelz, Donald C., and Andrews, Frank M. 1976. Scientists in I Organizations. Rev. ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. jPeters, D. S. 1974. And Pleasantly Ignore My Sex: Academic ■ Women, 1974. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Center for the Study of : Higher Education. Peters, Thomas J., and Waterman, Robert H., Jr. 1982. In Search i of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies. i New York: Harper & Row. Platt, Gerald M., and Parsons, Talcott. 1970. “Decision-Making in the Academic System: Influence and Power Exchange.” In j The State of the University: Authority and Change, edited by C. E. Kruytbosch. Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage. Academic Workplace 105 Powers, David R., and Powers, Mary F. 1983. Making Participa tory Management Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. * Quinn, Robert P., and Mangione, Thomas W. 1970. The 1969-70 ^ Survey of Working Conditions. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute foi Social Research. Quinn, Robert P., and Shepard, Linda J. 1974. The 1972-73 Quality of Employment Survey. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute fo , Social Research. Razak, Warren N. 1969. “Departmental Structure and Faculty Loyalty in a Major University.” Ph.D. dissertation, Universit> of Kansas. Rice, Eugene. 1980. “Recent Research on Adults and Careers: f > Implications for Equity, Planning, and Renewal.” Paper com- missioned by the National Institute on Education. Stockton, Cal.: University of the Pacific. Rich, Harvey E., and Jolicoeur, Pamela M. 1978. “Faculty Role Perceptions and Preferences in the Seventies.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 5(4): 423—45. Roe, Anne. May 1972. “Patterns in Productivity of Scientists.” Science 176: 940—41. Ross, R. Danforth. 1977. “Faculty Qualifications and Collegial- ity: The Role of Influence in University Decision Making.” Research in Higher Education 6(3): 201-14. Rossi, Alice S., and Calderwood, Ann. 1973. Academic Women on the Move. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Sammartino, Peters. 1982. The President of a Small College. New York: Cornwall Books. Schurr, George M. 1980. Freeing the “Stuck” and Aiding the Terminated: Expanding the Career Horizons of Tenured Col- lege Professors. Dover, Del.: Center for the Study of Values, University of Delaware. ED 195 197. 91 pp. MF-$1.17; PC not available EDRS. Scott, Robert A. January 1976a. “Do Admissions Counselors Read?” NACAC Journal 20: 22-21 . . Spring 1976b. “The Terms and Tasks of ‘Open Admis- sions.’ ” College and University 51: 287-90. . 1978. Lords, Squires, and Yeomen: Collegiate Middle- Managers and Their Organizations. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 7. Washington, D.C.: Ameri- can Association for Higher Education. ED 165 641. 83 pp. MF- $1.17; PC-$9.37. . Winter 1979a. “The ‘Amateur’ Dean in a Complex University: An Essay on Role Ambiguity.” Liberal Education 65: 445-53. 106 r 5- I . Winter 1979b. “Beleaguered Yeomen: Comments on the ,^1 Condition of Collegiate Middle-Managers.” College and Uni- i-'lj versify 54: 89-95. ■ 1979c. “Robots or Reinsmen: Job Opportunities and iSff Professional Standing for Collegiate Administrators in the f 1980s.” Current Issues in Higher Education No 7. Washington, : ( D.C.: American Association for Higher Education. ED 194 003. 28 pp. MF-$1.17; PC not available EDRS. Scott, W. R. 1966. “Professionals in Bureaucracies: Areas of ■ ;; Conflict.” In Professionalization, edited by H. M. Vollmer and I D. L. Mills. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. |Setoodeh, Hassan. 1981 . “A Study of Position of the Chief Financial Officer in Higher Education Institutions.” Ph.D. dissertation. North Texas State University. iShulman, Carol Herrnstadt. October 1980. “Do' Faculty Really Work That Hard?” AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research C' Currents. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher u'l Education. ED 192 668. 5 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$3.74. - ! . November 1983. “Fifteen Years Down, Twenty-Five to C ■ Go: A Look at Faculty Careers.” AAHE Bulletin 36(3): 1 1-14. :< Simmons, John, and Mares, William. 1983. Working Together. ■ New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ! Smart, John C. September-October 1978. “Diversity of Aca- I demic Organizations: Faculty Incentives.” Journal of Higher Education 49: 403-19. ii Smelser, Neil J., and Content, Robin. 1980. The Changing Aca- ' demic Market. Berkeley: University of California Press. II Solomon, Lewis C., and Tierney, Michael L. July-August 1977. il “Determinants of Job Satisfaction among College Administra- i tors.” Journal of Higher Education 48: 412-31. Spencer, Douglas D. 1969. “The Career and Professional Orien- I tations of Non-Doctorate Faculty Members in State Colleges.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan, r, Spiro, Louis M., and Campbell, Jill F. 1983. “Higher Education 1 1 and Japanese Management: Are They Compatible?” Paper I presented at the annual forum of the Association for Institu- ij tional Research, May, Toronto. ED 232 578. 24 pp. MF-$1.17; : PC-$3.74. if Stonewater, Barbara Bradley. 1977. “Faculty and Administrator . j Perceptions of Power and Influence in University Decision- Making.” Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University. I Suinn, Richard M., and Witt, Joseph C. November 1982. “Sur- j vey on Ethnic Minority Faculty Recruitment and Retention.” American Psychologist 37(1 1): 1239-44. Academic Workplace 107 Swierenga, Lloyd G. 1970. “Application of Herzberg’s Dual- Factor Theory to FacultyMembers in a University.” Ed.D. dissertation. Western Michigan University. Theophilus, Donald K. 1967. “Professorial Attitudes toward Their Work Environment: A Study of Selected Incentives.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. Thomas, Gerald S. 1978. “Organizational Commitment: Sources and Implications for the Development of Middle Managers.” Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Thompson, R. K. 1971. “How Does the Faculty Spend Its Time?” Mimeographed. Seattle: University of Washington. Toombs, William, and Marlier, Joyce. 1981. “Career Changes among Academics: Dimensions of Decision.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, Los Angeles. ED 202 423. 40 pp. MF- $1.17; PC-S5.49. Touraine, Alan. 1974. The Academic System in American Soci- ety. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tuckman, Howard P. December 1978. “Who Is Part-Time in Academe?” AAUP Bulletin 64: 305-15. University of Maryland. 1981. The Post-Land Grant University: The University of Maryland Report. Delphi, Md.: University of Maryland System. Van Alstyne, C.; Mensel, R. F.; Withers, J. S.; and Malott, F. S. 1977. 1975-76 Administrative Compensation Survey: Women and Minorities in Administration of Higher Education Institu- tions. Washington, D.C.: College and University Personnel Association. Vinson, David D. 1977. “The Admissions Officer: A Decade of Change.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin. Weick, Karl E. March 1976. “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems.” Administrative Science Quarterly 21: 1-19. Wendel, Frederick C. Spring 1977. “The Faculty Member’s Work Load.” Improving College and University Teaching 25: 82. West, David A. 1980. “Faculty Morale and Career Choice in the 1980s.” ED 192 703. 6 pp. MF-Sl.17; PC-S3.74. Wheeless, Virginia E., and Howard, Richard D. 1983. “An Examination of the Non-Faculty University as a Human Resource.” Paper presented at the annual forum of the .Associ- ation for Institutional Research, Toronto. ED 232 559. 27 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-S5.49. Whitla, Dean K. 1977. Value Added: Measuring the Outcomes of Undergraduate Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Office of In- structional Research and Evaluation, Harvard University. Vhitlock, Gerald H. 1965. “The Experiential Bases and Dimen- sions of Faculty Morale at a State University.” Mimeographed. Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee. ^'illie, Reynold, and Stecklein, John E. 1981. “A Three-Decade Comparison of College Faculty Characteristics, Satisfactions, Activities, and Attitudes.” Paper presented at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota. ED 205 113. 25 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$3.74. tVilson, Logan. 1964. The Academic Man: A Study in the Sociol- ogy of a Profession. 2d ed. New York: Octagon Books. A^ilson, R. C.; Woods, L.; and Gaff, J. G. 1974. “Social-Psycho- logical Accessibility and Faculty-Student Interaction beyond the Classroom.” Sociology of Education 47(1); 74-92. Winkler, Larry Dean. 1982. “Job Satisfaction of University Faculty in the U.S.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Nebraska-Lincoln . Winter, David G.; McClelland, David C.; and Stewart, Abigail J. 1981. A New Case for the Liberal Arts. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Wisniewski, R. 1977. “The Dean of Education and the Looking- Glass Self.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Professors of Education, March, Chicago, Illinois. I- i ED 162 443. 23 pp. MF-$L17; PC-$3.74. j Wittenauer, Martha Anne. 1980. “Job Satisfaction and Faculty j| Motivation.” Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University. J (Yankelovich, Daniel, and Immerwahr, John. 1983. Putting the '' Work Ethic to Work: A Public Agenda Report on Restoring ' I America’s Competitive Vitality. New York: The Public Agenda ) , Foundation. Yuker, Harold E. 1974. Eaculty Workload: Facts, Myths, and : Commentary. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research I Report No. 6. Washington, D.C.: American Association for ' ; Higher Education. ED 095 756. 70 pp. MF-$1.17; PC-$7.24. i Academic Workplace 109 ASHE-ERIC HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH REPORTS Starting in 1983, the Association for the Study of Higher Educa- tion assumed co-sponsorship of the Higher Education Research Reports with the ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. For the previous 1 1 years, ERIC and the American Association for Higher Education prepared and published the reports. Each report is the definitive analysis of a tough higher educa- tion problem, based on a thorough research of pertinent literature and institutional experiences. Report topics, identified by a national survey, are written by noted practitioners and scholars with prepublication manuscript reviews by experts. Ten monographs in the ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Re- search Report series are published each year, available individu- ally or by subscription. Subscription to 10 issues is $50 regular; $35 for members of AERA, AAHE, and AIR; $30 for members of ASHE. (Add $7.50 outside U.S.) Prices for single copies, including 4th class postage and han- dling, are $6.50 regular and $5.00 for members of AERA, AAHE, AIR, and ASHE. If faster first-class postage is desired for U.S. and Canadian orders, for each publication ordered add $.60; for overseas, add $4.50. For VISA and MasterCard payments, give card number, expiration date, and signature. Orders under $25 must be prepaid. Bulk discounts are available on orders of 10 or more of a single title. Order from the Publications Department. Association for the Study of Higher Education, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 296-2597. Write for a complete list of Higher Education Research Reports and other ASHE and ERIC publications. 1981 Higher Education Research Reports 1. Minority Access to Higher Education Jean L. Freer 2. Institutional Advancement Strategies in Hard Times Michael D. Richards and Gerald Sherratt 3. Functional Literacy in the College Setting Richard C. Richardson, Jr., Kathryn J. Martens, and Elizabeth C. Fisk 4. Indices of Quality in the Undergraduate Experience George D. Kuh 5. Marketing in Higher Education Stanley M. Grabowski 6. Computer Literacy in Higher Education Francis E. Masat 7. Financial Analysis for Academic Units Donald L. Walters no 8. Assessing the Impact of Faculty Collective Bargaining J. Victor Baldridge, Frank R. Kemerer, and Associates 9. Strategic Planning, Management, and Decision Making Robert G. Cope 10. Organizational Communication in Higher Education Robert D. Gratz and Philip J. Salem 1982 Higher Education Research Reports 1. Rating College Teaching: Criterion Studies of Student I Evaluation-of-Instruction Instruments I Sidney E. Benton , ' 2. Faculty Evaluation: The Use of Explicit Criteria for I Promotion, Retention, and Tenure Neal Whitman and Elaine Weiss t 3. The Enrollment Crisis: Factors, Actors, and Impacts J. Victor Baldridge, ErankR. Kemerer, and Kenneth C. ? Green i ■ 4. Improving Instruction: Issues and Alternatives for Higher ■! Education I Charles C. Cole, Jr. ' 5. Planning for Program Discontinuance: From Default to Design I Gerlinda S. Melchiori f 6. State Planning, Budgeting, and Accountability: Approaches !| for Higher Education Carol E. Eloyd } 1. The Process of Change in Higher Education Institutions Robert C. Nordvall S 8. Information Systems and Technological Decisions: A Guide [I for Non-Technical Administrators j Robert L. Bailey ! 9. Government Support for Minority Participation in Higher ; Education ; Kenneth C. Green 1 10. The Department Chair: Professional Development and Role ! Conflict David B. Booth I ‘ 1983 Higher Education Research Reports 1. The Path to Excellence: Quality Assurance in Higher Education i Laurence R. Marcus, Anita O. Leone, and Edward D. ; Goldberg 1 1 Academic Workplace 2. Faculty Recruitment, Retention and Fair Employment: Obligations and Opportunities John S. Waggaman 3. Meeting the Challenges: Developing Faculty Careers Michael C. T. Brookes and Katherine L. German 4. Raising Academic Standards: A Guide to Learning Improvement Ruth Talbott Keimig 5. Serving Learners at a Distance: A Guide to Program Practices Charles E. Feasley 6. Competence, Admissions, and Articulation: Returning to the Basics in Higher Education Jean L. Freer 7. Public Service in Higher Education: Practices and Priorities Patricia H. Crosson 8. Academic Employment and Retrenchment: Judicial Review and Administrative Action Robert M. Hendrickson and Barbara A. Lee 9. Burnout: The New Academic Disease Winifred Albizu Melendez and Rafael M. de Guzman 10. Academic Workplace: New Demands, Heightened Tensions Ann E. Austin and Zelda E. Gamson INDEX 1983 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Reports SUBJECT INDEX 1983 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Reports This index provides immediate access to the subject content of the 10 monographs in the 1983 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Re- search Report series. Entries are followed by a Report number in i bold type as well as page numbers listed in chronological se- quence. Entries with only Report numbers indicate that the subject heading is the main focus of that Report. A Academic achievement, measures of, 6:59-66 Academic standards, 4; 6 Accreditation distance education, 5:48, 49 limitations, 1:15-22 Administration {see Decisionmaking; Organization; Planning) Administrators (see also Deans, Department chairs; Presidents) guidelines for faculty employment rights, 8:99-108 stress, 9:34, 35 work experience, 10:45-65, 82-84, 88-90 Admissions in distance education, 5:37 requirements, 6 Adult development, 3:1 1-14 Affirmative action, 2:20-22; 8:37-39 Applicant screening, 2:31-44 Articulation, 6 Audio technology in instruction, 5:27-34 B Basic skills, 6:6-17 Burnout definitions of, 9:5-17 prevention and coping, 9:54-75 Business and industry, service to, 7:72-94 c Career counseling, faculty, 2:48-51 Career development (see also Faculty development), 3:14-16 Career planning, faculty, 10:70-72 Case law (see Court litigation) College preparation, 6:18-31 Committees, faculty search, 2:39-42 Community colleges, public service by, 7:28-49 Community education, 7:37-48 Computer assisted instruction, 5:25-27 Subject Index 115 Consortia, 7:88-90 Contracts tenure, 8:82-84, 91, 92 termination of, 2:13-15 Cooperative arrangements in distance education, 5:44, 45 with business and industry, 7:73-94 Counseling faculty, 2:48-51 students, 5:38, 39 Court litigation, 8 Culture of higher education, 10:14-15 Curriculum ^ competence-based, 6:76 reform for learning improvement, 4 secondary school, 6:6, 18-20 standards, 6:67-75 value-added, 6:76-79 D Deans faculty recruitment, 2:40, 42 work experience, 10:62-65 “Decision Guide for Effective Programs,” 4:4-6, 20-75 Decisionmaking faculty layoff, 8:86, 87, 107, 108 faculty power and participation, 10:32-35 faculty salaries, 8:104, 105 faculty selection, 2:39-42 hiring, promotion, and tenure, 8:102-104 for learning improvement, 4: 1 , 2, 1 1-14 Department chairs role, 2:39-54 work experience, 10:62-65 Developmental programs, 4 Discrimination academic employment, 8:25-27 age, 8:92-97 reverse, 8:37-39 salary, 8:46-51 sex, 8:66-80 Distance education, 5 Diversity, student and institutional, 6:47-56 Due process, 8:88, 89 E Educational excellence (see Academic standards) Employment burnout in, 9 practices, 2; 8 Equal pay, 8:9, 45-65 Evaluation (see also Peer review; Program evaluation; Self- regulation) reports, utilization of, 1:55, 56 F Faculty applicants, 2:31-38 , burnout, 9 career paths, 3:2, 3,17-32; 9:37-47 competence, 6:80-86 contract termination, 2:13-15 coping with stress, 9:54-75 disability or death, 2: 16 employment issues, 8 goal congruence and loyalty, 10:36, 37 impact of technology, 3:36, 37 in distance education, 5:9-15 involuntary separation, 2:9-1 1 mandatory retirement, 8:81-107 new, 2:45-54 nonrenewal, 8:20-44 orientation, 2:48-51 performance of, 1:50, 51 power, 10:32-35 promotion , 2 : 1 1 - 1 3 ; 8 : 20-44 psychological outcomes, 3:24-26 recruitment, 2:24-44 retention, 2:45-56 reward structure, 3:34-36; 5: 10; 7: 103-107 role in learning improvement, 4:60-65 salary, 2:17-20; 8:9, 45-65, 104, 105 termination of tenured, 8:91 , 92 vacancies, 2:6-16, 24-29 work environment, 9:30-53 work experience, 10:16-44 Faculty development, 2:52-54; 3:3, 27-32 Federal aid, 1:10-12 Federal regulation, 1:10-14 Subject Index 117 I' Federal role in research, 7;92, 93 Finance, in distance education, 5:45-47 Financial exigency, 8:10, 11, 81-105 Futures, faculty role in, 3:33-37 G Goal setting, 1:49, 50; 4:30-32 Government involvement in higher education, 1:8-14 service from higher education, 7:54-71 H Hierarchy for learning improvement, 4:20-75 High schools curriculum, 6:18-20 relationship with colleges, 6:18-31 I Improvement programs, 4:18-19 Instruction media, 5: 16-34 methods and content, 4:42-50 J Judicial approaches to academe, 8:12-19 L Learning improvement programs, 4 Legislation (see Title VII; Title IX) Local government, service to, 7:54, 55, 64, 65 M Mentors, 4:52-54 Middle management work experience. 10:53-62 Minorities faculty. 2:54, 55 standardized tests, 6:38-41 o Organization distance education, 5:43-52 faculty recruitment, 2:24-30 public service, 7:95-1 10 structure of academe, 10:1 1-14, 66-72 118 Orientation distance education, 5:37, 38 new faculty, 2:48-51 P Paraprofessional staff, 4:60-65 Partnerships {see Cooperative arrangements) Peer review, 8:30-34 Personality and stress, 9:18-53 Personnel {see Administrators, Employment, Faculty, Support Staff) Personnel policy, 2; 3 employee development, 10:70-72,91 organizational structure, 10: 1 1-14, 66-72 Planning distance education, 5:43, 44 faculty recruitment, 2:17-23 Policymaking, developmental programs, 4:51-60 Presidents, work experience, 10:45-53, 80, 81 Professional staff, 4:60-65 Program development, 4:20-75 Program evaluation academic quality, 1:34-55 distance education, difficulty in, 5:47, 48 learning improvement, 4:66-75 Public service as a mission, 7:9-27 exemplary approaches to, 7:65-71 organizing for, 7:95-110 recommendations for, 7:111-114 resources for, 7:107-110 to business and industry, 7:72-94 to community, 7:28-53 to government, 7:54-71 Q Quality assurance, 1 R Registration, in distance education, 5:38 Remedial programs, 4 Research academic workplace, agenda for, 10:72-74 administrator work experience, summary and direc- tion, 10:82-84,88-90 Subject Index 119 faculty work experience, summary and direction, 10:76-79,85-87 federal role in, 7:92, 93 partnerships, 7:87-94 presidential work experience, summary, 10:80,81 public service, agenda for, 7: 1 1 1-114 utilization of, 4: 11-13 Retirement, mandatory, 8:81-107 Retrenchment, and litigation, 8 s Salaries, 2:17-20; 8:9, 45-65, 104, 105 Search committees, 2:24-30, 39 Self-regulation, 1:23-56 Staff role, in developmental programs, 4:60-65 State coordinating agencies, 1:27-30 State government and regulation, 1:27-31 service to, 7:54-65 Stress, 9 Students assessments of distance education, 5:49-51 learning, 1:50; 4 recruitment, 5:36 Support services, for distance learners, 5:35-42 Support staff developmental programs, 4:60-65 work experience, research needs, 10:91 T Taxonomy for public service, 7:32-36 Technology for distance learning, 5: 16-34 impact on faculty, 3:36, 37 Tenure, 2: 1 1-13; 8:20-44, 82-84 Tests and testing competence, 6:6-17 declining scores, 6:36-38 distance education, 5:51, 52 standardized, 6:32-45 use for diversity, 6:46-58 Title VII, 8:22-25, 34-37, 39-43 Title IX, 8:9, 11 Transition of society, 3:6-10 120 u Urban institutions, 7:49-53 V Video technology in instruction, 5:16-24 w Work environment, 2:45-47; 9:30-53; 10: 11-15 Work experience administrators, 10:45-65, 82-84, 88-90 deans and department chairs, 10:62-65 faculty, 10:16-44, 76-79, 85-87 presidents, 10:45-53, 80, 81 support and clerical staff, 10:91 Subject Index 121 AUTHOR INDEX 1983 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Reports This index lists the authors and their report numbers for the 10 monographs in the 1983 Higher Eudcation Research Report Series. Austin, Ann E., 10 Brookes, Michael C. T., 3 Crosson, Patricia H., 7 de Guzman, Rafael M., 9 Feasley, Charles E., 5 Gamson, Zelda F., 10 German, Katherine L., 3 Goldberg, Edward D. , 1 Hendrickson, Robert M., 8 Keimig, Ruth Talbott, 4 Lee, Barbara A., 8 Leone, Anita O., 1 Marcus, Laurence R., 1 Melendez, Winifred Albizu, 9 Freer, Jean L., 6 Waggaman, John S., 2 122 DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27706