The locus of formal decision making in Christian College Coalition institutions

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The locus of formal decision making in Christian College Coalition institutions
Physical Description:
vi, 142 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Rouse, Wesley Lee, 1936-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Christian universities and colleges -- Administration -- United States   ( lcsh )
Decision making   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1983.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 138-141).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Wesley Lee Rouse.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000487123
notis - ACQ5223
oclc - 11903273
System ID:
AA00002180:00001

Full Text











THE LOCU
CHRISTIAN


OF FORMAL DECISION MAKING IN
COLLEGE COALITION INSTITUTIONS


WESLEY


LEE


ROUSE


IN PA


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
RTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FO
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


R


SCHOOL

THE


DEGREE


UNIVERSITY


OF FLORIDA


1983












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


writer


Nunnery,


especially


Chairperson


indebted


Doctoral


to Dr.


Committee,


Michael


to Drs.


John


Nickens


Robert


Soar,


their


guidance


throughout


study.


Sincere


gratitude


given


to Dr.


John


Dellenback,


President


Christian


College


Coalition,


support.


Acknowledgment


is also


made


presidents


Coalition


who


helped


provide


the


required


data;


without


them


there


would


have


been


no study.


final


note


thanks


extended


the


writer


wife,


ecky,


her


continued


patience,


understanding,


help,


and


to Joy


Jay,


the


children


who


continually


encouraged


their


this


endeavor.











TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................ii
ABSTRACT................ .......... . . ........ ...v

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION....................................1

Background and Rationale........................1
The Problem....................................11
Definition of Terms............................14
Procedures.....................................15
Organization of the Remainder of the Study.....22

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................23
Multiple Governing Unit Literature.............24
Single Governing Unit Literature...............28
Critique.......................................39

III RESULTS OF THE STUDY...........................41

Perceptions Relative to Who Makes and
Participates in Selected Decisions...........42
Differences in Perceptions About the Extent
of Involvement in Selected Decisions Based
on the Position of the Respondent............62
Differences in Perceptions About the Making
of Selected Decisions Based on the Level
of Participation of the Respondent...........81

IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION...........90

Summary........................................90
Conclusions....................................98
Discussion....................................100

APPENDICES

A CHRISTIAN COLLEGE COALITION...................105
B DECISION POINT ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT............107
C NUMBER OF "MAKE DECISION" AND "PARTICIPATES






REFERENCES..............................................137
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.....................................142t












Abstract


of Dissertation Presented


to the Graduate


School


University


of Florida


in Partial Fulfillment


the Requirements
Doctor of


for the


Degree


Philosophy


THE LOCUS OF FORMAL DECISION MAKING


CHRISTIAN COLLEGE COALITION


Wesley


INSTITUTIONS


Lee Rouse


December,


1983


Chairman:


Michael


Nunnery


Major


Department


: Educational Administration and


Supervision


problem was


to determine


perceptions of


those


involved about


locus


formal


decision making


relative


to academic,


student affairs,


development,


administration


decisions


for Coalition


colleges.


Answers


were


sought


to questions about which specific position


incumbents/units were


perceived


to be


involved


in making and


participating

perceptions b


in making


ased


decisions,


on respondent


and


role


differences


(trustees,


administration,


administration/faculty,


faculty


level


involvement


involvement,


provides


information,


recommends,


makes


decision).


Data


analysis


were obtained


instrument


from


by means


of a decision


point


institutions


with


returns.


Analysis


variance was


utilized


to determine







Faculty members,


academic deans,


and presidents were


perceived


students


presidents,


trustees


perceived


to be major decision makers


presidents


and business


presidents


to participate were


in academics;


in student affairs;


officers


deans of


trustees,


development;


in administration.


chairpersons


Most frequently


and academic


deans


in academics;


presidents,


academic deans,


deans


students,


and


business


officers


in student affairs;


presidents


presidents,


and development


officers


academic deans,


in development;


business


officers


administration.


Based


about


on position,


who makes


there were


the decision


significant differences


items and about


who


participates


significant


differences


in who


makes


grade,


the decision


changing


were


an admission


adding


policy,


a course,


building


changing


a building,


changing


purpose


the college,


changing


bylaws.


Based


level


of involvement,


there were


significant


differences about


who makes


the decision


items.


These were


adding


a course,


beginning


a fund


raising project,


filling


an administrative


vacancy.


It was


concluded


that


there was


considerable


unanimity


of opinion about who makes


decisions,


little


about who


participates.


The most


frequent


decision makers


were


those


top of


the hierarchy


(trustees and


presidents),


and











CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


Background


Rationale


Decision-making


authority


in educational


institutions


basic


educational


process,


ecific


loci


formal


deci


sion-making


authority,


especially


small


private


studi


church-relat


Because


coll


this


eges


lack


not


study,


been


adequately


research


needed


be conducted


order


to know


how


such


small


coll


eges


functioned;


furthermore,


results


research


locus


decision


making,


conducted


primarily


large


public


private


universe


ities


were


conflicting.


Thus,


there


was


need


further


research


this


area.


Cowl


1980


traced


types


formal


decision


making


that


were


emerging


conc


currently


with


development


higher


education


United


States


showed


that


deci


sion


making


evolved


from


a rather


chaotic


state


into


the


basic


governing


units


found


virtually


higher


educational


institutions


Unit


ed Stat


es--a


board


trustees,


a president


with


supporting


administrators,


faculty.


He also indicated


that


there


were


other


influences


on college


deci


sion


making


(students,


alumni,


government,


philanthropists,


general


public


indicated


that








Rosenzweig


(1970)


description


control


educational


institutions,


although


written


several


years


ago,


still


pertinent.


To describe


singular


nature.


to begin t
It is held


apprec


trust


iate


small


group
period
respon


men


who


time


sible


and


their


are


appointing


office
in some


their


for a long
instances


successors


--who


may


themselves.


Respons


ibility


universe


ity'


conduct


is conferred


trustees


a man


answerable


hired
only


responsibility


a


to
nd


them
them.
that


Given


line


principle
that
accountability,


however,
important


those


who


this


hired


individual


adver


him


but


finds


that


series, an
two other


most


judges
large,


are


not


quite


amorphous


that


does


groups.
the chie


those


work


the


groups,


the


one


institution,


consists
security
United S
consists
children


is wholly


faculty,


individuals


each


independence


states
of i
but


Supreme
individual


who


have


adult.


group


Court.
s most


a capacity
267)


"that


does


of whom


group
legally
uble which


of whom


are
tro


institution,


" has


been


involved


many


control


battles


within


higher


education.


Cowley


(1980


stated


that


"one


most


persistent


myths


prevailing


American


higher


education


professors


insists


operated


that


a golden


own


once


institutions


existed


in some


wherein


sort


'free


republic


scholars'"


That


this


was


a myth


borne


out


studies


of early


American


college


leaders


who


adopted


system


German,


French,


and


English


counterparts,


none


of which


operated


in such


a manner.


Harvard


University.


Collaee


of William


rLa L A


Mary.


Brown


hold


who


upon


allies,


justice
he other


work


their









use


many

much


small

like


time


study


church-related


that


report


colleges


established at


ed herein.


a board

in 1784


Princeton


Even


of

by


in 1983


trustees

Jonathan


Belcher--a


strong


control


board


composed


of mini


sters


laymen


in equal


While


proportions


ins


titutions


Cowley,


(such


1980,


as Harvard


47) .


have


bicameral


structure


control


which


includes


faculty


major


deci


sion


making,


most


colleges


have


unicameral


designating


much


major


formal


decision m

unicameral


making


system,


trustees


largely


(Herbst,


bypassing


1974).

faculty,


This

became


major


feature


coll


governance


structure


United


States.


Herron


(1969)


contended


that


"the


board


trustees


single


most


important


agency


institution.


'U (p*


He further


stated


that


trustee


needed


to understand


s/her


role


because


organizations


world,


institutions


of higher


learning


are


in ferment,


intellectually


dynamic


because


are


rightfully


committed


to social


improvement,


dynamic


because


they


challenge


hierarchies


thought


structure"


xv ) .


How


trustees


small


church


-related


coll


eges


adapt


role


trustees


was


from


clear


larger


from


institutions


literature.


investigated


ground


Hartnett


*4 a~ a' a' a' a a '9 4 a' S


J ** *


I *


*







It has


long


been


thought


that


board


trustees


wielded


major


decision-making


power


in colleges


though


these


deci


sions


may


made


with


little


the


proper


background


information


(Harnett,


1969,


135).


Rosenzweig


(1970)


made


an analysis


universities


concluded


that


is unreasonable


to expect


a group


men,


with


full-


time


responsibilities


elsewhere,


to adequately


govern


university"


270).


While


decision-making


responsibilities


trustees


have


been


sted


numerous


authors,


Franzreb


(1978


Rosenzweig


(1970)


intimate


that


board


members


are


generally


unaware


of educational


admini


station,


that


mos


are


even


unaware


purposes


of the in

surprised


Legal


trustees


stitution


they represent,


legal


decision-making


is quite


responsibilities


authority


encompassing


with


that

they


vest


many

have


ed in


would


assumed.


a board


definitions


and


limitations


charter


that


authority


institution


contained


and


corporate


laws


state


incorporation.


In general,


the


board


member


charged


with


acting


"fairly


responsibly


in protecting


institution


resources


and


interests"


(Kaplin,


1978,


48).


Unlike


vested


public


in a state


institutions

constitution


whos

that


authority


cannot


may


easily


changed,


somewhat


less


stringent


limits


are


imposed


state


on private


college


through


eir


articles







private


colleges


long


: trustees


change


was


cbuld


not


change


inconsistent


college


with


bylaws


college


articles


of incorporation


and/


laws


state


(Kaplin,


1978,


46).


These


articles


incorporation,


including


any


decision-making


authorities


associated


with


them,


constitute


a binding


contract


between


state


and


coll


ege.


This


compatible


separation


consis


tent


with


landmark


Trust


ees


of Dartmouth


College


Woodward


(1819)


case


which


was


ruled


that


a private


college


operating


with


state-granted


charter


right


to exist


without


being


taken


over


state.


Other


court


cases


relative


decision-making


authority


trustees


have


been


few.


Only


one


was


noted


Kaplin


(1978)--financial


responsibility.


This


responsibility


was


discussed


Stern


was


held


that


boards


trustees


corporate


directors


can


held


accountable


mismanagement,


nonmanagement,


and


self-


dealing.


It also


extended


the


response


ibility


of boards


(which


could


egated


to maximize


the


trust


income


prudent


investments


(Kaplin,


1978,


48) .


Kaplin


(1978,


further


state
C~ ~~ T


that


some


confusion


existed


over


trustee


del


egation


deci


sion-making


authority.


responsible


In several


a deci


cases


sion


boards


even


have


when


been


was


held


delegated


administrators


(e.g.,


president,


deans),


faculty,


and/








While


legal


decision-making


respon


sibilities


duties


are


largely


a part


bylaws,


liability


tort,


even


those


to whom


board


has


delegated


authority,


falls


board


trustees.


Without


sovereign


immunity


some


public


institutions,


liability


contracts


made


subordinates


at private


coll


eges,


whether


del


egated


or not,


often


becomes


individual


responsibility


members


corporation


board


usually


or even


the


the


officers


board


trustees


(Kaplin,


of private


1978,


institutions


-67) .


are


often


Therefore,


boards


a dilemma--


they


must


make


deci


sions


for


they


may


be properly


prepared


and


they


must


accept


responsibility


deci


sons


made


subordinates


over


whom


they


may


have


little


effective


control.


While


legal


decision


making


private


colleges


university


been


adjudicated


some


extent,


during


the


1960s


1970s


policy


and


operational


control


was


still


turmoil.


George


Pake


(1971)


writing


in Science


noted


following:


How do
could
answer


es


manage
, but


happen
, now
I keep


that u
cannot?
coming


universities


There


back


which


is not
the f


once
simple


aculty.


faculty
trustee


holds
holds


power


in a


a practical


legal


sense


sense


faculty


were


to responsibly


delegate


power


administration


recent


as effectively


decades


administrators


crisis.


SO. AS tflA


believe


could,


the faculty


farcl .


I C2. rl


fact
has


become


as
that


the trustees
able universe


cope


been


with


have
ity


today


unwilling


larger.


to do


more









Rosenzweig


(1970)


gave


faculty


similarly


high


responsibility:


faculty


genuine


is not
cannot.
campus


because


cons


titutes


self-government


they


can,


because


with


establish


themselves


they


e authority
rules of th


are


and


the only
campus.
govern;


the only


hope
This
they


group


the prestige


game,


the


ways


which


things


can


cannot


be done--not


so much


substance
substance


policy


emerges.


as the


Equally


process


from


important,


which


they


are


only
his


enable


take
short


group


that


can


administration


him


similar


time


to enforce


action


and


confer on
sufficient


those
brute


at exorbitant


rules.


force,


the president


legitimacy
Trustees


but


can


only


cost


institution.


Only


faculty


can


a way


that


strengthens


rather


than


weak


ens


the


institution.


272)


Laird


Bell,


a member


trustee


board


versity


of Chicago,


Carleton


College,


Harvard


University


that


trustees h
be College
hands off


best bear


faculty a
education.


in mind


that


. Once


that


they


should
overall


could


their


policy


decided


it ougi


experts shou
implemented.
24)


lid


ht


to b


5


determine
(Special


true th
e how t
Trustee


at


the educational


he policy i
Committee,


to be


1957,


Few


educational


institutions


openly


concede


operational


decision


making


faculty,


especially


that


means


weak


presidency.


However,


Yale


ins


tituted


such


a policy


early


1800s


Pierson,


1952,


129)


to a great


extent


Cowl


was


(1980,


still


91-94)


same


time


discus


four


this


areas


writing.


where









associated


instructional


materials


methods.


this


connection


should


be noted


that


colleges


controlled


churches


often


have


heavy


outside


influence


on curricula


and


accreditation


associations


dominate


some


segments


education


programs.


Although


some


early


writers


went


so far


to suggest


that


faculty


take


over


all


decision


making


doing


away


with


administration


1918/1965),


most


and


authorities,


board


trustees


including


the


(Veblen,


American


Ass


ociation


of University


Professors


(AAUP),


have


taken


different


multicameral


approach.


concept


In 1960


academic


AAUP


endorsed


government


making


faculty


and


trustees


mutually,


even


though


differentially,


involved


deci


sion


making


(American


Association


University


Professors,


1960


Most boards


trustees


delegate


much


operational


decision


making,


faculty,


but


president.


In fact,


some


trustees


have


advocate


a rather


complete


delegation


such


authority;


consider


the


following


Charles


Coolridge


while


a member


the


Harvard


board:


can


a big


sum
don


the


't--DON


rules


conduct


MEDDLE.


. You


trust
must r


ees


realize


that
see


you
it,


are
the


not
job


an expert


in education.


member


. As


a governing


board...boils


*4


down


S_ S__4.


this


N
a a a


your


best
*AN *


see







there
23-24)


for.


(Special


Trustee


Committee,


1957,


While


control


over


operations


and


execution


of policy


most


educational


institutions


vested


in a president


(Balderston,

management r


committees,


1974,


resulted


either


88),


some


from


early


experiments


institutions


board


being


trustees


college

controlled


or from


faculty.


A few,


such


University


Virginia


1900s,


operated


without


a president.


However,


such


experiments


were


short-lived


and,


last


few


decades


president


has had


strongest


influence


educational


deci


sion


making


(Cowley,


1980,


45) .


It is


position


general

strong


thought


that


influence


trend


pres


ident


leading


had


genesis


works


of Frederick


Taylor,


the


industrialist


who


conducted


time


motion


studies


late


1800s


(Cowley,


1980,


63-64).


of his


sciples,


Morris


Cooke,


carried


Taylor


s scientific


principles


education


when


1910


the Carnegie


Foundation


public


shed his


work


under


title


Academic


Industrial


Efficiency.


Three


of Cooke


1910


concepts


may


have


to major


changes


deci


sion-making


power


esident--


functional


organization,


efficiency,


operations


research.


first,


functional


organization,


found


wide


acceptance


in educational


circles.


Present


day


governing


nosi .-i nns


snlh


171 C!S I' I I I I
nr0~i ~9Ant~


rnA


*roflP


y~b(q


*hhi r


#'I f il








structure


educational


institutions


much


decision-making


power


gravitated


that


direction.


The

as a deci


second


concept,


sion-making


efficiency,


guide


Taylor


was

for


heavily

industry


advocated


Cooke


for


education.


Although


it gained


credence


industry,


education


been


able


to implement


only


small


extent.


Although


presidents


offer


numerous


deci


sion


alternatives


intended


to produce


efficiency,


waste


still


a major


part


of modern


education


institutions


Cowley,


1980,


63).

useful


Regardless


whether


to education,


such

been


efficiency


used


lack


presidents


charge


that


rival


bodies


should


or should


not


have


decision-


making


authority.


The

generally


third

gain


concept,

ed wide a


operations


acceptance


research,


in educational


institutions


(Balderston,


1974,


72).


However,


in some


places


such


research


has become


a major


influence


on institutional


decis

Since


ion making

such res


(Van


earch


seldorp,


often


Richardson,


ordered


Foley,


1971).


or prepared


president,


use


usually


the


prerogative


president


Despite


results


increased


evolutionary


process


presidential


that


power.


permitted


survival


education


and


to a workable


institutions


, "the


situation


steadiest


at most


fires


higher


controversy









groups


had


been


studied


in some


detail


universities;


however,


there


been


little


study


of decision


making


private


church-related


colleges.


Therefore,


the


focus


research


herein


was


locus


formal


decision


making


within


various


governing


positions


units


in such


colleges.


Problem


Statement


Problem


The


problem


study


was


to determine


perceptions


those


involved


about


locus


formal


deci


sion


making


four


basic


areas


small


church-related


colleges.


More


specifically,


answers


following


questions


were


sought:


To what


units


extent


perce


are


ived


specific


to parti


position


cipate


incumbents


decision


making


specific


deci


sion


areas


1.e.


academics,


student


affairs,


development,


administration)


there


differences


decision


items


within


four


deci


sion


areas


(academics,


student


affairs,


development,


admini


station


in perceptions


extent


to which


position


incumb


ents


and/or


units


are


involved


making


a decision


and


narticinate in


ma k i. na


a d~ni


s i nn


has~d


'- At I K I. I rr









Are


four


there


differences


decision


areas


decision


academici


items


student


within


affairs,


development,


and


admini


station)


in perceptions


the e

units


xtent

are


to which

involved


position


making


incumbents

a decision


and/or

based


res


pondent


erceived


involvement


deci


sion


(makes


deci


sion,


recommends


deci


sion,


provides


information,


or no participation


Limitations


Delimitations


While


conducting


investigation


several


restrictions


were


observed.


confined


population


to representatives


from


the


each


investigation


the


was


church-


related


colleges


that


made


Christian


College


Coalition


as of August,


1982


see


Appendix


Further,


the


population


was


confined


incumbent


from


each


coll


following


administrative


positions


pres


ident,


admini


strator


academic


affairs,


chief


of business


chief


affairs,


development


chief


officer;


stud

and


ent

the


affairs

following


officer,


and


selected


president:


one


trustee,


one


department


chairperson,


and


one


faculty


member.


The


total


number


role


incumbents


who


could


possibly


involved


from


institutions


was


552,


total


number


responses


received


was


293.


LJ *









format


provided,


institutions


not


respond.


respondents


include


trustees,


34 presidents,


academic


deans,


chief


business


offi


cers


, 41


chief


student


affairs


personnel,


38 development


officers,


department


chairpersons,


faculty


members,


oth


ers


was


recognized


that


lack


of a 100%


return


from


sample


could


limit


extent


to which


the results


could


generalized.


an effort


to deal


with


this


basic


weakness


in survey


research,


an analy


S'S


was


made


those


role


incumbents


who


respond


first


request


comparison


responses


those


responding


second


request


(257


versus


36) .


This


comparison


was


done


using


square


analysis


each


items


deci


sion


point


analysis


instrument


whi


was


used


to gather


the data.


was


found


there


were


no significant


differences


level


between


two


samples.


Therefore


, it


was


felt


that


less


than


100%


sample


return


rate


didn


create


a major


bias


because


diff


erences


between


followed


those


was


responding


first


significant.


time


(Also,


and


the


those


data


who


from


two


summaries


received


were


similar


that


provided


usable


samples.)


Given


nature


problem,


a descriptive


survey


design


was


used


(Fox


1969,


Chap.


15) .


This


design,


included








There


an absence


information


about


a problem


that


educational


significance.


situation


obtained


exist


from

s and


which

the


the

data


information


can


may


gathered


researcher


(Fox,


1969,


24) .


Campbell


Stani


(1963,


scussed


correlational


design.


the


cause


However,

relation b


and

the


betweenn


effect

present


aspects

t study


success


ex cost


no claims


one


are


college


facto


made


over


another


and


certain


decision-making


methods,


or between


specific


deci


sion


and


a change


subs


equent


success


coll


ege.


At best


external


validity


extends


sampled


the


population,


Christian


College


private


Coalition.


church-related colleges

Generalization to all


Christian


colleges


was


~05


sible


although


sampled


population


represented


a sizable


proportion


Christian


colleges.


was


recognized


that


the


validity


decision


point


analysis


instrument


could


be questioned.


mechanics


design


such


an ins


trument


had


been


used


previously


(Holcombe,


1974),


modifications


were


made


use


present


study.


Therefore,


only


face


value


could


be claimed.


Definition


Terms







Decision


point


analysis


instrument.


An opinionnaire


instrument


presenting


statements


individual


decisions


that


must


be made


at educational


institutions


and


area


in which


these


decisions


may


made.


Governing


units.


The


board


trustees


administration,


administration/faculty,


and


faculty.


Governing


positions.


board


trustee


members,


president,


academic


affairs,


of business


affairs,


chief


student


affairs


officer,


development


officer,


departmental


chairpersons,


and


faculty


members.


Locus.


role


position/unit


that


effective


responsibility


deci


sion


making


specific


task


units


institution.


This


may


include


actual


making


sion


and/or


parti


cipation


making


of a deci


sion.


Position


incumbent.


individual


involved


in key


decisions


identified


this


study.


Private


church


-related


coll


eges.


A nonpublic


institution


controlled


a religious


denomination.


Procedures


Introduction.


In order


to conduct


this


study


locus


formal


deci


sion


making


private


church-related


institutions


was


necessary


to determine


colleges


to parti


cipate


study


and


governing


position


s/units


within


colleges


that


could


contribute


to deci


sion


making;


S-- 9







perceptions


these


persons;


to determine


procedures


collection


data;


to analyze


the


data


terms


the questions.


paragraphs


following


attention


given


to each


these


topics.


Selection


Colleges


was


discus


previously


most


the


research


decision


making


within


higher


education


been


done


large


colleges


university


es.


target


population


this


study


was


a group


small


private


Chri


stian


colleges,


in particular,


those


colleges


that


membership


Christian


College


Coalition


(Appendix


Chri


a group


stian


Christian


College


liberal


Coalition


arts


was


coll


formed


eges


1976


combined


when


ces


to help


preserve


strengthen


their


Chri


stian


convictions.


Coalition,


a Washington,


D.C.


based


organization,


had


following


objectives:


monitoring


judicial


of public


activity,


and


opinion,


governmental


legislation,

regulations


matters


which


affect


the


freedom


Christian


colleges


to function


educationally


and


religiously.


development


issues


unified


presentation


positions


to government


on critical

al agencies,


other


organizations,


and


those


influential


formation


public


policy.








freedom


Christian


coll


movement.


(Chri


stian


Coalition


College


was


Coalition,


governed


1979)


a board


directors


nine


members


each


being


president


of a Coalition


college.


An executive


staff


was


elected


board


directors


and


was


made


of a chairman


board,


press


ident


Coalition,


and


a secretary.


Participants


Within


Each


Institution


To determine


colleges


deci


was


sion-making


necessary


perce


options


identify


individual


persons


who


were


incumbents


in several


comparable


positions.


Therefore


determination


was


made


see


persons


representing


each


generally


recognized


major


governing


positions


units


in small


private


coll


eges


Specifically,


was


decided


participation


trustees


was


admini


nee


strators


from


governing


in the chi


areas


board


operation


admini


station,


academic


, student


affairs


eve


lopment),


persons


who


were


full-time


faculty


members


and


part


time


academic


admini


strators


who


also


teach


divi


sion/d


in thi


department


study


included


chairpersons


members


Therefore,


board


participants


trustees


presidents,


academic


deans,


business


officers,


student


affairs


officers,


development


officers


divi


sion/department


chairpersons,


and


faculty


members


r a


. .. S S I 4







deans,


business


officers


41 deans


students,


development


officers


43 department


chairper


sons,


faculty


members


and


others


. an


athl


etic


director


director


of marketing]


This


repre


sented


sample


population.


As has


been


noted,


in an effort


support


the


case


generalization


the


Christian


College


Coalition,


an analysis


the


responses


from


the


initial


mailing


was


compared


with


the


responses


after


a repeated


appeal


and


no significant


differences


between


sets


were


found.


Instrumentation


Even


though


there


been


considerable


divers


ity


methodology


used


to study


locus


deci


sion


making,


most


frequently


such


studi


have


been


based


on the social-


res


earch


stionnaire


style


as delineated


Oppenh


(1966).


Such


an approach


was


used


Baldridge


1971a)


his


study


the


political


model


the


New


York


Univers


ity


stem,


Gross


and


Grambsch


(1974).


A research


technique


to help


"translate


the


theoretical


concern


into


applied


research"


(Holcombe,


1974,


was


realized


with


the development


of a deci


sion


point


analysis


instrument.


instrument


was


st developed


Eye,


Gregg,


Francke,


Lipham,


and


Netzer


1966)


as part


project


United


States


Offi


Education


related


the


deci


sion-making


responsibilities


school








characteristics


of public


sec


ondary


school


superintendents


and


the


centralization


of deci


sion


making.


studies


that


used


instrument


in community


colleges


were


McCluskey


who


used


a modification


instrument


in res


earch


student


rsonnel


decision


making


and


Scaggs


(1980)


who


studied


deci


sion


making


curriculum


change.


basic


instrument


structure


present


research


came


from


these


studies,


although


the


items


of each


task


units


and


governing


altered


to fit


positions/units


peculiarities


instrument


present


were


study.


Data


Collection.


Data


analysis


were


collected


instrument


with


using


deci


sion


19-item


deci


statements


sion


unique


point


this


rese


arch


(Appendix


statements


were


divid


ed into


four


deci


sion


areas--academics,


student


affairs,


development,


and


administration--with


deci


sion


statements/items


each


area.


Endorsement


sought,


from


a letter


the


was


Christian


sent


College


pres


Coalition


ident


was


the


organization

encouraging


letter


to each


them


president


to participate


presidents,


of a Coalition

in the study.


an introductory


college


cover


better


role


incumbent,


deci


sion


point


analy


instruments


were


sent


to presidents


the


Coalition


colleges.








hundred


ninty


three


opinionnaires


some


usable


item


responses.


As has


been


noted,


opinionnaires


from


52 of


colleges

mailing


were

was m


received


ade


from


those


first


colleges


mailing. A second

responding to the


first


mailing,


opinionnaires


were


received


from


seven


additional


stitutions.


This


represented


some


usable


res


ponses


from


colleges.


Three


additional


colleges


wrote


letters


choosing


not


to parti


cipate,


sent


summarized


opinions


from


the


president


(neither


of which


were


used


analysis


no response


was


received


from


five


institutions.


Data


analysis


answer


the


first


question,


tabular


distributions


responses


total


group


of respondents


decision-


making


areas


items


were


made.


To provide


answers


second


and


third


questions,


single

compare


factor

the p


governing


analysis


variance


erceptions


units


and


(ANOVA)


was


incumbents


positions.


The


statistical


used


various

null


hypotheses


were


follows:


There


no significant


difference


the


level


deci


sion


items


within


four


decision


areas


in the


perceptions


role


incumbents








decision


who


participates


making


decision.


There


no significant


difference


level


deci


sion


items


within


four


deci


sion


areas


perceptions


role


incumbents


about


who


makes


deci


sion


based


their


level


of participation


decision


(makes


decision,


recommends


deci


sion,


provides


information,


or no


participation).


In applying


analy


variance


relation


first


hypothe


, for


each


decis


item


the


four


governing


groups


(trustees,


administrators,


administrator/faculty,


faculty)


positions


were


were


treated


treated


levels


within


an ordered


factor


series


and


and


assigned


number


based


on level


in the


administrative


hierarchy


suggested


literature


trustees


, pre


sident,


academic


trustees,


dean,


being


chairperson,


the


faculty,


level


"oth


er").


hierarchy


were


assigned


where


there


was


president


a significant


and

the


so on.

Tukey


In instances

multiple


comparisons


test


based


on the


studentized


range


was


used


a follow


up procedure


an effort


to determine


the


location(


difference(


was


done


both


"makes


deci


sion"


responses


and


"participates


making


- a









participation,


provide


information,


recommend,


and


make


decision


and


analysis


was


done


the


"makes


decision"


responses


only.


Organization


Remainder


the


Study


Contained


Chapter


II which


follows


immediately


review


the


relevant


literature.


Chapter


devoted


presentation


data


relative


the


three


basic


questions


which


gave


direction


the


study.


Chapter


IV contains


summary,


conclusions,


and


discussion.















REVIEW


CHAPTER
OF THE


LITERATURE


Included


present


literature


review


locus


decision


making


is research


and


authoritative


opinion.


review


divided


into


studies


and


authoritative


opinion


that


deal


with


more


than


one


governing


unit


those


that


deal


with


a single


governing


position


and/or


unit.


In all


major


studies


rese


archers


have


concerned


themselves


with


universities,


mostly


public.


There


are


some


limited


data


available


about


large


private


colleges


universities


some


authoritative


opinion


about


small


colleges.


review


concluded


with


critique.


The authoritative


opinion


approach


was


taken


Sammartino


1954)


when


was


pres


ident


of Fairl


eigh


Dickinson


College.


He pointed


that


small


college


president


makes


decisions


that


have


to do with


departmental


organization,


public


relations,


evaluation


instructors,


guidance


students,


fund


sing,


alumni,


parents,


food


service,


office


management,


custodial


service,


library.


This


cons


trasts


sharply


with


statement


Dani


not


el Griffith


function


(1959)


concerning


f the chief


universities


executive


to make


that


decisions;









Between


these


ideas


a wide


diversity


thought


what


happens


and


what


should


happen


decision


making


educational


institutions.


Although


this


review


could


extend


back


several


years,


limited


literature


since


the


1960


primarily


because


authority


such


as Griffiths


(1969,


have


suggest


that


only


1960


were


educational


stitutions


becoming


serious


about


study


decis


making.


Multiple


Governing


Unit


Literature


university


level,


three


major


research


studi


that


included


deci


sion


making


the


various


governing


positions


have


been


made


since


the


1960s


: Gross


and


Grambsch


(1968,


1974


Although


Baldridge


data


from


(1971a);


these


and


Cohen


researches


lend


March


themselves


1974).


more


study


of goals


related


to perceived


deci


sion


making,


the


relation


ships


to perceptions


individual


s involved


decision


making


obvious.


The


Gross


Grambsch


Studi


Gross


Grambsch


(1968,


1974)


using


an opinion-


naire/questionnaire


developed


the


authors


their


data


collection


strument,


conducted


surveys


involving


univer


siti


public


private),


one


1964


and


one


SW n-ri


---- -!


- -


---"3


- -


-a .8-. -- L.. 1 fl ~Z S f~t *~' **I -l a


Jf


1









In almost


universities


samples


president


was


perceived


as having


most


decision-making


power


with


trustees


perceived


only


slightly


less


powerful.


Participants


were


asked


to rank


goals


university


from


absolut


ely


top


importance


little


or no


importance,


to indicate


which


governing


position


least


in making


deci


sions,


to decide


whether


influence


these


positions


had


increased


last


seven


or eight


years


1971


survey),


and


indicate


perceived


surveys


power


showed


thought


that


to be


students,


held


him/herself.


faculty,


federal


government


gained


influence


in private


universities,


while


students,


legi


slators,


trustees,


state


government


gained


some


influence


in public


universities.


Several


conclu


sons


concerning


these


data


were


drawn


Richman


Farmer


(1974


One,


power


may


be different


state


universities


than


private


institutions.


Two,


external


groups


probably


have


much


more


power


public


sector.


judging


Three


from


there


total


may


an expansable


scores


the public


supply


sector


power


being


substantially


higher


than


private


sector.


Richman


and


Farmer


(1974)


pointed


that


one


major


results


studies


was


that


a more


important


role


in decision


making


has


now


become


available


to a wider








went


on to state


that


"the


power


structure


many


institutions


probably


been


shifting


substantially


outsiders


and


perhaps


also


lesser


extent


to potential


students


as compared


with


faculty


administrators"


163).


Baldridge


Study


Baldridge


1971a,


1971b)


studied


the


New


York


University


system


during


the


1960s,


through


this


study


he develop


political


a description


model.


a new


He concluded


method


that


governance--


conflict


natural


part


the goal-setting


and


deci


sion-making


process,


that


small


groups


political


elites


major


decision


mak


ers,


and


that


decisions


are


influenced


greatly


external


interest


groups


with


internal


groups


left


with


little


power.


According


to Cleary


1978),


who


commented


the


Baldridge


study,


political


mod


established


through


debate


and


governance


administratively


ass


signed


through


resident.


Roles


perceived


response


ibility


were


delineated


Baldridge


study


various


governing


areas


the


university


system.


He further


pointed


out


that


the


central


administration


(used


interchangeably


with


presidents)


been


successful


gaining


deci


sion-making


power


degree


confidence


of faculty


members


in administration


~2--i I, I -. 1- ni~fl








administration


was


shown


to have


the


greatest


influence


overall,


to have


clearly


dominant


role


influence


over


college


budget,


university


budget,


physical


plant,


master


plan,


public


relations.


Richman


Farmer


1974)


point


that


this


study


also


showed


that


power


may


not


finite:


Baldridge
influence


studies


do not


suggest


neces


sarily


that


come


power


cans


that


actions


and


by
and


filling


deci


influence


power


sons,


without


sense


one


vacuums


can


others


least.


and


often


losing
. 167)


initiating


gain


any


power
theirs,


Cohen


March


Study


This


1974


study


included


interviews


with


univer


sity


residents,


officers,


chief


28 other


academic


officials


officers,


close


financial


president,


student


leaders


editors


31 public


and


private


university


campuses


across


country.


authors


concluded


from


their


results


that


power


was


rather


ambiguous


and


diffused


at institutions


of higher


learning


even


though


president


usually


exerted


the


most


influence


over


individual


deci


sions.


Cohen


March


1974)


called


mod


that


they


found


organized


anarchy.


Richman


and


Farmer


1974)


summari


basic


properties:


Organized
and probl


anarchies


ematic


goals


include


uncle


ambiguity


ear


technology


purpose
; fluid


participation;


ambiguity


power;


ambiguity


S S S a -












looking


might b
which t
looking


deci


e aired,


hey
for


sion


situations


solutions


might
work.


answer


looking
s, and


which


for
deci


they


issues


sion


makers


Balderston


1974)


also


commented


model.


pres


engine


idency ha
, changes


organization.


tend,


the


In each


and


complex


major


area


periodically


structure
, large


numbers


of deci


sions


have


to be made


Thus


necess


ary


develop


adequate


general


poli


and


accompanying


procedures


that


most


these


deci


where


sions


they


can


need


exceptional,


made
to be


or ad hoc


quickly,


made.
cases


near


Only
that


those


point
large,


can


settle


d in


ecentralized


way


should


have


to be


sse


on to higher


level


. As Cohen


March


point
at all


out,


problems


may


ins


may


tead


not


actually


held in


res


"garbage


olved


cans


Single


Governing


Unit


Literature


There


was


much


erature


that


placed


empha


board


trustees.


A diverse


view


trustee


decis


ion-making


was


presented.


divers


ity


and


multifaceted


makeup


boards,


especially


in small


colleges,


make


difficult


see


just


what


board


trustees


play


decision


making.


literature


abounds


with


statements


concerning


*the


phenomenological


nature


boards


trustees


in American


institutions.


Although


boards


can


found


in many


kinds


institutions,


educational


institutions


are


almost


always


seen


"controlled"


a board


trustees.


Heilbron


I *~ n t St U a a S St a









problem


who


humor


sounding
faculty,
perpetua
administ
fabricat
viewpoin
education
overturn
its auth
the appr
corporate
business
might be
should n
secrets
students
who usua
by tradi
and hang
actually
surprise
protest
From the
pretty g
talkativ
conserve
education
construct
in the c
with all
in this


requires


t

n
e

p
P
a
f
e
t
i


special


emperamen
a buffer
ts, and o
nt who mu
in time t
refabrica
culty he


a

o
o
w


meti
ught
be
he b
is
cann


, no mor
ngly, on
ng requi
viewpoi
ood fell
e or toc
tive); i
nal prog
tive job
college c
parties
respect,


irs, a po
administr
the facu
ns the fa
ho seeks
mesa kin
to the d
allowed t
rotherhoo
a member
ot under
casionall
ymbol of
e harmful
e who can
rements a
nt of oth
ow thoughg
taciturn
interested
ram; want
; unhappy
community;
; expect


not


t.
aga
utsi
st b
o me
ted


handling


lic
edd
e v
an
an
wa
n t
fr
f t


a f


h h
or
on
ing
wh
wi
ng


being


g ac
s al
ssur
ies.
ed b
sis,
S1S,
. F
in
cle
rans
nt t
; a
coll
dly
temp
shar
e vi
r ge
imm
ed w
shinme
and
to w
or c


ees,
be
libe
a b
o a
ere
to
blic


cording


so
es

y
a
ro


f
f
o0
m
e
s
1
e
e
n
o
i
n

h


a
from
He is
the

m the


erring
procure
an with
ge like
oul who
e but
the
point o
eration
bilized
th hair
t;


en


change.
is a
little
or to
er


too
o


, honest,
riction
rate
nks and,


disappointed.


Armour


(1965)


own


description:


He
An
The
So
And
The
Tha
He
So,
And
And
Abo


dom makes
ernoon in
me he has


busy is
if his
other g
t though
has impo
having
shaken
heard t
ut a way


he w
watc


ent
it
rta
bee
han
he
to


i
h


th4
sp,
to
th
i


lem
is
nt


end


e mee
ring,
give
his
s oft
a wil
admi
usine
sured
ith a
y's h
the


ting
at
to
corp
eni


aerst
ly, a
n the
re ar
epart
ul pa
cit.


he
is
tio
on.
ha
and
pi
ci
e n
men
rti


fall;
all
n,

nd,

ty,
ty,
o Reds
t heads
ng bit


i








Most


scholars


writing


subject


have


a list


decisions


that


should


ass


signed


to the


board


trustees.


Some


them


are


more


detailed


than


others,


are


supposedly


what


responsibilities


should


One


most


concise


was


offered


Rauh


(1969):


They


hold


the


basic


legal


document


origin.


They


evolve


purpose


the


institution


consonant


with


the


terms


this


document.


They


seek


a planned


development.


They


select


and


determine


the


tenure


chief


executive.


hold


the


assets


trust.


They


act


as a court


last


resort.


The


tenor


Rauh


(1969


writing


indicated


that


felt


most


trustees


might


aware


purpose


or the


bylaws


institution.


He proposed


that


the


faculty


president


than


usually


all


have


trustees


more


influence


combined.


institution


He further


commented


that


wherever


influence


held


or whatever


the


locus


influence,


position


or unit,


probably


a function


pure


chance


forced


fiscal


contingencies.


Potter


(1976


suggested


that


trustees


were


more


involved


the


day-to-day


decision-making


responsibilities


the


college.


He identify


ed the


following


specific


areas









maintaining


facilities


defining


role


ssion


college;


engaging


in public


relations;


evaluating


institutional


institutional


independence;


performance;


creating


preserving


a climate


change;


insisting


on being


informed;


engaging


planning;


and


asse


ssing


board


performance


(pp.


11-12).


Included


above


responsibilities


a deci


sion


responsibility


that


was


found


only


one


other


list


(Carnegie


Commi


ssion,


1973


--the


trustee


as a change


agent.


Most


authors


felt


that


boards


functioned


the role


change


agent.


Clark


Kerr


Conversations,


1973)


presented


a series


deci


sion-making


responsibilities


that


followed


would


make


board


much


more


locus


control


center


institution:


Study


their


own


membership


to develop


a board


fully


independent


devoted


members


who


are


sensitive


to but


not


committed


views


several


constituencies


that


relate


institution.


Protect


the


essential


independence


their


institutions


Review


from


external


periodically


control.


purposes


their


institution.








many


academic


community.


This


includes


the


selection


active


presidents.


Manage


eir


resources


effectively.


Contemplate


levels


and


nature


future


enrollments


and


plan


adjustments


advance.


This


includes


potential


cooperation,


tenure


adju

and


stments


in faculty


non-tenure,


and


participation


women


members


of minority


groups.


Be cognizant


the


new


mentalities


developing


among

new m


faculty
. a S


motivation


members

s and i


students,


interests,


and


new

new


attitudes,


styles


life.


To be


touch.


Assure

federal

under d


a voice

levels


for

when


discussion


trustees

matters


such


as tax


the


state


common


policy


and


concern


on gifts


are

and


policies


on control


over


higher


education.


Kerr


would


have


the


trustee


the


"brain"


to recognize


and/or


overrule


various


"mentalities"


the


institution.


How


this


was


to be


done


the


modern


college


or university


was


explained.


a more


pertinent


nature


present


study


was


the


discussion


of decision-making


responsibilities


church-


related


college


boards


Messersmith


(1964).


These


* a a S a -S fl S.









position


pointing


out


that


was


being


optimistic.


decision-making


approval


list


control,


included


current


policy


matters,


operations


budget


, planning


and


financing


physical


facilities,


administrative


services,


faculty


student


servi


ces


and


curricular


extracurricular


activities.


Mes


sersmith


(1964


decision-making


list


was


the


only


one


that


gave


trustees


duty


of financing


current


operations.


Also,


Messersmith


provided


only


definitive


statement


found


about


deci


sion-making


responsibilities


small


private


coll


eges.


Rauh


topics


(1969)


commonly


research


ed small


considered


coll


boards


eges


, but


included


whether


decisions


concerning


these


topics


were


ratified


or actually


made


board


were


scal
S ~


trustees


delineat


was


personnel


nonfaculty


life (dormitory

student-invited


rules,


unclear.


(faculty


personnel,


athletic


speakers);


finance


following


appointments,


retirement


programs,


(inve


plans


poli


stment,


categories


wage


student


cies


budget


analy


sis,


long-range


planning);


plant


(development


campus master

drawings for

(decision abo


undergraduate


plan,


selection


a particular

ut a research


program,


an architect,


building


contract,


structional


educational


changes


methods,


architectural

program


in the


library








colleges


trustees


are


considered


college


legally


(also


see


Chambers


programs


1976)


those


they


tru


are


stees


involved


in other


public


college


colleges


high


level


involvement


. [trustees


private


institutions


trustees


are


combined.


consistently


This


ess


suggests


involved


stronger


than


commitment


these


trustees


to delegation


of management


functions


the


college


staff"


(p.190).


Herron


(1969


elt


that


proper


delegation


deci


sion


making


duti


was


only


ssibl


with


proper


communication


also


discu


ssed


Balder


ston,


1974,


85).


He prepared


a checkli


questionnaire


to study


communication


between


board


s and


other


areas


the


college


(president,


faculty,


students).


Most


returns


were


from


large


colleges


and


univer


siti


although


few


were


from


private


coll


eges.


Herron


committees


(1969


was


conclude


most


ed that


effective


the


deci


use


trustee


sion-making


method


between


board


administration,


faculty,


students.


He further


conclude


that


each


committee


should


have


deci


sion-making


responsibility


one


the


major


divi


sions


college


--academic,


student,


finance,


development,


buildings,


and


personnel.


About


half


board


no response


the


questions


reaularitv


- A-


committee


meetings


with


Orl


.


.








study


was


answered


"infrequently"


40%.


For


contacting


administration


members


directly,


the


results


were


virtually


same


(43%).


Herron


did


report


on some


aspects


questionnaire


results;


particularly


lacking


were


results


on board


interaction


with


students


whether


pres


idents


encouraged


board


members


to contact


individuals


unilaterally


before


making


decision.


Other


decision-making


literature


pertaining


directly


presidents


and/or


faculty


from


small


colleges


are


virtually


nonexistent.


Most


additional


research


from


universities


and

and


much

the


it is


resultant


tied

gain


the c

power


collective


faculty


bargaining

y rather t


process


han


decision


making


per


.g.,


Garbarino,


1974;


Tice,


1972).


A study


Hud


son


1973


showed


that


loci


of deci


sion


making


shifted


some


toward


faculty


after


the advent


coll


ective


bargaining,


that


most


major


deci


sion-making


duties


were


within


the role


administration.


further


stated


that


"actually


making


a deci


sion


may


not


nearly


important


a meaningful


way


to a faculty


deliberation


. as being


which


consulted


preced


decision"


34).


more


pertinence


present


study


(although


research


Dykes


was


(1968


done


who


university


studied


level)


perceptions


was


faculty


study


members


S
e~ a n -t a a C 1 a n a a A -. a n a n a


q







high


majority


faculty


felt


that


they


should


always


usually


determine


deci


sions


academic


affairs


86%)


and


personnel


financial


affairs


affairs


(69%),


(11%),


fewer


capital


felt


same


improvements


about


(21%)


student


affairs


(24%),


public


and


alumni


relations


(0%).


Most


the others


felt


that


faculty


should


recommend


admini


station


matters.


Richardson


presidents


(1980)


would


felt


trying


that


to seek


during


more


the


1980s


faculty


most


and


other


outside


involvement


order


to share


the


responsibility


unpopular


decisions.


Goldschmidt


1978),


however,


study


structures


power


and


decision


making


higher


education


systems


seven


countries


, reported


that


professors


the


Unit


ed States


were


being


consulted


less,


while


junior


academic


staff,


students,


nonacademic


personnel


were


gaining


deci


sion-making


power.


In 1967


the


American


Association


Higher


Education


public


shed


a report


which


was


to be a forecast


subsequent


faculty


statements


involvement


comprise


in academic


summary


governance.


those


following


findings:


There


faculty


discontent


institutions


higher


learning


the


United


States.


Campus governance

authority between


should

faculty


built


and


on shared


administration.


Such


shared


authority


should


include


educational









total


resources


institution


to compensation


particular


individuals,


public


questions


that


affect


role


and


functions


institutions,


procedures


faculty


representation


campus


governance.


Faculty


representation


must


be related


locus


deci


sion


making


the institution.


Faculty


should


have


right


to select


type


representation


desired


e.g.,


academic


senate,


bargaining


agent).


Three


alternate


approaches


to faculty-


administration


deci


sion


making


should


be available


to faculty--information


sharing


appeals


reason;


use


neutral


third


parties


including


arbitration;


application


of political,


educational,


or economic


sanctions


including


strikes.


shared


authority


concept


could


best


implement


through


an internal


organization,


preferably


an academic


senate


including


both


faculty


and


admini


strators,


with


a majority


the


senate b

directly


eing


faculty


affect


members.

faculty,


Issues


such


which


as general


allocations


of budget,


should


be decided









An appeals


procedure


unfair


decisions,


scope


of which


would


be determined


the


senate,


should


be establi


shed


including


third-party


intermediators


and


arbitration.


External


professional


associations


should


be used


to act


as a cons


tructive


complement


senate


providing


information


and


technical


services


and/or


supporting


educational


sanctions.


The


faculty


should


have


the


right


to choose


bargaining


representative


especially


institutions


that


have


not


established


internal


organizations


faculty


representation.


Kerlinger


(1968)


writing


about


the


same


time


during


student


power


struggle


the


late


1960s,


felt


that


faculty


had


legitimacy,


competence,


responsibility


to make


program,


policy-making


curriculum,


deci


course


sions


concerning


structure


and


educational


content,


admissions


requirements.


faculty


did


not


undertake


these


responsibilities,


thus


forcing


administration


make


these


decisions,


would


lead


to academic


mediocrity


and


result


in student


respect.


He further


thought


that


students


should


be involved


the


study


educational


policies


and


practices


even


point


criticizing


such


policies


making


opinions









struggle


decision-making


power


late


1960s


and


early


1970s


seemed


to be summarized


1971


seminar


sponsored


American


Association


Higher


Education.


They


discussed


major


problem


areas


relative


organization


and


governance


American


higher


education


resulting


from


changes


occurring


locus


deci


sion


making--the


decline


in autonomy,


procedural


regularization


standardization


conflict


recognition


management,


decentralization,


the challenge


professionalism,


demise


academic


mystique.


Ikenberry


1971),


reporting


this


meeting,


stated


that


the dilemma


of restoration


acceptable
conflict,
of college


and
and


and


preserving th
organization.


confronting


or purpose,
manageable


higher


education
achieving


level of


engthening


university,


esse


ntial


s that


campus


the accountability


while


essence


the
the


same


time


academic


428)


Critique


one


reviews


deci


sion-making


erature


related


to higher


education,


quickly


apparent


that


only


a few


apply


to a study


loci


of decision


making


small


colleges


even


fewer


to small


Christian


colleges.


There


a large


body


literature


concerned


with


lead


ership


styles


and


deci


sions


made


the


different


styles.


(Blake,


Mouton,


Williams


[1981]


synthesized


literature.)


However.


this


t a


little


helix


in understanding


F









work


that


been


done,


that


dealing


with


board


trustees


seems


most


relevant


to the


present


study.


The


literature


consisted


mainly


authoritative


opinion


and


commentary


number


reflecting

institutions


experience

. Also,


one


a comment


or perhaps


offered


limited


several


writers


concerned


the

more


effect


with


that


the


decision


opinions

ns that


expressed


should


were

made


certain


governing


units


rather


than


deci


sions


that


were


actually


made


unit


or position,


is most


appropriate.


This


to a rather


wide


variation


opinion


about


what


was


actually


done


with


little


evidence


to support


the


several


opinions.











CHAPTER


RESULTS


OF THE


STUDY


this


chapter


an analysis


formal


decision-


making


procedures


Chri


stian


Coll


Coalition


institutions


presented.


decision-making


procedures


focus


used


study


the colleges


was


which


ranged


from


to 2700


students


in enrollment.


There


were


69 members


s coalition


in 1982


, and


some


usable


data


were


received


from


these


institutions.


total


number


responses


rece


ived


was


a possible


was


reported


Chapter


square


analyst


opinionnaire


items


was


made


between


a first


returns


those


sequently


rece


ived


and


no significant


diff


erences


were


found.


Therefore


was


that


although


there


may


be certain


effects


external


remaining


validity,


sample


there


from


was


which


some


reason


no returns


expec


were


received


that


might


differ


significantly.


chapter


tabular


divided


distribution


into


three


responses


sections.


items


within


deci


sion


areas


is pres


ented


both


as to who


makes


decisions


who


part


cipates


in making


the d


sions.


Major


sion-making


areas


small


private


coll


eges


were









colleges


are


organized


to give


attention


to each


these


areas.


Second,


results


analysis


variance


determine


differences


among


perceptions


the


governing


positions/units


(trustees,


administration,


administration/faculty,


and


faculty)


are


reported.


This


includes


both


perceptions


the


~05


ition/unit


actually


making


the


decision


and


whether


or not


sition


incumbent


was


perceived


as having


participated


making


the


deci


sion.


Third,


findings


are


presented


relative


the


analysis


variance


differences


in perceptions


role


incumbents


about


positions/units


making


decisions


based


their


personal


level


of parti


cipation.


The


categories


personal


participation


were


as follows:


"I made


decision"


"I recommend


the


deci


sion"


"I provide


information"


and


participation"


Perceptions


Relative


to Who


Makes


and


Participates


Selected


Deci


sons


Within


this


section


data


relative


to who


makes


and


participates


selected


deci


sions


are


presented.


The


data


are


organized


four


deci


sion


areas


common


small


private


colleges


: academics


student


affairs,


development,


and


administration.


Contained


in Appendix


C is


w


v









each of


four


decision areas


under


consideration.


Reference

better un


to this


appendix may assist


derstanding of


the data


presented


reader in having a

herein. The


governing positions


from and about which


responses


were


obtained were


president


trustees,


presidents,


academic affairs,


dean


academic deans


of faculty),


(vice


business


officers


(manager,


controller),


vice


deans


president


students


for finance,


(vice


treasurer,


president for


student


affairs/student


services/student development/student


life),


development


director


officers


college


(vice


president


relations,


vice


for public affairs,


president


institutional advancement/church relations),


academic


department


chairpersons,


faculty members,


others


(one


athletic director and


one director


of marketing).


Academic


Area


Presented in


Table


are


perceptions of


respondents


in regard


to who actually makes decisions


relative


to five


selected academic


items.


Four


role


incumbents were most

decisions--trustees,


often

the p


perceived


resident,


as making


academic


the academic dean,


and


the faculty.


The trustees were most


often mentioned


decision makers


giving


faculty raises,


giving


promotions,


and hiring new faculty.


frequently mentioned as


a major


president was


decision maker


also


for these








Un
dI l *


0 10
n4I.
^* I *
I 0
I -


1r4
c'cJ


Ir~I


>1

w-w
LA -rl U
en~


'en


tNIO

I0
IrH
I
Q~I~
IcO
IC,.'


CIrH
'a'


rHICNI
'I
'.0101
I0I
Ir~I


Irli


JJdP

r)~U
-'400
~zrz4C


a)
WVd9
Oflu
CIh4
ttjc~
'C


'LA


O l l


010~
'a'


1e4


Otto
IC.'


I I
I I

AI 0 l
I I

IrHI


1 0


I0


WdP
Ow
s-I

'00
%CUC


1r4
I.
'('4


l'.0


- I I

I I
I 0 I


nI~
IC"


U]
4-)
r4
C

ON

-n


*r41








highest


percentage


mentions


(74.2%


academic


items


totals


academic


making


showed


deci


deci


academic


sions


sion


dean


(31.3%


to change


as most


time)


a grade.


frequently


with


Overall


making


faculty


second


24.8%)


president


third


21.9%).


Respondents


perceived


busin


ess


officers,


deans


stud


ents,


development


officers


as rarely


making


decisions


relative


academic


items;


they


were


mentioned


times


possible


1,417.


Perceptions


those


participating


in making


decisions


(Table


show


that


department


chairpersons


academic


make


business

in decis


deans


deci


were


sions


officer


major


relative


was


making


perceived


related


participants


academic


frequently


to faculty


in helping


items.


as participating


raises.


more


complete


picture


total


involvement


can


seen


combined


examination


the


"makes


sion"


table


(Table


"participates


in making


decision"


table


(Table


For


student


Appendix


making


(item


C for


slon


virtually


each


item.


to change


respondents


grade


perceived


faculty


(74.2%


the mentions


and


academic


dean


(20.4%


deci


sion


makers.


A few


respondents


indicated


"other"


remarked


that


committee


was


responsible


either









I
'010

~I0
I0
I-
I
('410~
~I~D
rHIO
I -
In


>1

Wr~W
>~r4
LA C.) CO


cja.~
lu-i


~I~I

nIo'i
IC''
I I
I I
flIU~)I
C~INI
I~oI
I I
I I
I I
%DIO~I
*I
LA IO~i
'a.''


46


S
C
0

U,
*r4
C,
a)
V

0)
-c
4.)

0'
C
*4
*54
Co

C
r4


cia'


OICN

IN


>1
AJ*



UJrO
zrz4c




4)


cs-I
'OLD
-C
uroc


we-
'OU)
s-I
rOO
ic~UC


I0


IN
ILA


I 0


'to'
(NICI
I0I
I-I
I I
rHI~I
C'41r41
l~I
I
I I
I I
r4101
I
a'I0I
l0I
I~I
I
~Ic.JI

ICNI
I I
I
'PC'
'to ia'I
I
tAlc.''
'a''
I
I
flIC'JI
nioi
I'0l


'LA


IN


I0.'
I.
I~o


a)
ms-i


I









changing


grades,


almost


no involvement


actually


making


the deci


sion.


This


item


was


the only


item


that


showed


both


trustees


and


pres


ident


as having


involvement

concerning


trustees


in making

disciplinin


making


a decision.

g a student,


the decision


Except


no other


(also


Item


item


participation


no other


(only


item


indicated


president


participation)


making


(Tables


deci


and


sion


was


highest


total


involvement


(making


deci


sion


plus


participation)


faculty


items.


results


relative


deci


sion


item


to hire


a new


faculty


member


(item


were


concentrated


among


president,


academic


dean,


trustees


who


97.5%


"makes


deci


however,


sion"


had


perceptions.


a frequent


mention


department


participation


chairperson,


(highest


items


chairpersons).


For


deci


sion


to promote


a faculty


member


(item


highest


total


involvement


was


percei


to be


academic


"makes


dean.


deci


Thirty-two


II


responses


and


nine-tenths


were


percent


academic


dean


were


25.1%


"participates


making


decision"


responses.


Perceptions


of position


incumbents


concerning


decision


to give


faculty


raise


(item


were


concentrated







makers


deci


sion,


but


some


participation


making


decision


Student


was


Affairs


perceived.


Area


Most


deci


sons


concerning


student


affairs


were


perceived


to be made


press


ident


and


dean


students


with


several


res


pondents


selecting


the


"other"


category


(Table


Tru


stees


were


perceived


to have


the


lowe


st involvement


student


affairs


all


the


deci


sion


areas


both


"makes


decision"


and


"participates


making


the


deci


sion"


(Tables


and


student


affairs


area


had


highest


number


responses


In the


"other"


indicated


egory.


that


Remarks accompanying

respondents perceived


responses


frequent


committee


decision


making


this


decision


area.


sion


to change


a financial


aid


policy


item


had


second


high


"other"


perceptions


the 19


items


(Table


Many


attached


remarks


(88%)


indicated


that


a committee


was


responsible


making


this


deci


sion.


The


other


"makes


deci


sion"


choices


regard


s item


were


concentrated


among


president,


trustees


business


officer,


and


dean


students


The


business


officer


was


perceived


as making


deci


sion


or participating


making


the


decision


about


financial


policy


the


respondents


(71.6%)


while


dean


stud


ents


was


identified


9 of the


respondents


(53.6%).


_



























no
*1


C
O).dP
-nt)
W-4
(np-I


V
'C


s.d

cw*
r454



uaJc

-'-4
C


0W
zo.h-
0C
-.4.9.4
~l4J


'a'


10


I0


* I I
tICI
-4101
jr-I'
I I
U,' WI

r4n0'
a -i
'-I
I I
I I
10% I

r-ia'a
-~I0%I
I I
I I
r-~og

It'll
I
I I
I I
NIr-4I
I
%0I0I
I0I
Ir~I
I
r-Iena
-Ii~I
*(NI
I I
I I
I
%011
* I I

('4101

I I
U~I0I
~01wI
'('4'
I I
I I
I I
0101
I
('did
r4IOI
1-41
I I

nir-i
'('4'
I I
a
I I
dr-si
SI I
%OICI
lot
I-Il
I I
N141
r4I~I
INI
I I
I I

U~1r4I


ICM


HO'
-I


Va.
ZEJ2C


C
0

Omt
Cc
'u-I

UCIC
a)




V
--I >,0
'CU
.9.4
-rIO


I-I
Iu.~


IC'
I .
IN


Ir41


U
C r4
S


so

































' a'


C

(0~.I

U2-4

V


S..
'U
cci-




U2Z
'.4
0



cc
'-4-4


-'cc
ci




a
41
$4

eQ.
zwc



C
0
0~40
ate
''U
'U.-'
Sc,
00'C
a,



V
'4).,.
40
'4
C.-.
'40
bA.C


~Di
S

~i0
I-
I
LAI~D
~Io'
I -
In
I
I
I
o'Io

a'Io
I0
'-4


IN
I.
'en


I


*
o'IoI
to
'-4'
I I
-4IwI
"''U,'

I I
I I
I
~Io'
*I

IC I
I-I


I e


I.


I I
UIOI
*I
0% IC)
lot
1-41


010
*I
ctIlIO
e410
'-4


go
SI *I
aICI
'C'
'-4'


IN


I '


1F


4-4
3.4
0
U
'-4
44


UJBM










res


pondents,


saw


dean


students


as making


deci


sion


saw


him/her


as part


cipating


Tabi


Making


item


deci


were


sions


perceive


involved

d to be


with


beginning


res


a new


ponsibility


sport

the


president


almost


sample


academic


dean


was


received


to have


a higher


total


involvement


than


dean


students.


can


seen


from


Tabi


, item


decision


have


highest


a series


of religious


incidence


"other"


meetings


on campus,


responses


the


items


out


cases


. As


other


student


affairs


items,


committees


were


mentioned


a high


percentage


cases


where


remarks


were


made


The president


was


most


frequently


seen


the decision


maker


50.0%


responses)


with


ean


students


academic


dean


seen


frequently


participating


and


17.8%


responses).


Perceptions


about


acting


on a di


sciplinary


measure


(item


position


were


heavily


with


concentrated


responses


dean


(70.7%


stud


being


that


he/


makes


deci


sion.


Total


involvement


was


highest


the dean


of student


position


items


(278


283)


(Tabli


and 4). This


item


one


lowest








Perceptions


about


deci


sion-making


responsibility


admission


poli


(item


were


diverse


distribution


was


follows


: the


president,


31.8%;


the


academic


dean,


20.0%;


others,


17.1%;


trustees


, 12.9%;


faculty,


12.1%;


with


other


positions/units


ess


than


4.0%


each.


Development


Area


Development


deci


sions


were


perceived


to be


made


trustees


almost


one


half


time


with


presidents,


business


officers


and


development


officers


perc


eived


other


frequent


deci


sion


makers


s area


(Table


same


positions/units


were


perceived


as most


frequently


participating


in development


divi


sions


Tabl


Item


deci


sion


to begin


a new


fund


sing


proj


ect,


had


the high


est perceived


total


involvement


"makes


sion"


plus


"participates


in making


sion"


development


personnel


(241


responses)


(Tabli


overall


total


indicated


that


44.1%


respondents


perceived


the president


to be making


deci


sion


their


institutions


Except


changing


the


bylaws


(item


19),


the


trustees


were


perceived


to have


most


deci


sion-making


involvement


concerning


ques


tion


constructing


a new


building


(item


13) .


They


were


selected


on 235


opinionnaires


decision


makers.


pres


was


perc


eived


persons


I q a S S *.. .- '-. -


K __


q






























a'Ia'I
I
r4IO~I
I0~I


'a.'
1r4


'n ia.'j
I101

I I
I I
I I
I I
r-ilo i


~I0
I0
In
I
nun

leN)


I,Q I
^"I r-4
I I
0I I0
1 0

I I
Hi0I

I I


I eIrirl


rn-I-)
-H 0*
eGG)
~
e4 0



F:4


r-e o


0 10
I 0
I r-4
I
NINr-4
I 0
I CN


1r4


U)
4.)
r4
C


2-. If 1


1(N)






















0~110I
SI 'I
~IoI
I0I
IHI


r4IC~I


I

I 0
I r I


In'


I 0 I mr er-
I *rN I r-1 r- r-


'WI


nio~
IC'


*r4~r4


I', I
I I
r-i i


W4.J
*rI 0*
'ow
CN~~fl
r'4 0



F14


Dell


''Cl
I I


C
or-'
*rlC
Co
S-4r4


5.40)
PC
04-i

4-4C
I-ri


4-I


tel









chairpersons


faculty


reportedly


most


participation


on thi


item.


The business


officer


highest


involvement


any


incumbents


deci


sion


to make


new


investments


(item


14),


and


except


rals


tuition/fees


, investing


money


was


indicated


highest


business


officer


involvement


(Tables


and


s item


lowest


perceived


involvement


chairpersons


faculty.


Admini


station


Area


deci


sions


area


admini


station


were


almost


exclusively


thought


to be made


trustees


presidents.


can


seen


in Tabi


the


trustees


were


seen


decision


makers


60.8%


time


president


33.5%.


Tabli


shows


that


the admini


strators


as a group


were


seen


as having


a high


level


of participation.


Deci


sions


about


long-range


plan


item


were


indicated


as being


purview


trustees


presid


ents


almost


the


respondents


The numerical


distribution


total


involvement


(Tabl


regard


long


-range


plans


was


as follows


: trustees


, 202


presid


ent,


academic


dean,


226;


siness


officer


193;


dean


student


, 174;


development


officer,


200;


chairpersons


, 86;


faculty,


116.


"other"


category


was


also


highest


outside


student


affairs


sion


















WU)
o~Cm

Sc>.'

urn



a)
a)u)
0"0


QPh4
0)

4-'
'a>.'
s-do

r4H U
cm

S
V
"C



a)
rH.r4 ci)





0)
0'
C
mc
-I -

C
0


-Ia''
CNiO~I
'a''
I I
I I
I I
a''-'
NIr~I
In'
I -I
Ir~I
I I
LA 101
*3 'I
NIOB
I0I
Ir~I


It-I
1r41


flog
SI
~I0I
I0I
I-'
I I
flirt''

I I
I I
I I
1e41
SI
r4101
I0I
'-I
I I
ml-'
1r41


r101
r-I 1 0 I
i 1 0 |
I0 I
Irf
I I

IN I
I I


-LA


01 I r-4 I
*I *1

I r-t 1


cia'


~I0
IC.'
I
I




















OJW*

ccc


C
0)02*
0~10


UP4C

a)
H


WI


~I CI
I0I
i-I


mID
c~io'


OICN
* I *
* I -
I o
I r--i


I.Q
0I~I
'I I
LA IC I
I0I


0I~
4010
ICN


I-I


n.I0'
I
'.0301
I0I
Ir'I


I
IN


a)
U,',,
't0H di


'en
*I


0101
*1
fbi
i0I
I I
mimi

I0I


WICI
.5
~I0'
I0I
I-,
I I


dP B en


ic'
Br'
In


'to'


(Ni


'('4


jr-I
1r4


1r4


1W
'en


'en
1r4


dPI


C
0


U)
4J
r4
C


CU)









responses


(Table


It had


one


highest


total


involvements


the presidents


opinionnaires


response


es).


The deci


sion


to fill


administration


vacancy


item


was


mark


ed by


67.9%


the


res


pondents


as being


made


president


who


had


the high


total


involvement


this


item


items


with


perc


eived


involvement


on 276


returns


(Tabi


and


Total


involvement


relative


deci


sion


to change


purpose


college


(item


was


high


sident,


second


only


to making


long


range


plans


(Tables


Trustees


, however,


were


perceived


to actually


make


decision


in almost


cases.


trustees


were


seen


as making


sion


in regard


item


changing


the bylaws,


91.4%


respondents


This


repr


esents


greatest


unanimity


expressed


respondents.


It also


had


the high


total


involvement


trustees


out


returns)


(Tables


Involvement


Deci


sion


Areas


Governing


Position/Units


Table


shows


which


frequency


represents


perceived


a synthesis


involvement


Table


the four


deci


sion


areas


overall


each


governing


positions/units.


Involvemen


shown


terms


"makes


.


-


v




































oa
* I
o o I
o a
-4 -4 I

-, C I
* 4,
I, t~4 I
- I
I


-. 'C
I


C I


In
S 4
S S


C I


o q, I
S S S
C I


*0 I
I


i I


- U'
S I
0 -4 I
-4


p
N -


- I-
S S I
-. e*4 I
I


tO N I
S I
C S
'-4 -*


-4 S
5


'-4 I
S 4
Qi a
N -4
I
I.
* 1~ I
an In I
* I
N I
I
o
* H 5
o tO I
4, I


a
U
C
a
U

k
44

6
A
a


Sn
0

I
a

S
14
U
3

C
S
14
C

C
0
-I
U
-4
U
0
'U

4'
A


C
-.4
S
a
-4

U
U
6
44
.4
S
S
Mc
0
"4.4
0u
'4.4
U
U,
*'0
U
CS
Os
OHM
S
SC
& -


I.. C I


,..a


a I


SI


* *
0 -


C 1








Trustees.


can


seen


Table


this


governing


unit


was


most


frequently


perceived


actually


making


decis


(1,645


5,343


responses


SHowever,


they


were


perceived


least


frequently


as participating


making


decis


(even


lower


than


"other"


category).


Their


most


frequent


total


involvement


("makes


deci


'I


plus


"participates


making


the


deci


sion")


was


for


admini


station


decisions,


followed


development,


academic


and


student


affairs


President.


The president


was


perceived


to have


mos


frequent


deci


sion-making


involvement


administrative


area


and


least


frequent


the


development


area.


can


be det


ermined


from


Tabl


position


had


highest


level


total


involvement


position


s/units


with


4,161


selections


19,573.


Academic


Dean.


total


involvement


academic


dean


was


highest


academic


area


and


lowe


st for


development


area.


Overall,


position


was


selected


3,157


times


out


a poss


19,573.


Business


Officer.


Involvement


ess


officer/manager


was


most


evident


the


admini


station


development


areas.


Involvement


the


business


manager


the


academic


area


was


limited


(Table


Dean


Students


. This


~05


ition


had


the


third


high


est


- ^ R S


.*--a--- 1


. ... .1 .. .9


flu,,' a a a a a a a


-In


A







most


frequently


involved


in student


affairs


and


least


frequently


academics.


Development


Officer.


This


ition


was


next


lowest


actually


making


deci


sion


5,343


responses).


areas,


highest


involvement


was


development


and


lowest


was


in academics.


Department


Chairperson.


Chairpersons


had


high


perceived


involvement


academics,


were


other


deci


sion


areas


Table


Chairpersons


lowest


total


position


incumbents/units


"makes


decision"


category


5,343).


Faculty.


faculty


was


perceived


to have


most


frequent

student


Table


total i

affairs,


shows


involvement


admini


that


academic


station,


frequency


area


development


"makes


followed

SReview


decision"


responses


academic


area


can


attributed


items--to


a course


curriculum


to change


grade.


their


times


they


were


selected


as making


deci


sion,


were


adding


course


were


changing


a grade.


Other.


According


to remarks


provided


respondents,


the


"other"


category


represented


large


number


res


pon


ses


considered


to be


committee


decisions.


shown


in Table


this


category


was


seen


as having


more


total


involvement


than


department


chairpersons


1,282


to 1,242).









Diff


erences


Perceptions


About


Extent


Involvement in Selected Decisions Based on the


Position


pondent


As indicated,


second


question


that


gave


direction


study


related


to differences


responses


about


making


participating


decis


ions


based


position


the


res


pondent.


To det


ermine


there


were


diff


erences


a single


groups


factor


used


analysis


level


variance


within


(ANOVA)


factor


was


were


utilized.


trustees,


administrators

business office:


(including

rs, deans


presidents,


students


academic


eans,


development


officers


, faculty/admini


strators


(faculty


members


serving


in part


-time


admini


strator


such


as department


chairpersons),


and


faculty.


Dropped


from


this


analysis


were


responses


from


per


sons


who


were


classified


"other"


because


they


made


such


a small


percentage


total.


To provide


direction


analysis


was


hypothesized


that


there


would


no significant


difference


level


deci


sion


items


within


four


deci


sion


areas


the


perceptions


role


incumbents


from


the


various


governing


groups


board


trustees


admini


strators


admini


strator/faculty


members


, and


faculty


members


about


who


makes


the


deci


sion


and


who


participates


making


deci


sion.







































I %OUThW
I .
I NU9%OW


* *
waw r"r-


* *
. P. .


. I *
N In


I I I I
N N N


C
H





w.v-i
v-I

Via,

212


I


.-ir-ec
M-IN


00%0C4


N Ci In


0000


O m-4NM


OONr4


C4Wr40


WI




C

02
Tea)

a,


wire
CIC
4-410

~Iw
010)


I 0000


0000


0000


0000


0000


I I


I 0000


I 0000


0000


0000


0000


0000


04r40


0000


0000


0r4r40


I CE
I ~JC
I (0
I 4)
I 00
I CC
I *.444
I (A


rtnNm


I r4~
I


WI
4)8 r-'n-o


0000


'-0,-u'


& I'


I ** O


B I
4? I
4)'.a
MO4JI
'I
~U0I
ao.~


1 r^


0000


a
a-
-EN
-w
* U
o~q
*-*.4 Ms
flJJrdm
U- I.40
4J0
o V~4N4J
W-4-.4 ~
"flag
- r~. a-


oe.~
r~O.-4r4


nmr~a


0-


a
O~.

SNC:M
I.j- L~ U-
0' .4,0
en.).
* C~4NM
* m~4-4 Z
U
'turn


054 U-
"4 00
60k.).
S
04J C~-4
U 0..4wi ~
~EEU


I.-
a-
.-N
0 sW
a -


Otfl4J.NM
Ens~r'
0-La U-
54 00
0.4)6k.).

o Wnd.r4 ~
-4~Ea0
veu


4)
I CO
I
4.)
I S
I CE
3.40
441.4
I I"
* to
01W
W4J
I CC
I 00
I
I (AC
I WO
I WO.
I (A
'4.44)
Ow


N sJM-4
4)- 1.4 U'-
'-4 00
o Gh.4N4
CAJUC-4
'44 a*.-~*~ :z


5-4
I


V
V 4
C
V
o
C
a,
C
a to
.r. (A
U2 'V
-S.'
o
4) $4
V di
3
4)
C ('2
4' 4)
4)
4)
C (A
*1~4 Z
$4
4 .jJ
S
(0 .C~4
at
C
di


-*0
- 0'0
'V
-4
A -v
4)
V
0
OW
".4
di 4k
o
$4 Was
0) "4
a. Co
S
0 Ca
1.. --4
0) >1
3
00
(A
O
0
4-' 0)
IA C-.'
Os
1..


t~I


WI
wH.
0)10
.0 IC)









incumbents/units


were


mentioned


four


respondent


groups


as making


deci


sion


that


item.


(The


reader


remind


that


admini


station


included


presidents


academic


deans


, busin


ess


officers,


deans


students,


and


development


officers


that


"others


" cat


egory


responses


were


dropped.


shown


a respondent


group


mean


each


item


and


F value


res


ulting


from


application


analysis


variance.


(The


reader


further


remind


that


the


governing


positions/units


were


ass


signed


a number


based


on level


hierarchy


with


1 being


assigned


trustees


and


so on.


Thus,


means


shown


are


based


numbers


assigned


the


level


and


lower


the


mean,


higher


hierarchy


respondent


group


perceived


deci


sion


making


or participation.)


can


seen


an examination


Tabli


there


were


two


instances


in which


there


were


significant


differences


in perceptions


sition


respondent--in


regard


the


items


adding


a new


course


and


changing


a grade.


Using


the


Tukey


as a


follow


-up study


procedure,


was


found


that


the


diff


erence


first


instance


was


caused


significant


differences


level


perceptions


the


trustees


compared


those


the

the


other


groups


trustees


More


was


cifically,


item,


the


where


mean

s the


response


mean


for

the








the


administrative


hierarchy


than


other


groups.


second


instance,


Tukey


test


revealed


significant


differences


eve


between


any


two


groups


even


significant


though


that


the overall


level.


ome


difference


was


overall


significance


may


have


been


that


virtually


no faculty


members


perceived


other


incumbent


position


s/units


as making


the


deci


sion


change


a grade


item


(Table


10);


however,


total


group


respond


ents,


20.4%


thought


that


academic


dean


made


decis


(Appendix


Even


20.5%


academic


deans


perceived


their


office


as making


deci


sion.


Even


though


item


making


the deci


sion


give


(item


produce


a significant


diff


erence


specified


level,


trustees


felt


that


their


own


position


had


a more


frequent


deci


sion-making


than


overall


statisti


showed


(40.9%


perceived


themsel


ves


making


decis


while


the


total


sample


perce


ived


same


can


determine


ed from


Appendix


academic


deans p

overall


erceived

total (


that


7.5%


position

indicated


to be

their


ess


own


involved

position


than

makes


deci


sion


while


27.5%


entire


sample


perce


lived


same).


However,


each


groups


perceived


decis


about


giving


faculty


a rai


to be made


the


upper


eve


the


H rstmrrhv


U
OS7lAOflfl


a a a


rannn *nf


f-rnrm


-t I I ~ I I*~ III- I~ 5* U KIT II


r


aI-4 l|









echelons


administrative


hierarchy.


Table


shows


similar


information


incumbents


who


were


perceived


to have


participated


making


the


deci


sion.


This


involvement


must


viewed


relation


data


about


who


makes


deci


sion;


may


appear


that


a role


incumbent/unit


little


involvement


when


examining


only


partic


ipation


data


when,


fact,


incumbent


may


have


been


selec


frequently


as making


decision.


indicated


Table


four


five


deci


sion


items


there


were


significant


differences


level.


There


was


a significant


difference


about


participation


in decisions


adding


a course,


changing


grade,


faculty


promotion,


and


giving


the


faculty


member


raise.


When


Tukey


test


was


used


as a follow-up


item


concerned


with


adding


a course


curriculum


item


no significant


difference


between


groups


the


level


was


found.


Further


examination


the


means


shows


that


the


trustees


perceived


the


participation


to be


higher


levels


in the


hierarchy


than


did


admini


stration/faculty.


can


seen


from


the


table


the


mean


the


trustees


was


and


administration/faculty


. In regard


item


about


participating


decision


to change


a grade


(item


the


application


Tukey


did


reveal


any


significant


difference


the


























. S
u~u~'D&fl


(NOr4r4
. .
~tflDLfl


Soor-


a S
nwnm


flLflr4tt~
v-I-


or-nm


C(4-


ocNQ~
rt W r -.


e.4(NCNJCN


-5*-co


r-~a'o


0rlr4~
r4tflr4


0000


NO (N


U3~Lfl~
r-$Lfl(flCN


I.ou-~On
'0~4e4


~Da'cnO


.-.cflo(N


r4MfflN


e-diflOO


0~-0


r~r-n4m


-a'-.-.


r4~Nr4


('40.00


0000


NNv4r4


NWN4


N-4r4


C4NW~
.-4-4e4r4


.-40%U)N


r-r--w 0
.-4OCN.-4


Ce.,--


0000


rnto~om
r40'-4-~


Cr4


r-cntoe~a
40%1r4


w a' in
ra


rI --.


-'-4


C
C

U
6
4344
M04)
C


C
0 0>9
~*..4 4)~.
~44shr4Ifl
0mfl0~'O
a- 24 0-
14 .4JIU
~0wta.>9
o 0~-4N.4J
U.rin4 Z


C
0>9
-

CN0~N
$4-MU -
0' 4~C
00t84>9
C C.r4N4)


r4 -v.4 4J

OW C
u-k 0
44 4~0
wata.>9
~ 0v.N4J
C4~CC.4
CW'r4n4~
0EU


44-.s
ON 4) -4 N

0-ku--
14 4)0
044) Ski >9
4) 'v.4 N 4)
>,4JCC4
4JU-r4n.4~


.-4wtfl04
.-I 0% ('4 -SI


o"n r-m


'a-
w'o
4) -C
(A -


('4
>9'OC~W
43-k U-
'-4 410
~00fa4>9
U W-.1N4)
C4~C Cr4
1b4 0-4.4 ~


V
4, 0
V
C
o 4)
0.0
in 14
0 0
14


I 4)PC


01


U,
4),


w 'n oo


S-Il.-


*-* I


tfl~.-40


U

-0
a'.
'V
-4
-V
0
>9>

ow
240
CM
240
00.
.4
'C,
A
~4J
'SI
>9
-4.'
CU
>14
CC
e-414
S

CA








trustees


= 6.6)


(Table


11).


trustees


perceived


chairpersons


the


faculty


participating


more


perceived


than


academic


twice


dean


frequency


at about


third


frequency.


third


item


that


had


a significant


difference


was


promoting


a faculty


member


rank


(item


Although


Tukey


test


did


show


any


significant


differences


level


selected


between


any


the president


two


the


groups


academic


ean


, trustees


to be


participators


while


27.4%


and


faculty


17.7%


that


time


ese


incumbents


respectively,


were


participating


14.6%


and


26.8%


respectively


(Appendix


These


were


almost


reversed


perceptions.


fourth


academic


item


where


perceptions


regard


to participation


were


found


to be


significantly


different


through


the


analysis


variance


was


concerned


with


Tukey


giving


test


faculty


not


raises


reveal


(item


any


(Table


Again,


differences


level


between


any


two


groups


however,


an examination


Appendix


shows


that


some


the


diff


erence


was


perceptions


business


officers


' participation.


Tru


stees


selected


iness


office


incumbent


position


participating


21.0%


time


while


admini


stration/faculty


and


faculty


selected


offi


13.1%


time


- a a a A.. 2 a I a a a a aCC.t a a S .8. Lb a a


T ..-. a. a .a


____ _S









Different


Bas


ces


on Pos


in Perceptions
ition


About


Student


Affairs


Decisions


There


was


one


student


affairs


decision


items


where


there


was


a significant


difference


level


perceptions


about


who


makes


the decision-


-the


item


related


to a deci


sion


to change


an admission


policy


Tabl


Application


Tukey


test


showed


significance


between


group


differences


level.


However,


from


Table


can


seen


that


mean


trustees


in regard


item


was


2.4,


mean


administration/faculty


was


which


was


largest


difference


between


any


two


means


item


related


admi


ssion


policy.


Although


significant,


deci


sion


to begin


a new


sport


(item


showed


a divergence


in perceptions


between


trustees


admini


station


(Table


, espec


ally


with


perceptions


the presidents


trustees


perceived


themselves


as making


the


deci


sion


30.4%


time


while


overall


the percentage


was


18.6%.


presidents


direction


the


percentages


was


reversed--


30.3%


presid


ents


pierce


ived


that


they


were


deci


sion


makers


while


overall


the percentage


was


39.4%


(Appendix


Perceptions


incumbents


about


participation


making


ql-iivisnt


mffa i r


tine-i Cl flfl~@


a a
1.10 ro -Ii
a, nn, f4 n~n4-1 7


tiff































NI


I U
a a S


I


Ifl.-4 NI-I
a a *


.-4N4M


crrtC


0-400


I O.-4N..4


-4


I ww


"win"


rwMfl
W.4


Cewo


0000


Os""


E1


o u~w.n


Ou.4MM


Ow-to


ONe.4


0000


rIiflNr


0000


0000


i-i N 0 0


I


..4U--4


r-e-^w r-


I'.4
Ir4 -
to
'coo>,
Pc I
C
C I.94nc:r)
I C-140
* I 444
C I-4*6ta.~.
01w I C4?..4S..&J
#4044 I-I4JCCM
Ci 1)6-94-40
CCCI C~**0
OOai C$4~'UC
-4-4C1 C1444b.

U..'
-. a a -


.-r- v-4


OP-NM


0m4J.4N

Sic
00mb).
14 0..4'%.M
4JCC4

a,~uU0
C I.~ V V C
014 44b.
A
U


-~-,4 41-


-140-
4)0
00mb.).
$40-4%%-JJ
04~
60210
14'O~S
)E#44~.
4,
a


%ONQIA


0.940r4


*0
a-
-40
* -w
a, -
C C
-4 O~.
emMs-4.-4
Ofl C
"JO
SCab).
~ W~4N.4J
oa~~-.
*w.4 6...4n4 ~
a':mau
414VV0
4)


0000


Or,.-t0


0 040


ONNO


0000


N.^-4


I
I 'I
I 0-4
I '.40.
I 412
I SC
4)0
I
04)
I U.C
I
I -I
I
--4


I 4141
I
I 445)
I
I 22
I 00
I 1414


i-I %0 r4


0000


--to-
)jw 'A-$fl
knC:M
0-141)-
C 410
*w4 II 6 '4
'94 0~4N4~
0.Si''-4
-46-4-4 ~
SIC)
614 C
*t4E444b4
a


-I--I 4)-'

-140-
C
Comb).
-4 0.4N0
* 0-4-4 ~
S U U
ML4VVC
4


* '4.4


"4
4,
A
a,
.94
A

4,
A
a

C
C
a,
U
U
A
'A

14
0
3
a
-4

0
A
a

-4

Is

*0
0
C
0'
--4
U
U
C

ihI
4'
2
a
4,
0
a
a
'.4
Si .
a,
'IC
'AM
C
WE
C)
C.'
*940
U
a- -.4
-C)
a',
'V
-4
-V
a,

041
140
CLI
140
00.
.94
SI)
cc
'a
-4
"I
-45
"U
cc
.414

Os

aug
64*
4









changing


an admission


policy


(Table


13).


Application


Tukey


test


showed


no significant


differences


level


between


any


groups


on any


these


four


items.


However,


some


differences


were


noted


upon


examination


data.


Differences


perceptions


participation


item


changing


a financial


aid


policy,


were


apparent


between


trustees


faculty


that


on an overall


basis


trustees


frequently


selected


higher


administration


while


faculty


selections


were


more


diverse


(Table


13).


Specifically,


mean


trustees


this


item


was


whereas


mean


administration


was


4.5.


Furthermore


admini


strators


tended


indicate


that


persons


in the


"others


category


were


involved


to a greater


extent


than


non


-administrators


(Appendix


Differences


between


views


trustees


other


groups


were


apparent


when


considering


participation


sions


to begin


a new


intercollegiate


sport


(item


Table


13).


Trustees


perceived


almost


participation


from


"oth


ers"


category


while


remainder


respondents


selected


the


"others"


category


rather


frequently.


Relative


to acting


on a


serious


disciplinary


measure


item


10),


there


were


apparent


diff


erences


between





















































NOt~fl
'0





Cr4 u9 W
-4


a,


r~wr-t
N


wa'~C
. I S
w 4. a,





a,-


0U~CNO


wor-..4
S I S S
tfflflflIfl




or-
U-,


M -4


S S S
wttflnu,




4*efltfld%


N -


U-Ic-u,
U,-


r-~N-4
U9r4.-4


MWr4M


MN.-4(fl


0% Ofld~ 4.


U~Nu~O%
~0


N 0 N 'n


r4r-r~4


It,


0.-i
-4


I 0 <4 -n 4


Mwrfld,
-~0 (N -4
-4




00%Ofl
r40%N4


r~ r4 I~. rfl
-sw--i





N0%UV4.
~1





wtnra%
%0r4


a~'nrC
cr4-






Wr.4





or-~nc


Nr-tnl-
.4O~r4r.4


MC'~CC


4.9-49-4


.n'oe-4
-4


OONri
r40'...4.-4


-4NN.~4


I 4)
I 1..



ad
WE


I *u'4
I 0243

I
I 0.

0~'-4
I )w

z
I 4)0

I


'no r-u~


rNCr
0% u-i


0%'WN9-4
r-r$ri


NN'00
U.S 0r4


r.4OWW


I
I


I

I
V
C I
*
I
a
* I
A4144 I
1-40441
ci
'C,'
cdv'


U
"4 -0'
-4
o -
acS>.
**4 +.h -'

..4'dn C ~0
U.-' La U'


C 0~4NJ4
*r444 CCr4
U 02.4.d ~
CZESO
C La 'a 'a


C -
a
,r4
44 *r4 4J~
C0.JrICN
-'SW 'a z'D
1.4 U-
U'

La W-~4'~4J



~NVVC


a,-.
'-0

C
0>.
.-.-s 44-
04.J."40
'S 0~'o

4aM
440SF'.>.
Li WdNAJ

QuLid.4 ~
02~210
1.4 V V C


IA -c
0'
C C
"4 0>.
44-
WN4)r-4.-4

5-1.4 0-
44C
w43wI'.>.
~
04.) CC4
d tI1..4.4 :
1.4VV C


4) c
a a>.
4.)~

Wrc~tn
C- 1.4 U-
C
*.40Wtk>.
-4 C-dNA.)

,4 U-4~4 Z

U La V C


-
o
"4 0>.
*-4 4.3-


C
OW Ft.
".4 4I*dNt'
IA 43 C C -4
U U.d'M I
.'~5EU
*WVVC


I 4)
I 1hZ


1 G in o*
| k k
I r v^


I


a,


A"
'flu
4PrS

-dO
4)0.
U

4).-
a..

0-4
1h4'a
0-4

C
flu
Sc
S-s

U

1..









level


Tukey


test.


perceptions


about


participating


making


deci


sons


to change


admissions


poli


(item


showed


differences,


even


though


not


significant


level


between


any


groups,


between


trustees


business


officers


one


side


and


presidents,


academic


deans,


deans


students,


and


faculty


on the


other.


Different


Based


ces


on Pos


in Perceptions
ition


About


Development


Decisions


items


concerned


with


making


development


decisions


(Table


14),


one


item


showed


significant


difference


level--the


item


related


to the deci


sion


to build


a new


building.


Again,


Tukey


test


did


show


any


significant

groups. Ho


differences


wever,


inspection


.05

the


level


between


frequency


data


any


and


means


in Table


shows


that


faculty


less


frequently


perceived


trustees


as making


deci


sion


than


other


groups.


Other


different


ces


, although


significant


level,


can


be found


from


study


Appendix


For


example,


development


officers


perceived


themselves


making


decisions


about


fund


sing


projects


(item


more


frequently


than


incumbents


as a whole


31.6%


18.1%).


three


items


concerned


with


participation


in making
























Wr4O%~


U S S S
rlr'JCNCN


0(~'100


- 9-4 ~4


OOOr4


0000


0000


.-4Lflr-r-


0000


OOOr4


0000


00r40


0000


0000


0000


or-nr4


0000


0Cr-00


0 0r0


0000


v-i 0%
v-I mr~4


.0
4N41fl
4Lflr4.-4


'V
C
U

N
0
Mew
MOM
C
C'.)


$4 C
*00>,
--4.4)-
~~r)4Jr4N
cNC~r'
-'4-140'-
*

O 0-4N4J
Cr4


0000


('JWIflN


or-wQ
C4LflflC.I


C
"-4 -
'C C
-4 0>1
~4.--44J-
~c~44Jr4m
A C' C
-Wv--
00 cOb >1
C 0.4N4J

V 10~.4N.4 ~
v-4~UUU


0r00


Nor-N


fl.-4C4N
'n-v-I


-I.' C
C 0>1
0'--4 4)-
4Je400m
0-MU-
41 4)0
>GIQIh>1
C 0-4"~4~
Cr4
0000U


$464.4 0
so a
~ 24 C
0 $4
CA 41

AC C)
.4) 0


4.' .
a'


C
01
U
CC
-40
10.4
10

'-U
0'0
'V
-4
'-'C
0
>1>
A-I
U.
$4U
0k
1'40
00a
*ri
AG
A
C')
-4
>1

'U

410
-4k
0
C-4
0.C


4J5
WI


W I


( I

























0CNr4O~
S S S


n 0o m
4 4 4
3-w ^


~DNN
5 0 S
r~ r~ ri ri


(N 'C it)


U, .H .H


0000


r4iti0~


%Dc'4rna)


0r~40


wo'~'.D
.-4rIr'l.-4


cn.De4rn


r4flC'4r4


Nrfl'O~


CflN~LA


to '0 0%
r4rnc4,-4


'o0~rn


..40%NN


or-we'a
---4-4


cr4tfle4
r4uIneq
-4


('4 0' '0 N


r40QD
r4Ordr4


w-40%r-
I.
a


'a
C
S

U
0
MOM
C
'Co
nfl."


1*4

-~..4 4J-'
0'C44J-4.-.~

-4'-' 14 U-
*

S 0-INM
I44JCC4
@1.4.4 ~
0000(3
C Lawlftl a


~4--4 44-.
flW00O~
-MU--
4~0

C 0'r4~...4sb
4~CC94
V U~4-4 0
r40010
nJ Li 'TI WI Al


.44 C

0-.-4 43-
4Jm5 Ow
@1- 34 (3%~
GD 435
>0 art4>,
C C.r4NIJ
,.4SJCC4
W~4t4 0
00USD
V tafrl'rl Al


.4-
'CM
C 00
13
C
o cc
a.
* 140.
* V
14 0.0"
C
4.4 0r4
o
0-4
'.4
C 14


* in -n


hJ M.


Un I


torn


Qr4^


.4.4'


I '-


r--4.-4


g I


*








function


both


specifically,


within


when


between


Tukey


was


group


applied


differences.


there


More


were


significant


groups.


differences


Furthermore,


level


an examination


between


means


any


in Table


shows


that


means


trustees


was


4.0,


administration


4.2,


the


administration/faculty


4.1,


and


faculty


3.9.


The


to build


item


a new


regarding


building


participating


item


making


produced


decision


second


largest


F of


any


tests


(19.67).


Even


with


analysis


variance


showing


such


a significant


Tukey


test


did


not


show


any


significant


differences


level


between


any


two


groups.


As shown


the


means,


differences


between


groups


was


great


(trustees,


4.4;


administration,


4.4;


administration/faculty,


4.0;


faculty,


4.3),


but


variance


selections


was


highly


mixed


within


groups.


When


Tukey


tests


were


done


an effort


locate


between


group


differences


in regard


to opinions


concerning


participation


the


deci


sion


about


investments


(item


14),


none


were


significant


level.


Inspection


of Table


shows


similar


responses


for


trustees


and


admini


station


similar


responses


administration/faculty


faculty.


Furthermore,








44.4%.


However,


as can


seen


an examination


means


both


making


the decision


parti


cipating


making


the decision


(Tabli


14 and


this


item


related


to making


an investment,


trustee


sections


indicated


perceptions


as being


lower


in the admini


strative


hierarchy


than


the


other


three


groups.


Diff


erences


in Perceptions


About


Admini


station


Decisions


Based


on Position


The


admini


station


decision


area


produced


items


ere


perceptions


among


groups


about


who


makes


decis


ions


were


significant


level.


ese


items


related


to making


a deci


sion


about


changing


the


purpose


(item


and


changing


bylaws


(item


(Table


Again,


application


reveal


any


diff


erences


level


between


any


two


groups


respondents


item


involving


changing


purpose


coll


ege


item


Tabli


16),


the differ


ence


that


was


apparent


was


that


90.9%


trustees


felt


that


they


made


deci


sion


while


the overall


sample


selected


them


making


deci


sion


79.7%


time.


Bylaws


changes


(item


were


sole


perceived


but


responsibility


one


trustees


trustees


while


some


to be


the other


incumbents


ected other


incumbent


positions/units.


Means


for


both


chancai na


niirnnss


n 1 I t1


chanai no


hvlaw


Shnwsd
























nuflnw
. .
-4-4--er'


. .
----


. C
r4r4r"4N


--4-4-4


OflOv-4


0 0 0


0tn0r4


000r.4


0000


0000


O0NS


0000


0000


0C00


0000


0000


0000


0-I0 0


0r0 0


0000


0000


0000


0000


0000


0000


0000


03 4)
02
CI.
036k
0.500
"''U
*I.I~4
K 16144

>9300
.0I
'U

4110*
DIV.
@1*0
.410
.54
WI
U
I C
I $4
a a.
I
I
I
I 4)
U
'4
34







V
C
S

I
0
4)164
1404)
C
a


0r0 0


C Eq ~4 Cl


WW4W
rep.-,


.41fl4r4


I '0
I r4O~
I -Eq
I -
IC~C
IC~ 0>9
* rt~~4 4)-
I Q.N4).4m
I
I 0'-$4U-
IC' 4)4
I CVWh>9
I 00.~4N.4)
I M4JCC-I
W-4.4~
* e e n


..40%~4


-000


C C
Wr4r4


WCCrI


~h~4 4jS
-4)-In
NCOfn
U- $4 U
* 4)4
'I.E Q...4%..4J
4)C Cr4
00-r4n40
- .. ...~ e


0C00


ONOC


r.C.wC
,-drbrded


c
0 0>9
$NJJ.4e4

0- $40-
La 4)4
4) 0 am
* 0-4NJJ
*.44) CC-i
-~ Ut


0000


Cr4~I.-4


Cdwtflhfl


00 Cl
NIfl eq


-we
C
* 0>9
W'-,"4 4)~
0r44Jr4rb
Oged S
$4- $4
0 4)4
0.0
0-4~~..4J
*4JUCP4
b'0t4-4 ~
- n N.


0000


4J
C
C -4
r4*
C
042


0000


OW tArt


NMnfO0


C
0>9

CN4OM
r4.- $40.-
>9 4~0

*-4N4)
*4JCCI
C'W~4n4 ,
- n n


CEO
o 0
04>
0 -4
* a,
$4 U
La
44 0
o a.


SAC a >
I 4) 0 0.
I O 0 M
I 4) U


$I


WI
4)3


U 0
-C
iO









faculty,


2.3).


Even


though


was


not


significant


level,


on dealing


with


making


long


range


plans


(item


15),


difference


was


apparent


between


thinking


trustees


and


administration


(Table


16).


trustees


perceived


themselves


as making


deci


sion


a majority


time


while


administrators


pierce


ived


that


they


made


deci


sion


majority


the


time.


perceptions


respondents


about


parti


cipation


in making


admini


station


deci


sions


were


diverse


Table


17).


only


instance


in which


there


was


a significant


F at


level


was


item


to raise


fees.


The significant


differences


were


related


to making


long


range


plans


(item


15),


filling


an administration


vacancy


item


17),


changing


purpose


college


(item


18),


and


changing


bylaws


(item


19).


Again


nature


overall


differences


were


such


that


there


were


no significant


differences


found


between


any


two


groups


any


four


items.


Inspection


data


and


means


Table


shows


no apparent


pattern


in the


diversity


opinions


expressed


in regard


to participation


decisions


relative


issues


dealt


with


four


items.

























0 i-I 40
. a
wnnn


wnr.a%
. S S
en~nn


'-"ow-


wgQlQnI


CN~WM
m


in IN ('4


a~nnr-rt
Nr"4r-4


I-lW '0 40


.4 .4 0'
.-40'-lr-4


C'JOON
04.4


Efl('400


v.4 LA ('4


r-o(%aw


(4 P1W IA


0.545


,-4fl-4.4


a%%or-0
'fl-I-


Slink
Clew
''U
* 5-4-4
4)5644
@100
'08
''U

ai.~u
uses
Give
-Iso
50
.05
S
'CI S
Cl 9.4
turn a.
0I
Cl
-I
*1 4)
ml a
I 0
I 54
I 24







'C
C
S

U
0
4)44
1404)


BflfldW
.4W-I-I


.-4W1('44


^ rt, cao r,
wf e r-
-4,--M


WOMfl"4
NI-4.4


o'r4or-
r4r4


0004.4
~-404.4.4


nt-un-


-'-'-I


04w nc
N .4


o'W.4an
r41flfl04


iflO~0C
.44.04-4


C
.4 en 04 04


4.0400


-,,-4


IC C
I Sgg O)i-
I .4~.~j4)iq
I 04eM.-4..~
I 0%S0-4
I *-k0'-
BC' 4~0
I COUC.>,
I SOI-$~..*J
I 544'CC.-4


C
0>.
44)-
n44-4C-
00 00%
(0-LaO-
a, us
44 0r4N4)


0-In


mAtlr'r4


.-4Sr4.-4


C
U Qr4
C -N


C
V
4'-
$0%4J.-4N
C'-'. 5.. 0-
54 4)5
4), mc.>,
U 0-4NJJ
C-4


CLAM-bc
.4 04 r4 .4


--I


P. 04 N
'-$4.04-


0%r'wN
an Vt CI


NW,'.


1Q00.


40 ('4 0% N
N


0%ro'N
0.4.4


04 0% 04 IA
N Vt Cl
-4


Mc 4)
OSC a
344' 0
44 54
.4)
ma
65'4 40
.44


Ct 0% 04


4-N


c
* 0>.
IA-.. .dJ-
00 4) .4 tA
OcO~ C 0 0~
k-k U-
0 4)0
0.0

04~CC.4
C'0.rdn4 0


C
0>.
)m4r04
SflC 00
r'ss'14 U-
4)5
AOl eta.>,
*..4NJJ
64~ CCr4


C
V
a)
C
Cl
.9.4
(0
C
@1
14
0

IA.
VC
00
4J'.4
(04)
00
540.
48-4
U
0-4
A4b
4)54
C
00.
U
'C
*940
a
--4
-U
I*0
.4
'-V
El
'hi>
A-4
am
5.40
054
146
@10.
-4
IC.
A
C4)
'.4

mu
>54
00
'-454
6


Uf ,-I









Differences


in Perceptions


Decisions


About
Based


Making


Level


Participation


Respondent


As has


been


previously


stated,


third


question


which


gave


direction


study


was


whether


there


were


significant


differences


between


perceptions


about


role


incumbent


s/units


involved


making


selected


decisions


within


each


four


deci


sion


areas


based


extent


personal


level


of participation


decision


respondent.


An examination


deci


sion


point


analysis


instrument,


Section


(Appendix


shows


that


there


were


four


~05


sible


levels


involvement


* III


make


decision"


"I recommend


the decision"


, "I provide


information"


participation"


These


groupings


were


used


levels


within


factor


analysis


variance.


was


hypothe


sized


that


there


would


significant


difference


level


decision


items


within


four


deci


sion


areas


the


perceptions


role


incumbents


about


who


makes


sion


based


their


level


of participation


in the


deci


sion


(makes


deci


sion,


recommends


decision,


provides


information,


or no


participation).


Again,


where


there


was


significant


F the


Tukey


was


used


as a follow-up


procedure.


Differences


in Perceptions


About


Academic


Decisions


Based


on Level of


Participation


- a S S *


Selected


m


m




















Wr4LAD
. S
*C 40 '0


S 5 4 S
40r-r-r-


wu-,eno
. S
NNNC4


~4a%0%r-
S U S *


S S S S
C4CNCN.-4


r-'nc'J.-4


ufnwo


0000


h.%OUIO


04N..-4r1


cono


0r4of~


00 -t 0


%000r4


e4000


e4000


0000


0000


0000


0000


0Co00


0000


0000


0000


00,-go


0000


In
* 'U
-4 '0
0 '0
(a a
S
*
A 4)0


0000


0000


0000


0000


(4000


'-4-4,


0r~wr-


'010
*111
4)14
0I
6s
'-II
'WI


~or~o


0000


rdr-hnw


ner-o~


rdedr)an
IA..4N


WN40O


e I


NNO


I
I
I
I
I
I
4' I
C I
'a.
C'O I
00
0 I
NO"'
emol
415.5 I
,4m4j1
CI
0% 0.1


An-
-4
v-sC
s-go -
0%
-I
00 -
as.-
4.114.-IC
0000
04'44 '--4
U
0 UrUt2r4
14-4 CI)
0~4J 050

0.>00
* 00*


0o00


a-NE.,
mr4rd.-4


weit-~o
N en


-if)


q.
00 -
4.1 14 (N C
000(40
'0 0.4-4--as
0-IC 0
14 114.c,4
CU
41000

004~00
0' 00*


CC
'-0 -
-.4
N
o u--
>q.r4 0
414J CIC
r40040
~ 044.4-as
0n40 U
C 0r4'0'r4
44.5 Cu
,4J000
)k0 ff'0
4)0-SE
Coaboc
00*


.-4C
-o -
as
N
COO -
0.50-
14.-IC
4)0000
o 04's-s--S
2-sc U
o 0.4V-4
14-s CU
0.4*000

4) 04' 0 0
r4 011*


.-4C
-o -
4 Ut
N
Uoc -
'4-4 2-~
04~ 14W C
1400400
Ddw --.4
U
4,
-I~4 CU
041000
0$4'0 U'0
SC
4404>00
011*


0.6
"a'
o 4~C
A '4
CO
* '.45
45
C 00
.5,4
'0
C 00
o CM
0. 0
*
* M..4
$4 -40
45~4
'44 41
o r4$4
C
14 '00.
V V
4,4)
2 00
0 CC
C -4
S.c
.4 was
S '0


U
4) S.c @0
I 00
I 0 *IJJJ 0
I 4.1 ml's C-ri
00 OA en


0I


(g I


o I










perceptions


respondents


held


about


which


incumbents/units


made


decisions.


example,


in regard


to adding


a course


curriculum


(item


respondents


perceived


themselves


as having


no participation,


56 as providing


information,


as recommending


deci


sion,


as having


made


deci


sion.


Further,


among


respondents


who


said


they


participation,


1 said


trustees


made


cision,


said


president,


said


academic


dean,


said


department


"other"


chairperson,


e.g.,


said


a committee


faculty,


means


and


contained


said


Table


show


the relative


level


within


the hierarchy


that


each


these


four


groups


perceived


the deci


sion


to have


een


made.


Examination


resulting


stati


stics


contained


Table


shows


that


there


was


one


decision


item


which


there


was


a significant


F at


level--the


deci


sion


item


dealing


with


adding


course


curriculum


(item


This


indicates


that


respondents


from


different


personal


participation


categories


differences


their


perceptions


about


who


made


the


deci


sion


to add


a course


curriculum.


Tukey


test


did


show


any


significant


differences


level


between


any


two


groups.


However,


as evidenced


through


an examination


means,


those


who


felt


that


they


had


no participation


in the









Furthermore,


examination


the


data


shows


that


respondents


who


perceived


themselves


as having


participation


selected


academic


dean


deci


sion


maker


57.4%


time


while


selecting


the


faculty


26.1%


the


time.


other


respond


ent


groups


perceived


approximate


reverse


with


academic


dean


being


selected


the


time,


and


faculty


around


50%.


Even


though


there


were


no other


significant


diff


erences


level


among


participants


based


their


level


of participation,


difference


approached


significance


.38)


item


2--to


change


the grade


student.


this


instance


difference


found


seemed


to be


a refl


section


the


extent


to which


respondents


participation"


category


perceived


academic


dean


as making


the


decision


to change


a grade.


Differences


in Perception


s about


Student


Affairs


Decisions


Based


on Level


Participation


can


seen


study


Tabi


for


items


concerned


with


student


affairs


there


were


no significant


differences


level


perceptions


about


who


makes


decision


based


level


personal


participation


deci


sion.


Also,


there


was


little


difference


between


means,


although


item


had


difference


between


the


perceptions


of respond


ents


who


that


they


provided


information







































**. A *


SOWN
a .


'o...too
. a a


. a


-4 in w
S I S a
lenin


uI
NI C
a
CI -~
I 0
I "4
I U
a,
I V


UflO %O0


~o.nr-c


amMo


U~0NN


C A


MAnna


%or-rJc


0r400


0000


WU~40


0000


C4..40r-4


An0.40


...4OWIfl
'.4


.4000


mflfl0P'
r.mr4.-4


e4p-40e.a


r-r-wr4


-1000


0~4 Cr4


e40c40


let-'-.-.


I r-e.-4N
-4


0000


(.4000


0000


0000


0000


let-I-C


tnCO.-.


mflr4N0


(.400.4


0ONW
Nr4r4


* I
WI Nr.-4..4
0..I


can
le-r4


WW-4-4


(.4wr4


* wo0w
I 0-a


V~aC%0


0000


-**--4


Pie 0U9


I I
* I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
'CC
I
CC
Na''
*eoi
4)0-48
ME 4) I
CI
Ct.i 0.1
ao~i


0-


n-ice
-405 -
0.4 5
0.4)14CC
soto
V
S
C O.4'U.4
CC)
-40600

u0.~.0,
C 00*
so1~,c


CO N
COO -

jJcOmnO
C 0.'U'-'..4
-4--IC S
~
CU
'e.g.
V

005)04)
0' 00*


mn -


C4) (.4
Os -
J2114WC
c Gino
--4
-4C U
0n4V-4
n4 CC)
I
0.05)0W
CD 00*
01405
- S. -


WCJJ N
0'05 -
C
40 1.45 C
4)50MG
* 0.4.4-n-I
V-aC U
2 0.4V-.4
-4 CC)
mew.,
t4VflV

.405)00
0' 00*
dO WUC
-


C
114-0 -
-4 In
f-b
005 -
0-49--
*M 114W C
mono

kn-4C S
C 0n4V..4
C~.4
~44*C~Q
rMV Mv
0.0.43
-40.~O0
O 00*
WOw, 4
-J ,w A- -


a -
'-I

-o
n-I
"4
0Cc -
4-4 iS
114 0% C

0
* U-4V-'4
C-4 CC)
o44 C C

w0.~oEJ
-4 OUM


I
I


(.4 An


U i


-x
Cu
Os
-w
S

Os'
- -


* a








a new


sport


2.31)


and


item


10 related


to disciplinary


measures


2.12).


Further


examination


Table


will


show


that


three


SIX


items


(change


regulation,


religious


meetings,


admi


ssions


policy


F value


was


below


0.75.


Differ
Based


ences


on Level


Perceptions


About


Development


Decisions


Participation


the


three


development


items,


one


was


found


to have


responses


based


on level


participation


that


were


significantly


this


diff


was


erent


item


the


level.


concerned


with


shown


beginning


in Table


a new


fund


sing


project


item


previous


stances,


application


Tukey


test


did


not


produce


significance


different


ces


level


between


any


groups.


Inspection


responses


means


suggests


that


the


greatest


differences


were


perceptions


those


persons


who


perceived


they


made


the


ecls


other


participation


groups


, particularly


those


who


perceived


that


they


recommended


decision


= 1.9).


Differences


Percent ions


About


Administration


Deci


sions


Based


on Level


Participation


There


was


one


five


administration


decis


items


where


there


was


a significant


diff


erence


the


level


perceptions


about


who


makes


deci


sion


based


on level






















nLflO~cNJ
S *
eJt'J.-dm


N (N (N
. .
'-4-4-4-4


. S S
r~ m e~ m


r400r4


.4000


0000


0000


0r400


0000


0000


0000


.9.4
o cc
C -'-4
m
Or. $4


wr-tn0
,-4r4 -4


.-4000


('40i40


U 0


0000


.-4COO


0000


0000


-4000


0000


0000


N~4-4e4


0000


an (N en


1nWC4W


-4--'


'n.c.r-a'


1nr4'n-4
-4


W...4r4


C C
* m~*4
V C
C 0
o 04J
0. 00
* EQ.
* n4.4
$4 MU
.9.4
"4 Ui4J
o
'U
k '00.


I
I
I
I
I
'U I
C I
V. I
CV I
Cc I
0 I
bad
0601
4Jn4I
HSAJ I


C)C4~
000 -
r'-4E -
$40 OkflQ
0. Q.'4-i '- -4
-4C W
Ga O-s'a-4
0.4 CC)
-v4MOWV


(N
00
tiMWC
COWO
Cr4C 40
-14 U-4V-4
CU
-I U U) V 0)
-.4kV V


en
00 -
4)-c-I ff-%
~ 4) $4 C
w00e~b0
0 Q.'4.4-*r4
U
CC U.$V-.4
0-ri CC)


S
4) WV 00
00
a w


ONI


















t-r-a~u)
* *
.-4.-4-$r4


r40r4N


41 I


m


SI C13I
as.
~I 614!
*5 EIOi
.~! Cul
036441


0000





0000






0000






0000





ON4N


0000





00r40






000-4






000r4





0000


----4


S S
.4r4r4.-4


Mfflr40


0~40fl-4


tQ flDO%
i *nB


















0000
* S
























0000





0000





0000
0000< "^*-


0000


0000


0000


4$.
V
U ~4U
U.
.4 00


W'04c


& I


~e4-4


00-40





fl0r4~
r4r4N





wOC'4~J*
UflO%0r4


--4--


wr-re4


0000


Ifl IA
(N


'Q co.N N-


I
I
I
I
I
I
a I
C I
'00
CV
SC I
0 I
No.''
060!
410.45

SI


w
mc
-a -
en
C4J En
WOO -
C-I ~'
04~
.-ItUONO
0. 0.44 4$
n4C U)
0I U'r4'On4
O~-4 CU
[U
04>00
00*


C4~ (N
00 -
4-u--
'Waco
0.44 -.4
'4C 'a
* U.$Vn.4
0.4 CU
04)000
0.4
* 0CM


UN
COC
'U-a -
U .4
'UC4~ In
~Ios -
4r4ffl~~
a S C
00 Olfl 0
4~4 Qt~4'~4$
4J-4C a
'U U*dV.4
1*4~.-I Cu
4J4JSWO

C 0db 0 ci
.40U*


C4J N
Otis -
-4I
*4J$4C4C
0001-0
o 0~t44-
0.4-C 0
j4 O~4V.4
Cu
0.41000
004$!
a 0DM


C4J '-4
00 -
4i14rC
"comb
)
a
-4 U4$V.4
CU

004$ '0
O~0db00


44 r-4)
o
'U
5.4
ci ci
A 04~
I
SC
C -4
-4 *4~4
0 V


C
$4>,
00
4)
a
0'0
00
4)41
.5.4
Pa


oo0000


o0o '0


0000





0000






0000





-4000


r)rIwr4









significant


differences


level


between


groups,


there


was


some


difference


between


responses


those


trustees


who


said


that


made


other


the d


category


sion


and


= 1.7;


provide


information,


- *1~7
-


recommend,


= 1.9).


respondents


participation,










CHAPTER


SUMMARY,


CONCLUSIONS,


AND


DISCUSSION


Summary


The


problem


study


was


to determine


perceptions


those


involved


about


locus


formal


deci


sion


making


four


basic


areas


small


church-related


colleges.


Specifically,


answers


following


questions


were


sought:


To what


extent


are


specific


position


incumbents


and


units


perceived


to participate


deci


sion


making


specific


deci


sion


areas


academics,


student


affairs,


development,


and


administration).


Are


four


there


differences


decision


areas


decision


(academics,


items


student


within


affairs,


development,


and


admini


station)


perceptions


the e

units


xtent

are


to which

involved


position


making


incumbents

a decision


and/or

and


participate


in making


a deci


sion


based


position


held


res


pondent


(i.e.,


trustee,


administrator,


faculty/administrator,


faculty


member).


Are


there


differences


decision


items


within


.e.







the e

units

the r


xtent

are


to which

involved


espondent


s perce


position


making

ived i


incumbents

a decision


and/or


based


involvement


deci


sion


(makes


deci


sion,


recommends


deci


sion,


provides


information,


or no participation).


In order


to provide


the data


neces


sary


answer


aforementioned


questions,


a decision


point


analysis


instrument


was


developed


see


Appendix


this


strument


was


provided


the


colleges


which


made


Christian


College


Coalition.


instruments


were


to be


distributed


business


trustee


officer,


president,


dean


students,


academic


dean,


development


offi


cer,


a department


chairperson,


a faculty


member


each


stitution.


ome


usable


responses


were


rece


ived


from


59 of


these


ins


titutions.


total


number


instruments


returned


was


of a possible


552.


Given


number


returns


was


felt


that


there


might


a problem


with


generalization.


To determine


the


extent


this


problem


returns


from


first


mailings


were


compared


means


square


with


returns


from


the


second


no significant


difference


level


was


found


on any


of the


instrument


items.


In order


answer


the


first


question


data


were


analyzed


simple


descriptive


statistics.


answer


second


and


third


questions


two


operational


null


hypotheses









In regard


first


question


relating


to who


made


deci


sions


and


who


participated


in making


deci


sons,


major


findings


emerged:


incumbents


most


frequently


perceived


to make


decision


each


item


were


as follows


Academic


area


decisions


a course


--faculty


40.3%)


Change


grade


--faculty


(74.2%


Hire


new


faculty


--pres


ident


42.3%)


Promote


a faculty


member


--academic


dean


32.9%)


Give


a faculty


raise


--president


36.1%


Student


Affairs


area


deci


sons


Change


financial


policy--president


(35.3%)


Change


pari


etal


regulation


ean


stud


ents


(51.8%)


New


collegiate


sport--president


39.8%)


Seri


(10)


religious


sciplinary


meetings--pres


measure--dean


ident


students


(50.0%)


(70.7%)


(ll)


Change


admi


ssion


policy--president


31.8%)


Development


area


deci


sons


Begin


fund


sing


project


--pre


sident


(44.1%)


Build


a new


building


--trustees


(83.0%)


Place


money


inve


stment


--business


officer









tuition


fees--trustees


(68.5%


Fill


vacancy


in admini


station


--president


(67.9%)


Change


purpose


of coll


--tru


stees


(79.7%


(19)


Change


bylaws--trust


ees


(91.4%)


can


seen


from


above,


trustees


were


most


frequently


seen


deci


sion


makers


in regard


to items


and


19;


pres


idents


were


most


frequently


seen


as d


sion


makers


in regard


items


and


academic


deans


in regard


item


business


officers


relative


item


ean


stud


ents


in regard


to items


faculty


were


most


equently


seen


as making


decision


relative


items


The development


officers


and


department


chairpersons


were


perceived


as major


ecis


makers


any


item.


. The


incumbents


most


frequently


perceived


participate


in making


the d


sions


each


items


were


as follows:


Academic


area


decisions


Add


a course--department


chairper


sons


31.6%)


Change


Hire


the grade


new


--academic


faculty--department


dean


39.3%


chairpersons


28.0)


Promote


a faculty


member--academic


ean


25.1%


Give


a faculty


raise


--academic


dean


, 5,







Change


New


parietal


collegiate


regulation


--president


sport--academic


dean


(21.7%)


(17.1%


Seri


of religious


meetings--dean


students


(24.2%)


sciplinary


measure--president


25.8%


Change


admi


ssion


policy--academic


ean


(21.6%)


Development


area


deci


sons


(12)


Begin


fund


sing


project


--development


officer


(27.2%)


Build


a new


building


--president


(21.2%)


Place


Administration


money


area


investment--president


deci


(33.3%


sions


Make


long


range


plan


--academi


dean


(17.4%)


(16)


Raise


tuition


ees


--business


officer


21.7%)


(17)


Fill


vacancy


admini


stration--academic


dean


18.0%)


(18)

(19)


Change

Change


purpose

bylaws-


college--president


-president


(19.1%)


.9%)


From


above


data


can


seen


that


the


following


were


perceived


most


frequently


to participate


making


deci


slon


: the


president


s--items


, 10,


the


academic


deans


--items


and


F 51


bus


officers


--items


and


the


dean


students--


item


development


officers


--item


and


department


chairpersons--items


, and


SThe


trustees