<%BANNER%>

Branch Campus Administrators

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042705/00001

Material Information

Title: Branch Campus Administrators Ownership and Control
Physical Description: 1 online resource (156 p.)
Language: english
Creator: VALENTINO,M L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: ADMINISTRATION -- ADMINISTRATOR -- BRANCH -- CAMPUS -- COLLEGE -- COMMUNITY -- EDUCATION -- HIGHER -- OWNERSHIP -- PSYCHOLOGICAL
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: BRANCH CAMPUS ADMINISTRATORS: OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL By M. Lisa Valentino May 2011 Chair: Dale Campbell Major: Higher Education Administration This quantitative, internet-based, self-report study of 167 American community college branch campus administrators sought to examine the nature of the relationship between job-based (campus) and organization-based (institutional) psychological ownership and the administrator?s perceived sense of control as measured by the level of job autonomy, level of authority, and participation in decision making. Its goal was to assess the degree to which factors, including perception of control and individual and institutional demographic characteristics, were associated with the cognitive and affective feelings of ownership with respect to their institution and campus. Study results showed that branch campus administrators demonstrated psychological ownership for both their institutions and their campuses, with a significantly higher level of psychological ownership being expressed for the individual?s campus. These observed differences suggested that the two types of psychological ownership were different constructs. The results of this study demonstrated that individual and institutional characteristics that promoted the development of an intimate knowledge of, and an investment of self into, the college, along with the perception of control, helped to facilitate the development of institutional psychological ownership. However, it did not allow conclusions as to potential facilitating factors for job-based (campus) psychological ownership. The results of this study provided support for application of the theory of psychological ownership in the higher education environment, confirmed the results of previous research on organizational psychological ownership, and provided support for Pierce and colleague?s theory of psychological ownership. Further research is recommended into the consequences of the experience of organization- and job-based psychological ownership in non-profit and educational settings, as well as into the theory?s implications for educational management practices.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by M L VALENTINO.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Campbell, Dale F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042705:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042705/00001

Material Information

Title: Branch Campus Administrators Ownership and Control
Physical Description: 1 online resource (156 p.)
Language: english
Creator: VALENTINO,M L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: ADMINISTRATION -- ADMINISTRATOR -- BRANCH -- CAMPUS -- COLLEGE -- COMMUNITY -- EDUCATION -- HIGHER -- OWNERSHIP -- PSYCHOLOGICAL
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: BRANCH CAMPUS ADMINISTRATORS: OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL By M. Lisa Valentino May 2011 Chair: Dale Campbell Major: Higher Education Administration This quantitative, internet-based, self-report study of 167 American community college branch campus administrators sought to examine the nature of the relationship between job-based (campus) and organization-based (institutional) psychological ownership and the administrator?s perceived sense of control as measured by the level of job autonomy, level of authority, and participation in decision making. Its goal was to assess the degree to which factors, including perception of control and individual and institutional demographic characteristics, were associated with the cognitive and affective feelings of ownership with respect to their institution and campus. Study results showed that branch campus administrators demonstrated psychological ownership for both their institutions and their campuses, with a significantly higher level of psychological ownership being expressed for the individual?s campus. These observed differences suggested that the two types of psychological ownership were different constructs. The results of this study demonstrated that individual and institutional characteristics that promoted the development of an intimate knowledge of, and an investment of self into, the college, along with the perception of control, helped to facilitate the development of institutional psychological ownership. However, it did not allow conclusions as to potential facilitating factors for job-based (campus) psychological ownership. The results of this study provided support for application of the theory of psychological ownership in the higher education environment, confirmed the results of previous research on organizational psychological ownership, and provided support for Pierce and colleague?s theory of psychological ownership. Further research is recommended into the consequences of the experience of organization- and job-based psychological ownership in non-profit and educational settings, as well as into the theory?s implications for educational management practices.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by M L VALENTINO.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Campbell, Dale F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042705:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 BRANCH CAMPUS ADMINISTRATORS: OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL By M LISA VALENTINO A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 M Lisa Valentino

PAGE 3

3 To my parents who always told me And to my husband Bill, for loving and supporting me, no matter what I set my mind to!

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS W ithout the support of my family friends and colleagues, this dissertation and my 30 year journey to earn this doctorate would not have been completed. First I want to thank my husband, Bill who has stood by me through these last four years of chaos. Thank you for your patience with my tunnel vision, all the dinners you brought to me in my study, all the proofreading and editing you did late at night and most of all for all of your love it took me 31 years to get here and I could not have done this without you. Next, to my parents Bob and Nancy Gangwisch, who taught me early on to love learning and who have never stopped loving supporting and encouraging me thank you. To Beth Rand, my friend, shopping buddy re to liste n and to help keep me semi sane. And to my children, Erin, Justin, and Brian, I hope I have made you proud. I also wish to acknowledge and thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Dale F. Campbell for his advocacy, guid ance, support and encouragement along each step of the degree process I also want to acknowledge and thank Dr. David Honeyman, a member of my committee for his research expertise, guidance and advice throughout the learning and writing process. Thank s also to Drs. Campbell and Honey man for their dedication to the 2007 LEAD cohort, your support for all of us throughout the program is appreciated; t hank you for being our champions! I want also to acknowledge the other members of my committee Drs. Craig Wood and Lynn Leverty for their time, insight and support. T hank you also to the members of the 2007 LEAD cohort for their friendship and encouragement over the last four years; I cannot imagine a having a better group of people to learn and grow with. I am especially indebted to my fr iend,

PAGE 5

5 buddy and fellow member of the GIT R DUN Strollo Hol brook thanks for listening, encouraging, critiquing and cajoling me because you were there. Finally, I wish to acknowledge and thank my Seminole State College of Florida colleagues and friends. Molly, Lynn, Laura, Angela, Annye, Mike, and Bob t hank you for your patience in listening to me talk non stop about my research and coursework during the doctoral program ; and most of all thank you for your friendship and support always. Institutional Research D irector and statistics guru, Mark Morgan thank you f or your help with the regression and other statistical analyses. To my supervisors during these last four years, Drs. Carol Hawkins and Jim Henningsen, I appreciate your encouragement, patience and understanding. T hank you also to encouragement it meant more than you know.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE O F CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 12 Branch Campuses ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 13 Branch Campus Administrators ................................ ................................ ........................ 14 Psychological Ownership ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 20 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 21 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 22 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 23 Design of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 25 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 25 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 26 Organization of th e Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 27 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ...................... 28 Community Colleges and Access ................................ ................................ ..................... 29 Branch Campuses ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 32 Definition of a Branch Campus ................................ ................................ .................. 32 Factors Contributing to the Development of Branch Campuses .......................... 33 Community College Branch Campuses and Access ................................ ............. 34 Types of Branch Campuses ................................ ................................ ....................... 36 Organizational Characteristics of Branch Campuses ................................ ............ 37 Branch Campus Administration ................................ ................................ ........................ 38 Administrative Structures ................................ ................................ ............................ 40 Branch Campus Administrators ................................ ................................ ................. 42 Psychological Ownership ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 46 Consequence s of Psychological Ownership ................................ ........................... 49 Origins of Psychological Ownership ................................ ................................ ......... 51 Routes (Experiences) to Psychological Ownership ................................ ............... 53 Intimate knowledge of the target ................................ ................................ ........ 53 Investment of self. ................................ ................................ ................................ 54 Controlling the target. ................................ ................................ ........................... 54 Psychological Ownership and Branch Campus Administration ................................ ... 57

PAGE 7

7 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ........................ 61 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 61 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 62 Design of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 67 Independent and Dependent Variables ................................ ................................ ........... 6 8 Survey Instrument ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 69 Measurement of Psychologic al Ownership ................................ ............................. 70 Measurements of Perceived Control ................................ ................................ ........ 71 Reliability and Validity of the Instruments ................................ ................................ 73 Survey Instrument Jury Process ................................ ................................ ............... 75 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 76 Procedure for Data Collection ................................ ................................ ........................... 76 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 77 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 77 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 78 Respondent and Institutional Demographics ................................ ................................ .. 78 Respondent Demographics ................................ ................................ ........................ 80 Institutional Characterist ics ................................ ................................ ........................ 82 Hypothesis Testing ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 85 Research Questions One and Two ................................ ................................ ........... 85 R esearch Question Three ................................ ................................ .......................... 86 Research Questions Four and Five ................................ ................................ .......... 86 Research Hypotheses Six and Seven ................................ ................................ ...... 89 Research Questions Eight, Nine, Ten and Eleven ................................ ................. 92 Research Question Twelve ................................ ................................ ........................ 96 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 100 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 105 Discussion of Finding ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 105 Branch Campus Administr ators and Psychological Ownership ......................... 105 Respondent and Institutional Characteristics and Psychological Ownership .. 107 Perception of Control and Psychological Ownership ................................ ........... 109 Institutional and Campus Psychological Ownership ................................ ............ 110 Implications for Higher Education Administration ................................ ........................ 113 Implications for Branch Campus Administration ................................ .......................... 115 Directions for Future Research ................................ ................................ ....................... 117 Final Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 118

PAGE 8

8 APPENDIX A SURVEY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 120 B PRE NOTICE E MAIL ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 131 C EMAIL LETTER REQUESTING PARTICIPATION ................................ ...................... 132 D SECOND REQUEST FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION ................................ .................. 134 E FINAL FOLLOW UP EMAIL REQUESTING PARTICIPATION ................................ 136 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 138 BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 156

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 ................................ ......................... 81 4 2 Branch campus administrators demographics: longevity ................................ ........ 82 4 3 Institutional demographics ................................ ................................ ............................ 82 4 4 Profile of organizatio nal structure ................................ ................................ ................ 84 4 5 Reporting structure of branch campus staff ................................ ............................... 84 4 6 Descriptive statistics for institutional and campus psych ological ownership ........ 86 4 7 Correlations between respondent and institutional characteristics and psychological ownership for the institution and the campus ................................ ... 88 4 8 Analysis of variance comparing respondent and institutional characteristics and psychological ownership for the institution and the campus ........................... 91 4 9 Relationshi p between job autonomy, job authority, and participation in decision making and psychological ownership for the institution and the campus ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 92 4 10 Regression table for institutional psychologi cal ownership ................................ ..... 99 4 11 Regression table for campus psychological ownership ................................ ......... 101

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of F lorida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education BRANCH CAMPUS ADMINISTRATORS: OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL By M Lisa Valentino May 2011 Chair: Dale Campbell Major: Higher Education Administration This quantitative, internet based, self report study of 167 American community college branch campus administrators sought to examine the nature of the relationship between job based (campus) and organization based (institutional) psychological ownership and th of job autonomy, level of authority, and participation in decision making. Its goal was to assess the degree to which factors including perception of control and individual and institu tional demographic characteristics were associated with the cognitive and affective feelings of ownership with respect to their institution and campus. Study results showed that branch campus administrators demonstrated psychological ownership for both th eir institutions and their campuses with a significantly higher level of psychological ownership being expressed for the individual s campus. These observed differences suggest ed that the two types of psychological ownership were different constructs. T he results of this study demonstrated that individual and institutional characteristics that promoted the development of an intimate knowledge of and an investment of self into the college, along with the perception of control helped to facilitate the d evelopment of institut ional psychological ownership

PAGE 11

11 However, it did not allow conclusions as to potential facilitating factors for job based (campus) psychological ownership. The results of this study provided support for application of the theory of ps ychological ownership in the higher education environment, confirmed the results of previous research on organizational psychological ownership and provide d support for Pierce theory of psychological ownership. Further research is recomme nded into the consequences of the experience of organization and job based psychological ownership in non profit and educational settings, as well as into the

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Comm unity c olleges have had a significant impact on the higher education landscape since their inception (Cohen and Brawer, 2003; Cohen, 1999; Vaughan, 2006). Access had been a major theme in American higher education since the end of World War II and no othe r segment of higher education had been more responsive to its community than community colleges (AACC, 2000, 2007; Cohen, 1999; McClenney, 2004). Most community college leaders believed that it was not accidental that the wo rd name (Cohen and Brawer, 2003). These colleges were often an important part of the geographic area in which they were located and served as the cultural, social and int ellectual hub of their communities (Dunderstat, 2000). As open door instit utions, community colleges offered multiple avenues for student success and placed high value on providing access to programs including transfer education, workforce education, and l ifelong learning (Reitano, 1988; McClenney, 2004). Access, however, meant more than just an open admissions policy for most educators and leaders in these institutions. Community colleges have made access to higher education geographically and financially available to millions of American ci tizens (Jensen, 1984) and branch cam puses are a vital part of this delivery system Accessibility remains a high priority and more recently Donhardt (1996) and Norby (2005) reported that, for many students, the proximity of a campus was the most important factor in their educational choice Cohen (1972) reported that community colleges ten ded to be built such that 90 95 population resided within a reasona ble commuting distance and that branch campuses

PAGE 13

13 made a co llege education even more accessible to students. As the population of a colle original campuses reached capacity, most college s expanded enrollment by adding off campus or branch campuses at convenient locations instead of openi ng new colleges or building new facilities on the original site As Sasser Wygal and Owen (1975) and Holland (2001) poin ted out that the establishment of a branch campus was a good strategy for many institutions; it allowed the main campus of the college to continue life as usual, while at the same time being responsive to a new local community, and more recently, Bird (in press) contended role in the future, especially at institutions, public or private, that need increased Branch C ampuses Branch campuses ca me in all sizes and organizational types at the time of this writ i ng and made a college education accessible to even more students, allowing them to achieve their higher educational goals at even lower costs by living at home, an d maintaining jobs (Donhardt, 1996; Spencer, 1997 ; Dengerink, 2001 ). Typically, students who attend ed branch campuses were often place bound commuter students who had difficulty accessing higher education offered in tradition al settings (Dengerink, 2001). Huitt (1972) and Holland (2001) maintained that for many students, community college branch campuses were the only way they could attend college. Each com munity college branch campus had its own unique characteristics and challenges. The community coll ege may have had multiple sites or branches because of its geographic size, large potential student base, or diverse political districts

PAGE 14

14 (Johnstone, 1999). Neverthe less, the purpo ses of the branch campus we re to serve the needs of constituents and to adva nce the mission of the overall college that provided its governance. For all branch campuses effectiveness resided in the educational services that respond [ed] 24); no branch campus w a s a carbon copy of the original campus and, to be truly responsive to its community, it had to be operated and organized differently (Holland, 20 01). Critical to this success we re the characteristics and leadership skills of its lead administrator. Bran ch Campus Administrators Hermanso n, (19 93, 1995 ), Baily (2002), Stahley (2002), Merzer,(2008), and Krueger, (2009) all assert ed that the role of the b ranch campus executive officer wa s pivotal to the success of t he branch campus since all daily administrat ive responsibilities of the branch we re typically overseen by this individual. Stahley, (2002), Hermanson (1995), Hill (1985), Norby (2005) and Merzer (2008) all reported that branch campus admini strators generally operated as part of the middle managemen t level in community colleges. Bailey (2002) and gillie gossom and Pelton (in press) equate d the role of the branch campus administrator to that of a ci rcus ringmaster. Like the ringmaster, the branch campus administrator was required to juggle the dema nds of senior administration, faculty, career service and community constituents and must be comfortable in ea gossom and Pelton, in press, p 4). Branch camp us administrators typically had responsibility for the success ful impleme ntation of j ust as campuses were unique, so we re the branc h campus administrators that le d them.

PAGE 15

15 Mid level administrators affect ed the tone, manner, and style of the institution, and their daily actions affect ed the quality of relationships with faculty, students and the comm unity (Scott, 1978 ; Rosser, 2000 ). Hence, the success o f branch campus administrators wa s integral to the success of the college as a whole (Bailey, 2002; Crom, 2000; Sethi, 2000). Unfort unately, unlike other administrative positions in the community college leadership hierarchy, the role of the branch campus administrator was not clearly defined (Bailey, 2002; Blocker and Campbell, 1963) Typically, t he branch campus administrator wa s re sponsible for oversight of campus resources and assure d that they were managed effectively and effici ently (Bailey, 2002; Honeyman, Wattenbarger and Westbrook 1996; Moses, 2001 ). However, at times they were not always given the authority to make local de cisions (Jensen, 1984). Community college administration and management had been characterized as bureaucratic and hierarchical (Miller and Miles, 2008) and in most multi campus colleges, even though the branch campuses were separated from the main campus by their geographical locations they were typically linked organizationally to the main campus in a subordinate role. Hill (1985) referred to this as the separate but linked phenomenon. Stahley (2002) found that for the university branch campuses she su 73). Yet Hermanson (1995) reported that branch campus chief executive officers ( CEO s ) at two their main campuses was the single most important issue to be addressed by their (p. 33), and Hill (1985) and Stahley (2002) both identified the occurrence of

PAGE 16

16 prob lems in branch campus administration related to resources, decision making, status and prestige ch Jensen, and Hansen 1969, p. 20 ). Unfortunately, Wynn (1972) argued that one important area of focus for multi campus institutions was the definition of the authority, cont rol, and responsibili ty for financial and business affairs of the college. He cited two organizational levels to which the authority, control and responsibility for branch campus administration could be assigned: to an administrator at the individual campus in a decentralize d structure, or to an administrator at a main campus level having responsibility for all units in a centralized structure. Regardless of the institutional organizational structure, the branch campus administrator still juggle d the demands of various const ituents and en sure d that the mission and v ision of the overall college were carried out. The branch campus administrator was also responsible for creat ing an environment that enhanced exce llence and promoted learning (Gleazer, 1998; Fryer and Lovas, 1990 ; affect ed the culture and style of the campus in their daily interactions with faculty, staff, students and the community (Scott, 1978) and as such, the success of branch campus adm inistrators wa s integral to the success of the college as a whole (Bailey, 2002; Crom, 2000; Sethi, 2000; Krueger 2009). The most effective campus leaders we re passionate about the organization and their campus (Bennis, 1 999), and felt as if they had a respons ibility to make decisions that we re in the long

PAGE 17

17 Avey, Avolio, Crossley and Luthans (2009) equate d this sense of responsibility to feelings of psychological ownership, a concept first defined by Pierce Kost ova, and Dirks (2001, 2003) as a cognitive It is Psychological Ownership Pierce et al (2001) defined psychologi cal ownership as a state in which individuals felt as though the target of ownership (material or immaterial in nature) or a piece of it (p. 229) ; and Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) assert ed that psychological ownership was atti position in the organization According to P i erce and his colleagues the essential aspect s of psychological ownership we (Pierce, Kostova and Dirks, 2001, p.299). Thus, psychological ownership wa s different from actual tangible ownership, or tax based ownership of public institutions, and reflected a relationship between the individual and the target of ownership, where t he object wa s experienced as having a close connection with the self or being a part of the extended self. (O ri scoll, Pierce and Coghlan, 2006). Research reported that psychological ownership was related to, yet distinctly different from other organizat ional management constructs such as job satisfaction ( Vandewalle, Van Dyne and Kostova, 1995; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004) and organizational commitment (Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble and Gardner, 2007; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004). Psychological ownership has been explained in terms of a sense of responsibility evok ed by the feelings of ownership; in essence, feelings of

PAGE 18

18 ownership engender passion and commitment (Kenny, 2011) Given that Kouzes and Posner (1997) observed that intrinsic motivation must be pres ent i f people are to do their best it can be argued that the establishment of psychological ownership was important to the success of higher education administrators. Pierce Kostova and Dirks (2001, 2003) sugge st ed three routes through which psychological ownership develops: 1. a n i ntimate knowledge of the target (f amiliarity with and greater knowledge of the object produces feelings of ownership) 2. s e lf investment into the target (i nvestment of significant time and effort in the creation of the object can produce feelings of ownership) and 3. c ontrol of the target (job, organization, etc ) Rudman and Berry (1987) asse rt ed that the essential aspect of possession and ownership wa s the ability to exercise influence and control over the object and Pratt and D utton (2000) posit ed that organizational designs that perm itted employee control, or inform ed and involve d employee s tend ed to produce more positive effects and higher psychological ownership. coll, Pierce and Coghlan (2006) contend ed that three so urces of work environment structure impact ed the degree of control the individual might exercise : t echnology or the degree of routinization, (less routine, more control) job a utonomy (more autonomy or freedom to choose more perceived control) and, t he t ype of decision making structures used in the organization (more participatory led to more perceived control) Han, Chiang, and Chang, (2010) provided empirical evidence that employee participation in organiza tional decision making increased their work ing motivation and psychological ownership and McIntrye, Srivastava and Fuller (2009) have provided

PAGE 19

19 psychological ownership Thus, it was argued that less structured work en vironments that provide d employees with autonomy over their work environments and allow ed them to participate in decision making we re more likely to produce psychological ownership. In essence, e mployees who had a say in the d ecisions of the institution, fe l t that they had the perceived authority to act and in turn fe l t as if the organiza tion wa s theirs (McGregor, 1986). Psychological ownership wa s defined a s context specific, temporary attitude that reflected position in the organ ization and could be directed at any target including organizations, jobs, work tasks, spaces, and tools or ideas (McIntyre, Srivastava and Fuller, 2009). More recently and Coghlan (2006) and Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble and Gardner (2 007) had expanded the concept of psychological ownership to incl ude job based and organization based Organization based psychological ownership wa sense or connection to the organization [or in this study the (Mayhew et al., 2007, p. 478), and j ob base d, or in the case of this study, campus based psychological ownership wa s that wh ich was et al., 2007, p. 478). Ownership wa s asso ciated wit h pride that minimized shirking and motivated organizational members to high performance levels; thus it w as argued that the establishment of psychological ownership in branc h campus administrators was

PAGE 20

2 0 beneficial. The responsibilities of branch campus administrators require d intimate knowledge about the institution and an investment of sufficient t ime and ene rgy; this high level of familiarity and close association with the organization, coupled with th e investment of time and energy should have according to Pierce and his colleagues facilitate d strong levels of psychological ownership in branch campus admin istrators as long as they we re provided with opportunities to exercise control and feel efficacious. Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, one of the frustrations of higher education branch campus administrators wa s the remarkable lack of autonomy (Dean Da d, 2011). Statement of the Problem As community colleges and their branch campuses continued to evolve to meet the challenges of the higher educational landscape in the twenty fi rst century the need for campus a dministrators committed to creative, flexibl e structures that allow ed them to be nimble and act quickly became apparent (Alfred, 1998). He ermann (1976) claimed that effective administrative organizati ons in educational settings had an indirect, but important relationship to student learning; and S tahley (2002) claimed that an effective mission. Branch campus administrators were required to respond to this call as they were critical components o f the success of the b r anch campus. Yet, very little wa s known about the branch campus administrator This study so ugh t to examine the nature of the relationship between job b ased (campus) and organization based (institutional) psychological ownership experienced by administr ators of community college branch

PAGE 21

21 measured by the level of job autonomy, level of authority, and pa rticipation in decision making. Purpose of the Study The intent of this quantita tive study was to examine the factors that contributed to the psychological ownership that branch campus administrator s experience d Its goal was to assess the degree to which factors including perception of control, and individual and institutional demo graphic characteristics were associated with the cognitive and affective feelings of ownership developed by branch campus administrators with respect to their institution and campus To do so, the study examined the relationship between job and organiza tion based psychological ownership and the sense of control branch campus administrators experienced in the course of carrying out everyday responsibilities Job based psychological ownership was defined as ownership for the and org anization based ownership was defined as ownership for the institution. Sense of control was defined within the context of the individual work environment by the degree of job autonomy, the level of participation in decision making, and the amount of auth ority given to t he branch campus administrator The study also examined differences in levels of both types of psychological ownership in branch campus administrators related to t he branch campus gender, the length of time the administrator had served as a branch campus administrator, their longevity at the institution and their campus, to whom the branch campus administrator reported, institutional and campus si ze, the location of and distance between the main and branch campuses, number of branch campuses the institution had, the reporting structure of the branch campus staff the type of

PAGE 22

22 administrative role and responsibility of the branch campus administrator, and the degree of centralization of the coll Res earch Questions This study addressed the following specific research question: What is the nature of the relationship between the psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by administrators of branch campuses in multi campus community colleges level of job autonomy, level of authority, and participation in decision making? To answer this question the following twelve re search questions were addressed. 1. D id branch campus administrators develop psychological ownership for their institution? 2. Did branch campus administrators develop psychological ownership for their campuses? 3. Was there a difference between the feelings of psychological ownership branch campu s administrators develop ed for their institution and the feelings of psychological ownership they develop ed for their campus? 4. Was there a relationship between psychological ownership (campus and institution) and the individual respondent demographic charac teristics of longevity in their current positions, tenure at their institution and branch campus and the number of years they had been in higher education and as a branch campus administrator? 5. Was there a relationship between the institutional characteris tics pertaining to institutional size (college wide headcount), branch campus size (branch campus headcount), number of branch campuses, the distance between the branch and main campuses, and the composite score for organizational reporting structure of th e branch and psychological ownership (campus and institutional)? 6. Was there a difference in the level of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators based on the levels of the individual respondent demograp hic characteristics of gender, to whom the branch campus administrator reported (BCA Supervisor), and the branch campus

PAGE 23

23 7. Was there a difference in the level of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators based on the institutional characteristics of location of the administrative offices, degree of centralization of decisions and branch campus staff reporting structure? 8. Were the feelin gs of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators related to their level of perceived job autonomy? 9. Were the feelings of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus admi nistrat ors related to their level of perceived participation in decision making? 10. Were the feelings of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrat ors related to their level of perceived job authority? 11. Were the feelings of psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators related to their overall experiences of perceived sense of control (job autonomy, level of authority, and participation in decision making) by the branch campus administrator? 12. What was the nature of the relationship between the feelings of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators and their individual demographic characteristics, the institutional characteristics and their p erception of control? Definition of Terms C OMMUNITY C OLLEGE A public, associate degree granting institution that offered both vocational technical programs for direct employment after graduation and a general education curriculum for transfer to a baccal aureate degree granting emerging educati onal, 1) M ULTI CAMPUS I NSTITUTION A ccording to the 1979 version of the Encyclopedia of campus college or university was an institution having more p. 1). For the purpose of the current study the term multi campus institution was defined as a community college that had one or more permanent subsidiary campuses in which the subsidiary campuses are governed by the central administration of the main ca mpus or its central office and had an on site administrator (Stahley, 2002). B RANCH C AMPUS A permanent subsidiary campus of a community college that was geographically distant from the main institution, but operated under the

PAGE 24

24 direction of the central adm inistration. The campus had a resident administrator, some resident faculty, its own budgets and a broad range of student support services and was created to serve a local community or specific educational need (Stahley, 2002; Bebko, 2009 ; Bird, in press ) B RANCH C AMPUS A DMINISTRATOR T he chief administrative officer of the branch campus responsible for the daily operations of the branch campus (Bailey, 2002). M AIN C AMPUS T he central location of governance for the college; typically refers to the origin al campus site. O RGANIZATIONAL S TRUCTURE D efined patterns and processes of behavior exhibited by administrators in the dominant coalition on each campus in the study (Berger, 2002, p. 42) P SYCHOLOGICAL O WNERSHIP T he state ascribed to such feelings of possession in the absence of any formal or legal claims of ownership. In the present context, the target of such feelings of ownership is directed towards the employing organization, or individual employee's specific job ( Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks, 2001, 2003; Mayhew, Ashk anasy, Bramble, and Gardner, 2006 ). C AMPUS ( JOB BASED ) P SYCHOLOGICAL O WNERSHIP T to the branch campus (Mayhew et al., 2007 p. 478). I NSTITUTIONAL ( ORGANIZATION BASED ) P SYCHOLOGICAL O WNERSHIP T to the organization college ( Mayhew et al., 2007, p. 478). A UTONOMY A provides substantial freedom, independence and discretion to the employee in scheduling work and determining the procedures to be used in ca rryin (Hackman and Oldham 1975, p. 162) P ARTICIPATION IN D ECISION MAKING T he degree to which an individu al has the authority to, and is permitted to particip ate in organizational decision making. A UTHORITY T about and influence their job and work. P ERCEIVED C ONTROL A the job (decision authority) and the breadth of skills used by the worker (skill discretion) (Karasek, 1979 ; Verhoeven, 2003 ) In this study it is operationally defined by the combination of measures of level of job autonomy, level of authority, and participation in decision making

PAGE 25

25 Design of the Study This study relied on the use of a quantitative, internet based, self report survey meth odology using a survey instrument developed specifically for the purpose of this study. Stellar Survey was the survey tool used to obtain data. The survey was conducted on a national population of 500 onsite, American community college branch campus admi nistrators. Questions on the survey we re based on previous research in the field of business psychology, and education on psychological ownership and its determinants Levels of campus, or job based, and institutional, or organization based, psychologic A number of independent, or explanatory variables were assessed including participant demographic characteristics (gender, the length of time the participant had worked at the institution and specifi c campus, their longevity in their current position, the overall length of their tenure in higher education administration and as a branch campus administrator, to whom they reported and their perception of the scope of their administrative role and respo nsibilities), institutional characteristics (the size of the institution and branch campus (measured by the most recent fall term head count), the distance between the belief as to the level of centralization that existed at the institution, and the reporting structure of the branch campus staff) and measures of perceived degree of job authority, perceived level of participation in decision making, and pe rceived level of job a utonomy. Limitations This study examine d the factors that contributed to the psychological ownership that American community college branch campus administrator s experience in the

PAGE 26

26 while leading their campuses To do so, the study examined the relationshi p between psychological ownership and the sense of control branch campus administrators experienced in the course of carrying out everyday responsibilities. This study is delimited by the use of only multi campus community colleges in the United S t ates T Bias in responding was an issue that consistently plagued self report research. T he report questions in a way that heightened social approval rather than reflecting true feelings (Crowne and Marlowe, 1960), was a significant concern for this study, especially since social desir ability tendencies have been shown to be strongest when the questions asked pertain to sensitive or controversial topics and the respondent is highly educated (Krysan, 1998). Finally, this research might also have been limited by researcher bias since the researcher was a branch campus administrator in a Florida community college and carried a personal bias from working in the branch campus environment. Significance of the Study Branch campuses played a significant role in the growth and expansion of highe r education (Stahley, 2002, p.1 6); yet, multi campus colleges were complex organizations that we re difficult to understand and manage. College presidents, chancellors or vice presidents who employ branch campus administrators should look for candidates w ith the right attitude in addition to qualifications and according to the theory surrounding psychological owner include d individuals willing to c ommit higher degrees of time, energy and sel f to the i nstitution. These individua ls we re more apt to develop psychological ownership for the ir campus and the institution, which translated

PAGE 27

27 into stronger job performance positive organizational citizenship behaviors and overall organizational commitment (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks, 2001, 2003; McIntyre, Srivastava and Fuller, 2009; Md Sidin, Sambasivan and Muniandy, 2010) Thus, it wa s important to determine the factors that promote d both campus and institutional psychological ownership in branch campus administrators. Organization of the Study This research empirically explored the concept of psychological ownership and its relationship to perceived control in branch campus administrators Its intent was to examine the factors that contributed to psychological ownership that branch cam pus administrators develop ed towards their campus (job based) and institution (organization based) Chapter 1 presented the background and overview of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research question, the definitions of important terms and de scribed the design of the study and it limitations. Chapter 2 presented a review of the literature on community colleges, their branch campuses and branch campus administrators and provided and overview of the research and theory of psychological ownershi and consequences. Chapter 3 provided a detailed description of the research methodology used. The research findings were described in Chapter 4. Finally, Chapter 5 discussed conclusions drawn from the results, and made s uggestions for application of the results and recommendations for future research regarding branch campus administration.

PAGE 28

28 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that contributed to the psychological ownersh ip that community coll ege branch campus administrator s experience d managing their campuses. To do so, the study examined the relationship between job and organization based psychological ownership and the sense of control branch campus administrators exp erienced in everyday responsibilities. Job based psychological ownership was defined as ownership for the administr organization based ownership was defined as ownership for the institution. Sense of control was defined within the contex t of the individual work environment by the degree of job autonomy, the level of participation in decision making, and the amount of authority given to the b ranch campus administrator. Thus, the goal of this study was to assess the degree to which factors including perception of control, and individual and institutional demographic characteristics were associated with the cognitive and affective feelings of ownership for institution and campus developed by branch campus administrators. This study was mod eled after several studies on psychological ownership conducted by Jon Pierce and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota Duluth. This chapter presents five main sections: an overview of the historical role of community colleges in increasing higher education access ; branch campuses, their definition, the factors contributing to their development, their role in providing access, and their organizational characteristics; a discussion of community college management and role of the branch campus adminis trator; an overview of the research on

PAGE 29

29 psychological ownership; and a discussion of the relevance of psychological ownership to branch campus administration. Community Colleges and Access Community c olleges were designed as teaching institutions whose mis sion was to provide relevant curriculum to their local communities (Miller and Miles, 2008), and they have made access to higher education geographically and financially available to millions of American citizens (Jensen, 1984). The history of public comm unity colleges these colleges had become the fastest growing segment of public education (Frye, 1992; Monroe, 1972; Medsker, 1960) with enrollments quintupling between 1960 and 1990 (Rosenbaum, 2001). Thro ughout the twentieth century community colleges saw a steady increase in enrollments (Underwood and Hammons, 1999); at one point new institutions were established at the rate of approximately 55 per year, with seven states (California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Texas and Washington) accounting for more than two thirds of the enrollments (Harper, 1971). conferred over 400,000 associates in arts degrees and close to 200 ,000 occupational certificates (Americ an Association of Community Colleges, 1995). p ara 1). In the Fall of 2007 more than 11.8 million students were enrolled in 1,173 community colleges and their 500 branch campuses th roughout 49 states (AACC, 2009) and it was estimated that they served close to half of all undergraduate students in the United States (AACC, 2011). Since their establishment, community colleges have become a major point of entry into higher education and have provided opportunities and pathways to higher education for many U.S. students; and Levinson (2005) and

PAGE 30

30 Vaughan (200 0 ) both projected that community colleges would continue to play an increasingly more important role in providing advanced educational opportunities for a growing number of students. Boone, 1997) and Vaughan (1986) as serted that community colleges we re linked to their communities more than any other post secondary i nsti tution. These institutions offered a great variety of educational programs which, according to Wattenbarger junior colleges were expected to provide a substitute for the first two years of undergraduate education; then occupational and technical degree programs were added (Wattenbarger, 1971; Harper, 1971). Finally, after the culmination of World War II, junior colleges took on the added role of providing noncredit continuing o r adult education courses (Wattenbarger, 1971) and the Truman Commission (1947) introduced the concept of the community the institutions who were designed to serve local community educat ional needs. Judith Eaton (1994) argued that in the change from the junior college to community college designation, a shift occurred away from an emphasis on the transfer function toward an open access function; preserving access still remains a critical community colleges. The traditions of universal opportunity for education for all people, local control, support of educational systems and a relevant curriculum designed to meet the needs of the individual and the nation were critical to the mission of the first community college s (Medsker, 1960; Gleazer, 1991, 1998; Monroe, 1972). The tenets of varied

PAGE 31

31 programs, community service, innovation, open admissions, low cost, and accessibility were, and continued to be, critica l to the community college doctrine into the twenty first century (Harper, 1971). Community colleges have contributed greatly to their communities by providing businesses with a better educated workforce (Conover, 2009). As a result, communities througho ut the country bought into the ideals of the community college seeing them as an instrument for meeting the needs of a changing society (Harper, 1971). William Birebaum (1969), and Robert Havighurst and Bernice Neugarten (1957) each characte rized communi ty colleges as mechanism s to provide baum further predicted that these colleges should be on the frontline of higher educational innovation (cited by Monroe, 197 2, p.16). Thus, access was a major theme for community colleges since their inception. Community colleges were historically the access point for the underserved and are among the most responsive of all postsecondary educational institutions to societal change (Dunderstadt 2000). Cohen and Brawer (1994 ) contend ed that the proximity of community colleges was key to increased access and, as early as 1944 Leonard Koos demonstrated that school systems with junior colleges had a mean college entrance rate tw o and a half times higher than for systems without junior colleges, and that rate jumped to three and one half times in lower socioeconomic groups (Koos 1944a). In 1965, Medsker and Trent again reported that the establishment of a community college in an area significantly enhanced the chances that lower income students would attend colleg e. In another study Koos (1944 b) also showed that the proximity of a junior college was a critical aspect for college enrollment. He found that the percentage of the

PAGE 32

32 po pulation fell sharply with increasing distance from the college. Willis (1956) observed the same phenomenon in the Chicago college districts he studied. Furthermore, Cohen (1972) reported that community colleges tend ed to be built so that 90 95 % o f the s within a reasonable commuting distance, and that branch campuses made a college education even more accessible to students. Accessibility 1997). Rucker (1979) and more recently Donhardt (1996) and Norby (2005) reported that, for many students, the proximity of a campus was the most important factor in their educational choice. Branch Campuses Definition of a Branch Campus In 1995 Hermanson lam ented that "the definition of a branch campus will continue to plague researchers as long as higher education, regional accrediting agencies, and government agencies select different criteria for the definition of a branch campus" (p. 24). Throughout the literature the term branch campus has been associated with traditional university multi campus institutions like the University of California system ( Krueger 2009) as well as extension centers, satellite campuses and learning centers (Krueger, 2009). F ifteen years later, Charles Bird (in press) reasserted for the Met ropolitan Universities journal. In 1992 the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Office rs (AACRAO) attempted to define a branch campus as a location of an institution that was geographically apart and independent of the main campus of the institution, permanent in nature, and offered programs leading to a degree or other recognized

PAGE 33

33 edu cational credential (AACRAO, 1992, as cited in Krueger 2009) and Bird (in press) asserted that a branch campus was a permanent facility, that offered full degree programs, but not all of the programs delivered by the institution, a reasonably full range o f services, but again, probably not all of the services available at the main campus and had some resident faculty. These definitions align with current Federal Regulation 34 CFR 600.2 w hich defined a branch campus as: A location of an institution that is geographically apart and independent of the main campus of the institution. The Secretary considers a location of an institution to be independent of the main campus if the location (1) is permanent in nature; (2) o ffers courses in educational programs l eading to a degree, certificate, or other recognized educational credential; (3) h as its own faculty and administrative or supervisory organization; and (4) h as its own budgetary and hiring authority. ( Institutional Eligibility, 2011 ) Factors Contributing to the Development of Branch Campuses The reasons cited for the establishme nt of branch campuses were varied and included the desire of the parent institution for innova tion, or to expand its services and/or prestige (Bond, 1983). to a size that seems to call for more independence, and there are examples of free standing institutions that began as branches. campuses pursuing independent missions, but none o f them truly a branch of a single establishment of multi campus operations were: to expand the geographic s ize of the college service area, to make the college more a ccessible to district residents, to meet the diverse educational needs of the residents of the service area and to keep each

PAGE 34

34 campus to a reasonable and functional size (Sammartino, 1964; Bond, 1983; Jensen, 1984). Sasser (1978), however, ci ting two surveys (Hickman, 1975; and Poole, 1975 as cited in Sasser, 1978), reported that the primary reason for establishing most branch According to Romesburg (1972), however, only 29% of branc h campuses were established using a feasibility study that examined both the need for an institution and the type of institution needed. Community College Branch Campuses and Access The tremendous expansion of community colleges spawned the emergence of th e multi campus community college, and these colleges and their branches have however, a new idea. multiple college campuses located such that all Virginians would have convenient access to higher education; and as early as 1824, Amos Eaton of Rensslaer Polytechnic Institute advocated the use of university extension centers. The first community (junior) college branch campuses were established in Chicago in 1934 and Los Angeles in 1945. In 1974, seventy seven multi campus institutions with 212 campuses existed (Rossmeier, 1976); by 2004 Katsinas and Hardy reported that one of every three community col leges were part of multi campus or multi college districts, and in 2005 the AACC reported 500 community college branch campuses (Katsinas and Hardy, 2004; Levinson, 2005). The creation of branch cam puses has been a typical response to the demand for commun ity college services (Peterson an Dill, 1997). Gaither (1999) contended that the

PAGE 35

35 multi campus concept of higher education in the twenty first century grew from the post World War II transformation of higher education, and became the dominant model for public higher education in the U.S during the last half of the twentieth century. Jensen and 19 creased demand for higher education from the American population and that this resulted in an explosion of new campus locations for the colleges. Community college branch campuses provided a way to serve more students in highly populated locations (Johnst seemed necessary were a classroom, a course Virtually all branch campus researchers pointed out that the tremendous growth in branch campuses resulted from the comb i nation of increased enrollment demand, increased resource support for education, and a desire for opportunity that provided fertile ground for a dramatic increase in the number of multi campus colleges and universities (Cattell, 1 971; Huitt, 1972; Gaither, 1999; Holland, 2001). The students who attend branch campus es were often commuter students who were place bound and had difficulty accessing higher education offered in traditional settings (Dengerink, 2001). Huitt (1972) contended that for many students the exi stence of the branch campus was the only reason they were able to attend college. campus es are probably the most conspicuous example of the dilemma faced by all of highe r education today, that being the public expectation that our campuses will be ready to explore and implement innovative responses to rapidly changing conditions in the economic and social environment (p. 5).

PAGE 36

36 branch campuses are likely to play an even more critical role in the future, especially at institutions, public or private, that need (p.10). Types of Branch Campuses Jensen (1984) argued that the philosophy of the district toward its multi campus and practices and Clark (1992) asserted that the institution th e parameters for the organization. unit organization in community junior college districts are fairly Kerr, Millett Clark, MacArthur and Bowen ( 1978 ), and Clark ( 1983 ) and more recently by Bird (in press) who contended that differences in organization, mission and history are still seen as one of the greatest challenges in research on branch campuses. In 1963 Jensen conducted a study of ten multi campus dist ricts that examine d the role of the central office and the individual campuses of the multi campus district and identified three different types of multi campus community college districts: multi college districts that operated each campus as an individual co mprehensive college, multi branch districts operating as one legal institut ion with comprehensive branches, and multi program districts operating as one legal institution ( Jensen, 1984). Howev er, 20 yea rs later when he re examined the structures of multi campus institutions in California, Colorado, Florida, Oregon and Texas he found only two multi campus philosophies at work. In the first philosophy the college operated as one legal institu tion with multiple locations with a strong central office and single accreditation; in

PAGE 37

37 the other, each campus had maximum autonomy and its own accreditation (Jensen, 1984). Organizational Characteristics of Branch Campus es Jones, in his 1968 study of mult i unit junior colleges identified four models of multi unit community colleges: 1) the one college branch center model, 2) the one college multi campus model, 3) the multi campus district model and 4) the multi college district model (Jones, 1968 as cite d in Jensen, 1984). Jones argued that multi unit colleges proceeded through these four models as they age d maturing from a centralized one college model to a more autonomous decentralized multi college district model. Jensen also observed this relatio nship in his 1968 study (Jensen, 1984). However, in his 1984 follow up work Jensen found that a number of institutions organized as multi college districts were actually in the process of changing back to a multi campus district suggesting a possible ad vantag e to this model (Jensen, 1984). On the other hand, Lee and Bowen (1971) and, more recently, Dengerink (2001) differentiate d between two types of multi camp us structures: the multi campus institution and the multi institution system. According to th eir definition, a m ulti institution system involved branches that we re, for the most part, separate and unique institutions with their own individual characteristics. In this model the individual branches had no direct relationship with each other except for the fact that they we re members of the same system; whereas i n a multi campus institution branches we re originating or main campus is responsible for the coordin ation among the branch Fonseca and Bird (2007) distill ed this notion down to three basic models for university branch campuses: the centralized model, in which a

PAGE 38

38 centralized offic e located at the main campus made decisi ons for the branch campuses, t he decentralized model that pr ovided full autonomy to the branch campus sites, and the leadership model in which strategic management functions we re branch campus based, but coordinated with the larger university Levinson (2 005) differentiated be tween two basic types of twenty fir st century community colleges: single or multi campus institutions administered and governed by a single board of trustees, and multi campus systems of several separate and unique colleges governed b y a chancellor. This study included branch campus administrators from all categories of multi campus community college institutions Branch Campus Administration Community college administration and management were characterized as bureaucratic and hierar chical (Miller and Miles, 2008) and Cohen and Brawer ( 2003) suggested that multi campus institution s we re more complex, structured and formalized than single campus institutions. Wynn (1972) contended that the questions that often demand ed early answers pertain ed to the definition of the authority, control and decisio n making responsibilities that we re assigned to each level of the organizational structure, how to structure the administration of the campus, and how to organize the relations hip among the multiple campuses. Ewers (2000) asserted all institutions with multiple campuses suffer from the perception that one campus is being preferred over the others. No campus believes that it receives the attention and resources that it needs (p.4). Branch was found rby, 2005, p 24). Each campus wa s unique; no branch campus wa s a carbon copy of the original

PAGE 39

39 campus, or any other campu s, and Holland (2001) asserted, that to be truly responsive to its community, each campus required differentiated operation and organization. Alth ough every branch campus story wa s unique (Shaw and Bornhoft in press), the majority of multi campus communi ty colleges grew from a single campus concept to s grew and their original campuses reached capacity. The colleges expanded enrollment by adding off campus or branch campuses at convenient l ocations instead of opening new colleges (Bond, 1983). This often allowed colleges to be responsive to community needs, 2001, p. 5). As the colleges grew to multiple sit es, some college wide functions were centralized with the goal of greater efficiency, while others were delegated to the branch campus. As Holland (2001) pointed out, the establishment of a branch campus appeared like a good strategy for many institutions ; it allowed the main campus of the college to continue life as usual, while at the same time being respon sive to a new local community. Lee and Bowen (1971) contended that multi campu s organizational structures had strengths over single campus institution s. Among the se strengths were the efficiencies brought about by the overlap of certain functions, the utilization of existing governance board s and the promotion of specialization, diversity and cooperation in academic planning and budget preparation. Chang (1978) described eight advantages of multi campus str uctures for community colleges: minimized unhealthy competi tion among campuses; permitted financial flexibility;

PAGE 40

40 permitted the economy of a large scale operation while maintaining the flexib ility t o respond to local needs; increased ; avoided unnecessary duplication of specialized high cost programs; provided opportunity to share ideas, staff and equipment among the campuse s for program development and problem solving; increased effectiveness of efforts to interpret college financial and educational programs t o state and federal governments; and permitted ease of student transfer from one campus to another within the college Howe ver, typically, the new campus wa s expected to remain subordinate to the original campus creating the multi campus institution (Spencer, 1997; Bond, 1983), and this often created some degree of tension between the branch and the main campus (Holland, 2001; Dengerink, 2001). Administrative S tructures Many early community colleges had their roots i n the public school system: the colleges began classes in local high schools (Huitt, 1972), and some were even initially controlled by a department of public education or a superintendent (Monroe, 1972). A large part of the success experienced by community colleges and their branch campuses was a ttributed to the fact that local communities were willing to step in and provide temporary facilities for the campu ses (Huitt, 1972). Fryer and Lovas (1990) growing complexity, community colleges tended to be s tructurally and conceptually ambiguous institutions. As a result, they appeared to be caught somewhere between the secondary school model of top down decision making and the university model of

PAGE 41

41 shared governance in their governance structures (Fryer and L ovas, 1990). Additionally, as the colleges grew in size and complexity, the number of people needed to carry out the functions of the institution increased. Along with these structures came the fear that bureaucracy would increase and local autonomy w oul d decrease (Rossmeier, 1976). E ach institution dealt with this fear differently; thus there is great (Underwood and Hammons, 1999; Levinson, 2005). These differences in organizatio n, mission and history are seen as one of the greatest challenges in research on branch an d Bornhoft in press, p 1). structure of community colleges. Furthermore, Lander (1977) asserted that the formal organization of a multi campus institution tended to be even more complex than that of single campus institutions. Unfortunately, this top dow n decision making structure did not fit the communit y college concept of the twenty first century and many community colleges have discovered this mismatch (Parilla, 1993). Amey, Jessup Anger and Jessup Anger ( 2008 ) contended that if community colleges were to continue to meet the challenge s and expectatio ns of the new century, they would need nd they further ar gued that it wa s because of this complexity and ambiguity that an effe ctive organizational structure wa s critical to organizational functioning for the community college. Thus, the task before many community colleges wa s to shape in stitutions that were pr epared to adapt to

PAGE 42

42 changing environment s (Parilla, 1993), and for multi campus institutions one of the most critical problems was the need to maintain workable organizational structure s (Anthony, 1976). Fonseca and Bird (2007) asserted that one of the crit ical questions in the administrat ion of branch campuses surrounded the relati onship that the branch campus had with the main campus and this assertion wa s supported by others (Wynn, 1972; cam pus college experiences special problems and tensions as a consequence of its size, complexity, relationships between the bra nch campus and the main campus we dynamic and labor college goes multi campus, the role of the central office becomes crucial, as does the question of how much autonomy each campus should have and/or can legally have 1 ) Branch Campus Administrators Blocker, Plummer and Richardson, (1965) defined administration as the They argued that it provided both the structure and function necessary for the systematic operation of the organization. Glatter (1979; 1999) contended that educational management is concerned with the internal operation of educational institutions, their relationship with the communities in which they are set and the governing bod ies to which they are responsible. However, educational administration is not only about structure, it is also about managing people; the administrator can only accomplish things through others (Richardson, Blocker and Bender, 1972). Wilson (1980) identi fied a comprehensive list

PAGE 43

43 of the responsibilities of academic administrators which included organizing, staffing, directing and leading, controlling and planning. Unfortunately, in many community colleges although se nior management may delegate responsi bility it typically tends to keep a strong hold on authority (Protch, 2006). Literature on the academic leadership of branch campuses wa s limited (Bird, in press, Krueger, 2009). However, Bailey (2002) asserted that the role of t he branch campus administ rator wa s pivotal to the daily operation s administrators must be willing and able to build bridges and close need gaps for all constituents at their branch, in the local community, a nd at the main campus. Moreover branch administrat ors must be aware of and responsive to the stated and unstated gossom and Pelton, in press, p. 7). Hill (1985), Hermanson (1995), Stahley, (2002), Norby (2005), Merzer (2008) and most rece ntly, Bebko and Huffman (in press) all reported that branch campus administrators were generally either the second level of administrator within the president/chancellor, or they were a third level administrator who reported to a second level administrator. Bebko and Huffman (in press) reported that approximately half of their sample of university and community college branch campus admin istrators reported to either a president/ch ancellor or vice p resident on the main campus. Thus, branch campus administrators were viewed as part of the middle management of the institution.

PAGE 44

44 Unfortunately, unlike other administrative positions in the community college administrative hierarchy, the role of the branch campus administrator is a hybrid position; it d id not have clearly defined roles and definitio ns (Bebko and Huffman, in press; gil lie gossom and Pelton, in press; Bailey, 2002; Blocker and Campbell, 1963). As middle managers, b ranch cam pus administrators interact ed with senior administration, faculty, career staff and the community, and serve d as liaisons between each of these groups, carrying the college mission and vision to them (Johnsrud and Rosser, 1999; Bailey, 2002). Johnsrund, Heck and Rosser, (2000) contended that midlevel administra tive positions we re often difficult positions to juggle, and one of them (Johnsrud, 1996) identified three sources of frustration for mid level administrators: 1) the mid level nature of their role 2) the lack of recognition for their contributions, and 3) their limited opportunity for career growth or advancement. Mid level administrative staff members often provide d the necessary information for decisions, but were typically not given the author ity and we re rarely involved in actual decision making, yet we re often held accountable for the outcomes (Johnsrund and Rosser, 1999; Johnsrund, Heck and Rosser, 2000) Authority must be delegated right along with responsibility (Protch, 2006). Authorit y is the right of decision (Protch, 2006, p. 12) and a lack of authority to act was often the case for branch campus administrators ( Stahley 2002; Hill, 1985). Job titles fo r branch campus administrators we re as varied as their campuses (Shaw and Bornhof t in press), but still representative of their middle management position (Conover, 2009). Previous studies have shown titles that ranged from dean, provost director, and vice president or, in large multi college districts, campus president

PAGE 45

45 (Bond, 1983; Corbelli, 1989, Hermanson, 1995; Norby, 2005; Krueger 2009, Bebko and Huffman, in press). Branch camp us administrators typically had responsibility for the success ful were pivotal for the p. 4). The prime role o f an educational administrator wa s to coordinate and balance the adminis 1969, p. 20). Unfortunately, Wynn (1972) argued that one important area of focus for multi campus institutions was the definition of the authority, control, and responsibilit y for the financial and business affairs of the college. He cited two organizational levels to which the authority, control and responsibility for branch campus administration could be assigned: to an administrator at the individual campus in a decentral ized structure, or to an administrator at a main campus level having responsibility for all units in a centralized structure. centralization and autonomy varied t he branch campus administrator wa s sti ll responsible for maintaining the vision and mission of the overall institution in its local community (Conover, 2009). T he branch campus administrator wa s responsible for oversight o f the campus resources and assure d that they we re managed effectively a nd effi ciently (Bailey, 2002; Honeyman et al 1996; Moses, 2001). Bailey (2002) reported that the duties of a branch campus executive officer were similar to that of the college presidents, only smaller in scope, and gillie gossom and Pelton (in press) e quated the role of the branch

PAGE 46

46 must regularly act as masters of ceremony for academic, student, and operational issues. p ara 2 cited in gillie gossom & Pelton, in press, p 4). Gleazer (1998), Fryer and Lovas (1990) effective le adership in community colleges wa s determined by their ability to create an environment that enhances excellence and promotes learning, and the branch campus administrator serves an important role in this leadership by creating this culture at their respective campuses (Bailey 2002). gillie gossom and Pelton (in press) further assert ed relationships are built with local business, industry, and civic leaders to identify unmet Branch campus administrators affect ed the tone, manner, and style of the institution, and th eir actions on a daily basis affect ed the quality of relationships with faculty, students and the community (Scott, 1978) A s such, the success of branch campus adm inistrators in their positions wa s integral to the success of the college as a whole (Bailey, 2002; Crom, 2000; Sethi, 2000; Krueger 2009). Psychological Ownership Bennis (1999) asserted that effective leaders we re passionate about their work, and cert ainly effective branch campus administrators are passionate about their campuses. This level of commitment is certainly evident in conversations wi th branch campus administrators, during which campus grew 30% MY (NABCA participants, personal communication, April 14 16,

PAGE 47

47 2010). Pierce and colleagues assert ed that these possessive comments we re and Morgan, 1991; Pierce, Kostova, and and Coghlan, 2004; Pierce and Rodgers, 2004 and VanDyne and Pierce, 2004). In 1991 Etzioni wrote that ownership wa t attitude, part during the past 20 years owners hip as a psychological phenomenon has been a topic of interest in organizational and management science (Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, and Gardner, 2007; Pi erce, Kostova Rodgers, 2004; V an Dyne and Pierce, 2004). These research ers focused on the idea that employees who may not have had a tangible legal or financial claim of ownership st ill developed a psychological, or affective feeling of ownership in the company for which they work ed I n essence the organization for which they work ed became the object of ownership even though they had no tangible property interest in the company (Pi erce, Kostova and Dirks, 2001, 2003; McIntyre, Srivastava and Fuller, 2009). Pierce, Rubenfeld and Morgan (1991) first proposed the idea that formal ownership could, and did, produce positive attitudinal and behavioral effects though a psychologically ex perienced form of ownership, and by 1993 Kubzansky and Druskat asserted that this psychological sense of ownership was an essential aspect of the employee organization relationship. However, in this early model psychological ownership was seen as an outg rowth of formal ownership and not an independent phenomenon. Although research evidence demonstrated that individuals exhibited feelings of ownership towards their organization (Dirks, Cummings and Pierce, 1996),

PAGE 48

48 the products they create d (Das, 1993) an d their jobs (Peters and Austin 1985), it was not until 1991 that Beggan conceptually defined psychological ownership as the state in which individuals fe l t as though the target of ownership or a piece of that is "theirs (Beggan, 1991, 1992). Pierce, Kos tova and Dirks (2001, 2003) further elaborated the psychological ownership construct and began to propose a theory of psychological ownership independent of formal, legal or financial ownership (McIntrye, Srivastava and Fuller, 2009). People, they claim ed sense of ownership for objects whether or not et al 2009 p. 481). Build ing on the works of Furby (1978 a, 1978b) Dittmar (1992), Litwinski (1947) and Belk (1988), Pierce, Kostova and Dirks (2001; 2003) defined psychological ownership as: a cognitive (2001, p. 299). The cognitive aspects of psychological ownership include d an affective aspects include d the pleasurable feelings produced by the sense of ownership ( Pierce, Jussila and Cummin gs, 2008; Pierce, Kostova and Dirks, 2001; 2003). According to these researchers the core featu res of psychological ownership we (Pierce, Kostova and Dirks, 2 001, p. 299). In essence, Pierce et al. (2001) argued, the experience of ownership is not dependent on any type of equity or legal claim and exists

PAGE 49

49 in its absence (McIntyre, S rivastava and Fuller, 2009) and can be directed at any target including organizations, jobs, work tasks, space tools or ideas. and Coghlan (2006) and Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble and Gardner (2007) expanded the concept of psychological ownership to incl ude job based and organization based psychological ownership wa s on and psychological connection to the organization, [or in this study i et al., 2007, p. 478). Job based, or in the case of this study, campus based psychological ownership wa sess ion toward their particular job et al., 2007, p. 4 78). Thus, Mayhew et al (2007) contend ed that, psychological ownership wa s a context specific, temporary attitude that reflected the an enduring personality trait. Consequences of P sychologic al O wnership Over the past decade research has established psychological ownership as distinctly different from, but related to other organizational management constructs such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble and Gardner, 2007; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004) and different and distinct from organizational identification and internalization (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks, 2001). It (internalization) (Pierce, Kosotva and Dirks, 2001, p. 305). There are a variety of motivational, attitudinal and behavioral consequences of psychological ownership (Pierce, Rubenfeld and Morgan, 1991). According to Heider

PAGE 50

50 (1958) feelings of ownership induce a sense of desirability and liking which leads the target of ownership to be judged m ore positively. Psy ch ological ownership theory posited and empirical evidence supported like owners of the organization will assume personal risk, responsibility, and accountability for their actions and decisions affecting their or ganizations (Md Sidin, Sambasivan, and Muniandy, 2010, p. 50). For example, Pierce, Rubenfeld and Morgan, (1987) suggested that there was a relationship between organizational commitment, psychological ownership and job satisfaction and Pierce, Kostova and Dirks (2003) maintained that psychological ownership made people feel more responsible for workplace outcomes. Han, Chiang, and Chang (2010) also asserted that themselves as impo (p. 2218). Research into the consequences of psychological ownership supported these claims by showing positive relationships between organizational psychological ow nership and extra role b ehavior (Vandewalle, Van Dyne and Kostova, 1995), self reported learning (Wood, 2003), job performance (Md Sidin, Sambasivan and Muniandy, 2010) and Coghlan, 2006; Vandewalle, Van Dyne and Kostova, 1995; V an Dyne and Pierce, 2004; Han, Chiang and Chang, 2010), job satisfaction (Vandewalle, Van Dyne and Kostova, 1995; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004) and organizational citizenship (Pierce, Van Dyne, and Cummings, 1992; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004; Van Dye, VandeW alle, Kostova, and Coghlan, 2006). Buchko (1992)

PAGE 51

51 al so found that ownership affected providing greater perceived influence and control. et al (2006) and Mayhew et al (2007) both found differences in the relationships between job and organization based psychological ownership and their consequences. Although bo th job based and organization based psychological ownership played significant ro les in the development of citizenship behaviors in riscoll et al. (2006) they did so in d ifferent ways. Results of this study suggested that individual s with high job based psychological ownership displayed extra role behaviors associated more specifically on job related activities, while individuals who scored higher on organization based psychological ownership were more likely to exhibit extra role behaviors that benefited the whole institution. This same trend was seen in a study by Ma yhew et al (2007) ; while job based psychological ownership was related to only job satisf action, organization based psychological ownership was related to affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction B oth of these results suggest ed that the consequences of job based psychological ownership were focused at the level of the job, and only partially explain ed the relationship between the work environment and organizati onal commitment. Organization based psychological ownership, on the other han d, promoted behaviors related to the welfare of the entire institution. Origin s of Psychological O wnership Some behavioral researchers suggested that people have an innate need to possess (Burk, 1900; Kline and France, 1899), while others suggest ed that ps ychological sense of ownership is learned early in life as a child grasps the concept that objects that can be controlled are part of self and those that cannot are separate

PAGE 52

52 from self (Furby, 1978a, 1978b; 1991; Seligman, 1975). Pierce, Kostova and Dirks (2001) contend ed that both genetic s and experience contribute d to the development o f psychological ownership. These researchers assert ed that psychological ownership emerged due to the fact that it satisfies three main motives: efficacy and effectiveness self these three motives were considered to be the primary motives for the development of psychological ownership, they are considered to only facilitate psychological ownership, no t to be the direct cause of its occurrence (Pierce et al 2009). Efficacy and effectance. According to the theory of psychological ownership espoused by Pierce and colleagues (2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009) an individual develop ed psychological ownershi p for organizations that provide d them with opportunities to feel efficacious and in control (McIntrye, Srivastava and Fuller, 2009); specifically, it has been theorized that with the exercise of control over the ownership target, objects become a part o f the extended self and feelin (Pierce et al 2009, p. 482). 978b, 198 0 1991) posited that the motivation for possession came from an s need for control over the environment. Empirical support for a relationship between efficacy and psychological ownership was provided by McIntrye, Srivastava and Fuller and Coghlan (2004) and by lan (2006). Self identity. hological ownership also asserted that an individual develop ed psychological ownership for organiz ations that beca identity, where through interaction wit h the

PAGE 53

53 organization the employee ca me to use the o rganization to define self (Pierce, Kostova and Dirks, 2001) In essence, the theory asserted psychological ownership evolved from the dynamics of coming to know self, expressing se lf to others, and maintaining self across time (Perce, Kostova, and Dirks, 2003). Having a place. Finally, the theory of psychological ownership also asserted that the st ate of psychological ownership wa s and Dirks, 2001, p. 300). Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) further assert ed that this wa s the Routes (E xperiences) to Psychological Ownership Pierce, Kostov a and Dirks (2001) posit ed three major routes through which psychological ownership developed: intimate knowledge of the target, the investment of self into the target and the ability to control the target. I n 2003 these authors f urther asserted that t hese routes were distinct, complementary and additive in nature. Mayhew et al (2007) provided empirical support for Pierce, Kostova 2003 ) assertions and further opined that the r outes to job and organization based psychological own ership we re the same. Intimate knowledge of the target Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks (2001) asserted that associatio n with the target of ownership wa s central to the development of feelings of psychological ownership. The more, and better information the in dividual had about the organization, the dee per the relationship that existed between them and the stronger the feelings of psychological ownership were towards the organization. Thus, lon ger tenures with organizations we re likely to be related to higher degrees of psychological ownership.

PAGE 54

54 Investment of self. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg Halton (1981) assert ed that the investment of individual effort into the object or organization caused one to become one with that object or organization T hus Pier ce, Kostova f psychological ownership posited that the more self investment (in the form of time, ideas, skills and energy) in the organization, the stronger the sense of psychological ownership was. F urthermore P ierce, Kostova, and Dirks (2001, 2003) hypothesized that complex jobs we re more malleable, thereby enabling the individual the opportunity to shape the job and work outcomes (i.e., personalize them). Thus, complex jobs require d a higher degree of investment of self, such t ha s a reflection or extension of the self, and thus complex jobs we re likely to produce stronger degrees of psychological ownership. Controlling the target. Control of the target represented the final key characteristic in the development and Coghlan, 2004). Dirks, Cummings and Pierce (1997) along with Kubbzansky and Druskat (1993) and Pratt and Dutton (2000) contended that organizational structures and processes co ntribute d to the development of psychological ownership by providing members of the organization with the opportunity to exercise control over their jobs. They posit ed that organizational designs that permit ted employee control, inform ed the employee and involve d the employee tend ed and Coghlan, 2006). Jobs that we re less structured and provide d greater autonomy ga ve employees more control over their dail y duties; this in turn increased the likelihood of

PAGE 55

55 the employee developing f eelings of ownership toward the job (Pierce, Kostova, and and Coghlan, 2004; Parker, Wall, and Jackson, 1997). and Coghlan (2006) asserted that three important factors in the work environment influence d the amount of control the individua l might exercise: 1) technology (or the processes, procedures, and sy stems) used by the organization, 2) degree of job autonomy (or the degree to w hich the job provides freedom, independence and discretion) embedded in the design of the job and 3) pa rticipative decision making ( the design of the making systems ) and Coghlan, 2004). In this context, the b est work environment structure wa s a decentralized one that provided the individual with non routine technologies flexible workflow patterns and low levels of automaticity; high levels of autonomy and a high degree of sharing of authority ; Coghlan, 2004). Formal, centralized organizational structures, on the other hand tend ed to minimize the authority delegated and the degree of autonomy and control that an individual emp lo yee had thus lower feelings of psychological ownership would be predicted (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks, 2001). Autonomy The presence of autonomy implies that control and the a priori structuring of the job have not been imposed upon employees by other members of the Hackman and Oldham (1975) defined autonomy as a job design attribute that reflected freedom, independence and discretion to the employee in scheduling work and and theorized that

PAGE 56

56 autonomy was positively related to intrinsic work motivation, and job satisfaction. Brass (1985) found that employees exposed to high degrees of autonomy expe rienced more influence than their counterparts who had low autonomy; and Yamauchi, Kumagai and Kawasaki (1999) and Tanaka and Yamauchi (2000) both found a link between autonomy and perception of control. and Coghlan (2004) re ported empirical evidence of a relationship between autonomy and control and autonomy and psychological ownership. Thus, in this study, modeled after Pierce, and Coghlan (2004), measures of the degree of job autonomy were used as one measure of perception of control. Participative decision making. Also seen as influencing the degree of control an employee h as over their work environment was the degree to which the em ployee had the authority to and was permitted to participate in organization al decision making. Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000) believe d organizational decisions allowed employees direct influence over o rganizational Driscoll and Coghlan (2004) and and Coghlan (2006) found positive relationship s between ratings of participation in decision making expressions of experi enced control and psychological ownership. More recently Han, Chiang, and Chang (2010) further reported positive relationships between employee participation in decision making and psychological ownership. As employees saw themselves having increasing a mounts of control o ver the organization, they began to experience the organization as a part of the self (Pierce Kostova and Dirks, 2001; Chi and Han, 2008 ; Han, Chiang, and Chang,

PAGE 57

57 2010 ). T hus, when an organization allowed its employees to participate i n, and have influence over organizat ional decisions, the employees we re more likely to perceive and Dirks, 2003; Chi and Han, 2008). Employees who had a say in the d e cisions of the institution, fe l t that they had the perceived a uthority to act and in turn felt as if the organization wa s theirs (McGregor, 1986). Han, Chiang, and Chang, (2010) demonstrated that employee participation in organizational decisi on making increased their working motivation and psychological ownership. Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) demonstrated that pa rticipation in decision making wa s associated with a higher al truistic spirit that contributed to psychological ownership. Karasek (1979) furth er make decisions on the job (decision authority) and the breadth of skills used by the worker (skill discretion) (Smith, Ti sak, Hahn and Schmieder, 1997 ) and Protch (2006) referred to the /her tasks and his /her conduct during the decision latitude we re viewed as opera tional assessments of the concept of control, and have often been defined as the combination of job decision making authority and the opportunity to use and develop skills on the job. In this study m easures of decision latitude and job authority were used to assess perc eptions of control Psychological Ownership and Branch Campus Administration Para 9) and wa s associated with pride that m inimizes shirking, and motivated

PAGE 58

58 organizational members to perform at high levels (Bernstein, 1979). Ps ychological ownership theory linked the sense of ownership with feelings of possessiveness and r esponsibility, which in turn led employees to invest time and energy and advocate for the organization ( Pierce et al., 2001). This idea fit well with conventional wisdom that suggested that people will take better care of, and strive to maintain and nurture the and Luthans, 2009, p. 173). Although most of the research on psych ological ownership had been conducted in for prof it companies, a few studies examined and demonstrated the establishment of psychological ownership in employees of non profit organizations (Vandewell e, Van Dyne and Kostova, 1995; Belton 2008 ) and educational environments (teachers). G iven that psychological ownership had been observed in non profit, educational settings it could be argued that the establishment of psychological ownership was also be important to the success of the highe r education administrators. A ccording to Pierce and his colleagues (2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009) h igh levels of familiarity and close association with the organization, coupled with the investment of time and energy, and opp ortunities to exercise contro l, cause d strong levels of psychological ownership in branch campus administrators. Furthermore, Pierce, Jussila and Cummings (2009) asserted that in addition t o organizational structure, design of an the de velopment of psychological ownership. They maintained that complex jobs with high skill variety and autonomy possessed the characteristics that arouse d and satisfied the needs for the establishment of psychological ownership. These complex jobs present ed greater challeng es, we

PAGE 59

59 manipulation, require d more skills and abilities and higher levels of motivation, people to come to experience accomplishments as a function of their own skills and ( Pierce, Jussila and Cummings, 2009, p. 482) As previously illustrated, the position of a branch campus administrator could be classified as a it r equired the individual to be highly skilled at cooperating and juggling relationshi ps with many people and required higher levels of motivation, persistence and effort, again suggesting the idea that branch campus administrators would develop psychologica l ownership for their institution and individual campus. Hermansen, (19 93, 1995 ), Baily (2002), Stahley (2002), Merzer,(2008), Krueger, (2009) all assert ed that the role of the b ranch campus executive officer wa s pivotal to the success of the branc h campus since typically all daily administrative responsibilities of the campus we re overseen by this individual. The responsibilities o f branch campus administrators we re complex, require d intimate knowledge about the institution and campus, and an investment o f sufficient time and energy; which, according to the theory behind psychological ownership, facilitate d the development of psy chological ownership in them (Md Sidin, Sambasivan and Muniandy, 2010). However, the third route to facilitate the developm ent of psychological ownership wa s the ability to control the target and effect change. As mid level administrators, branch campus administrators juggle d relationships between senior administration, faculty, career staff and the community (Johnsrud and Rosse r, 1999; Bailey, 2002) and share d decision making with the main campus, limiting their autonomy and decision making authority. Lack of autonomy and authority to effect changes and participate in decisions could limit the

PAGE 60

60 development of psychological owner ship in branch campus administrators Thus, this study examined the existence of psychological ownership in branch campus administrators and the factors that contributed to its expression by examining the relationship between psychological ownership and t he perceived sense of control these administrators experienced in the course of carrying out their e veryday responsibilities. Both job b ased (campus) and organization based (institution) psychological ownership were measured. The next chapter presents the research methodology of the current study. It describes the research questions and hypotheses, the research sample, data collection procedures and the statistical analysis used to evaluate the data.

PAGE 61

61 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the resear ch methods used in the study. It describes and explains the purpose of the study, the research question s the overall study design, the selection of the study participants, the design and administration of the survey instrument and the data an alysis methods. Purpose of the Study The intent of this quantitative study was to examine the factors that contribute d to the psychological ownership that community college branch campus administrators experience To do so, the study examined the relation ship between psychological ownership and the sense of control branch campus administrators experience d in the course of carrying out everyday responsibilities. Sense of control was defined withi n the context of the individual work environment by the degre e of job autonomy, the level of participation in decision making, and the amount of authority given to t he branch campus administrator. The study also examined differences in levels of psychological ownership in branch campus administrators related to the gender, the length of time the administrator served as a branch campus administrator, their longevity at the institution, their longevity at the specific branch campus, institutional and campus size, the reporting structure o f the branch campus administrator, the type of administrative responsibility of the branch campus administrator, and the degree of

PAGE 62

62 Research Question s T his study addressed t he following specific rese ar ch question: What is the nature of the relationship between the psychological ownership (campus and institutional) expe rienced by administrators of branch campuses in multi campus community colleges f control as measure d by the level of job autonomy, level of authority, and pa rticipation in decision making? To answer this question the following twelve research questi ons were addressed: 1. Did branch campus administrators develop psychological ownership for their institution? 2. Did branch campus administrators develop psychological ownership for their campuses? 3. Was there a difference between the feelings of psychological ownership branch campus administrators develop ed for their institution and the feeling s of psychological ownership they develop ed for their campus? 4. Was there a relationship between psychological ownership (campus and institution) and the individual respondent demographic characteristics of longevity in their current positions, tenure at the ir institution and branch campus and the number of years they had been in higher education and as a branch campus administrator? 5. Was there a relationship between the institutional characteristics pertaining to institutional size (college wide headcount), branch campus size (branch campus headcount), number of branch campuses, the distance between the branch and main campuses, and the composite score for organizational reporting structure of the branch and psychological ownership (campus and institutional)? 6. Was there a difference in the level of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators based on the levels of the individual respondent demographic characteristics of gender, to whom the branch campus adminis trator reported (BCA Supervisor), and the branch campus 7. Was there a difference in the level of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administ rators based on the institutional characteristics of location of the administrative offices, degree of centralization of decisions and branch campus staff reporting structure?

PAGE 63

63 8. Were the feelings of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experie nced by branch campus administrators related to their level of perceived job autonomy? 9. Were the feelings of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrat ors related to their level of perceived participation in decision making? 10. Were the feelings of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrat ors related to their level of perceived job authority? 11. Were the feelings of psychological ownership experienced by branch campu s administrators related to their overall experiences of perceived sense of control (job autonomy, level of authority, and participation in decision making) by the branch campus administrator? 12. What was the nature of the relationship between the feelings of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators and their individual demographic characteristics, the institutional characteristics and their perception of control? Null Hypotheses The following null hypothe ses were identified for this study: H 01 Branch campus administrators do not develop psychological ownership for their institutions. H 02 Branch campus administrators do not develop psychological ownership for their campus. H 03 There wa s no significant diffe rence between the psychological ownership branch campus administrators develop for their campuses and those they develop for their institution. H 04a There wa s no significant relationship between institutional psychol ogical ownership and individual responde nt demographic characteristics of longevity in their current positions, tenure at their institution and branch campus and the

PAGE 64

64 number of years they had been in higher education and a s a branch campus administrator. H 04b There wa s no significant relationshi p between campus psychological ownership and individual respondent demographic characteristics of longevity in their current positions, tenure at their institution and branch campus and the number of years they had been in higher education and a s a branch campus administrator. H 05a There wa s no significant relationship between the institutional characteristics pertaining to institutional size (college wide headcount), branch campus size (branch campus headcount), number of branch campuses, the distance bet ween the branch and main campuses, and the composite score for organizational re porting structure of the branch and institutional psychological ownership. H 05b There wa s no significant relationship between the institutional characteristics pertaining to i nstitutional size (college wide headcount), branch campus size (branch campus headcount), number of branch campuses, the distance between the branch and main campuses, and the composite score for organizational re porting structure of the branch and campus psychological ownership. H 06a There wa s no significant difference in the level of institutional psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators based on the levels of the individual respondent demographic characteristics of gender, to whom the branch campus administrator reported (BCA Supervisor), and the branch campus administrators administrative responsib ilities and administrative role.

PAGE 65

65 H 06b There wa s no significant difference in the level of campus psychological ownership experience d by branch campus administrators based on the levels of the individual respondent demographic characteristics of gender, to whom the branch campus administrator reported (BCA Supervisor), and the branch campus iliti es and administrative role. H 07a There wa s no significant difference in the level of institutional psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators based on the institutional characteristics of location of the administrative offices, deg ree of centralization of decisions and branch campus staff reporting structure H 07b There wa s no significant difference in the level of campus psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators based on the institutional characteristics of location of the administrative offices, degree of centralization of decisions and branch campus staff reporting structure H 08a There wa s no significant relationship between the level of job autonomy and the psychological ownership experienced by the b ranch campus administrator for their institution H 08b There wa s no significant relationship between the level of autonomy and the psychological ownership experienced by the branch campus administrator for their campus H 09a There wa s no significant relat ionship between the level of participation in decision making and the psychological ownership experienced by the branch campus administrator for their institution

PAGE 66

66 H 09b There wa s no significant relationship between the level of participation in decision ma king and the psychological ownership experienced by the branch campus administrator for their campus H 0 10a There wa s no significant relationship between level of authority and psychological ownership experienced by the branch campus administrator for thei r institution H 010 b There wa s no significant relationship between level of authority and psychological ownership experienced by the branch campus administrator for their campus H 011a There was no significant relationship between perceived sense of contro l and feelings of psychological ownership experienced by the branch campus administrator for their institution. H 011 b There was no significant relationship between perceived sense of control and feelings of psychological ownership experienced by the branch campus administrator for their campus H 012 a There was no significant overall relationship between the feelings of institutional psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators and their individual demographic characteristics, the inst itutional characteristics and their perception of control. H 012 b There was no significant overall relationship between the feelings of campus psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators and their individual demographic characterist ics, the institutional characteristics and their perception of control.

PAGE 67

67 Design of the Study Fink (2008) asserted that surveys comprise the best data collection method available when information was needed directly from individuals regarding what they beli eved, knew, or thought about a given topic. Umbach (2005) added that such surveys were compa ratively inexpensive, and that i nternet data collection was fast and efficient. Thu s this study relied on the use of a quantitative, i nternet based, self report survey methodology using a survey instrument developed specifically f or the purpose of the study. T o complete the study, a national i nternet based survey was conducted of approximately 500 on site branch campus administrators Survey q uestions were based on previous research in the field of business on psychological ownership a nd its determinants (Appendix A provides a copy of the survey instrument). Although the use of online surveys for research was still a relatively new methodology, Wright (2005) con tended that the development of online survey tools like Survey Monkey and Stellar Survey have made it faster and easier for researchers to obtain data. Cre swell (2009), Sue and Ritter (2007), and Van Selm and Jankowski ( 2006) all asserted that online e mail and w eb based, survey instruments were being used as a tool and platform for survey research. Van Selm and Jankowski further added that since e mail and i nternet access had reached nearly all persons engaged in higher education it was relatively e asy to survey higher education administrators by electronic means. This study relied on the Stellar Survey tool for its data collection This tool was chose n due to i ts ease of use, economical cost, and the variety of available data dow nload formats ava ilable Advantages to the use of on line surveys included the ability to reach people that may be difficult to contact or located in far away locations, and that a utomated data collection reduced the amount of time and expense the

PAGE 68

68 researcher needed to spe nd in data collection (Wright, 2005 ; Garton, Haythornthwaite, and Wellman, 2003; Yun and Trumbo, 2000). Online survey tools like Stellar Survey ( http://www.stellarsurvey.com/ ) collect and store participants ponses automatically allowing the researcher to collect data while working on other projects (Andrews, Nonnecke, and Preece, 2003). Also, since the data was easily transferred to a statistical package, preliminary analyses were easily conducted (Llieva, B aron and Healey, 2002). Additionally, research suggested that people may be more willing to open themselves up and express unpopul ar or sensitive opinions in an I nternet based survey (Muhtaseb, 2004). Independent and Dependent Variables Levels of psychol s in this study. Explanatory (i ndependent) variables included participant demographic characteristics, ins titutional demographics, measures of perceived degree of job authority, perceived level of participation in decision making, and pe rceived level of job autonomy. the length of ti me the participant had worked at the institution and specific campus, their longevit y in their current position, the overall length of their tenure in higher education administration and as a branch campus administrator to whom they reported and their pe rception of the scope of their administrative role and responsibilities Institutional characteristics included the size of the institution and branch campus (measured by the most recent f all term head count), the distance between the main campus and bran ch campus, the number of branch campuses,

PAGE 69

69 centralization that existed at the institution and the reporting structure of the branch campus staff Survey Instrument Theories of psychological ownership suggest ed that the individual organization relationship is most important aspect of its development; for that reason this study used the individual as the unit of analysis. The research also suggest ed that psychological ownership emerge d as a result of the employe e s work environment experiences; therefore the survey used in the present study examined the branch campus administrator s perception of their work life experiences. Following conventions used in other psychological ownersh ip research (Pierce, O and Coghlan, 2004; Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks, 2003; Pierce, Van Dyne, and Cummings, 1992) the present study defined of ownership or a piece of that target is theirs (i.e. Driscoll, and Coghlan, 2004 p. 509). Perceived c was operationally defined as consisting of job design autonomy, participative decision making and job authority. The survey instrument was designed to obtain information including : background and demographic information on the branch campus administrators and their insti tutions, branch campus administrators perceptions as to degree in which they participate d in college and campus decisions branch campus administrators perceptions as to degree of job autonomy they experienced, branch campus administrators perceptions as to degree of decision making authority they experience d, and the level of psychological ownership branch campus administrators report ed towards their i nstitution and campus.

PAGE 70

70 To this end the survey instrument us ed in this study consisted of 19 questions organized in to three sections ( Appendix A) Questions 1 and 2 assessed the ipant perceptions as to the degree of job autonomy, question 5 assessed the administrator perceptions as to their participation in instituti onal and campus decision making, questions 6 and 7 assessed t he dependent variable ps ychological ownership over the institution (question 6) and the campus for which they were responsible (question 7) perception as to the degree to which their institution question 9 addressed the reporting struc ture of the branch campus staff, questions 10 14 measured characteristics of the institution and the adminis campus, and finally, questions 15 19 assessed the characteristics of the individ u al branch campus administrator Measurement of Psychological Ownership Psychological ownership was measured using a modified version of an instrument initially developed by Pierce, Van Dyne and Cummings (1992) and further validated by Van Dyne and Pierce (20 04). Based on the literature concerning the psychology of possession and property, Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) approach ed measurement of psychological ownership by focusing on feelings of possession (Pierce, & Coghlan, 2004). As a result t he questions in the assessment of psychological ownership use d urvey consisted of seven institution; and that were rated according to a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

PAGE 71

71 Measurements of Perceived Control Perceived control was operationally defined as consisting of three dimensions: perceived job autonomy, perceiv ed authority and perceived participation in decision making. Each of these components was assessed using modified versions of previously developed instruments. Perceived job autonomy Perceived job a utonomy was measured using Idazak 3 Job Diagnostic Survey assessment and a three item Decision Latitude S cale developed by Karasek (1979). three questions; these same three it ems were used in this study. These items included : the work me considerab le opportunity for independence, permits me to decide on my ow n how to go about things at work The three items were rated on a 7 point Likert scale (1 = very inaccurate and 7 = very accurate) as to the accuracy of the stat ement for the participants job. The Decision Latitude Scale wa s also used to measure perceive d job autonomy on the job by assessing the authority the individual believed they had to make task relevant decisions. It consisted In general, how much say or influence do you hav e to decide how to you e receptive Each par ticipant was asked to rate how much

PAGE 72

72 of each item exi sted in their job as a branch campus administrator on a 5 point Likert scale where 1 = very little and 5 = very much. P erceived authority Pe rceived a uthority was assessed using Hage and Index of Hierarchy of Authority and a Decision Matrix used by Hill (1982) and Stahley (2002) in their research on administrative issues in branch campuses. The Index of Hierarchy of Authority was designed to measure the extent to which members of the organization are assigned tasks and then provided with the freedom to implement them without interruption from superiors wa s a 5 item survey in which the par ticipant rated the items on a 4 point Likert scale in which 1 = definitely false and 4 = definitely true. action taken here until a supervisor approves a decision, his own decisions wo uld be quickly discouraged here, referred to someo ne higher up for a final answer, The Decision Matrix (Hill, 1985; Stahley 2002) examined the degree to which the branch c ampus administrator had exclusive, shared or no input in decision making authority in matters pertaining to academic program approval, course development and scheduling, recruitment, selection, promotion and evaluatio n of faculty and non faculty professi onal development and training, contracts and grants, student academic support services, budget planning, development and a llocation, and space equipment and facilities. Participants were requested to rate the items on a 6 point Likert scale in which 1 = Main campus decision; branch campus is excluded and 6 = Bra nch campus decision exclusively, no consultation required.

PAGE 73

73 Participation in decision m aking Participative decision making was assessed using a modified version of Hag Index of Participation in Decision Making The Index of Participation in Decision Making examined areas of decision making that are common to most organizations and represent decisions about the allocation of people and resources, key areas of concern in the bran ch campus literature. The assessment wa s a 6 item measure in which respondents are asked to rate the level of involvement of the Branch C ampus Administrator in decision making activities such as goal setting, hiring and promotion and new program developme nt using a 5 point Likert scale where 1 = never and 5 = always. Reliability and Validity of the Instruments Reliability. Since most of the scales used in this study relied on the use of summated or composite scores designed to measure the various concep ts, it was important to assess the reliability of the various scales (Santos, 1999). Reliability refers to the degree to which a measure yields consistent scores wh en measured a number of times. This measure is a test reliability technique that requires a single administration of the scale and index of reliability associated with the variation accounte d for by the true score of the underlying construct (Santos, 1999, Para 7). The c oefficient typically ranges between 0 and 1, with values closer to 1 indicative of greater internal consistency of items in the scale. Nunnaly (1978) and Gliem and Gliem (2003) assert that an alpha of 0.7 or over is an acceptable reliability coefficient. Each of the subsections of the survey used in the current study with the exception of the Decision Matrix had been used in previou s psychological ownership studies and their questions were chosen because of their wide usage in the this type of

PAGE 74

74 research. The Decision Matrix was chosen for use because of its applicability to branch campus administration and its usage in prior branch campus research. Pierce, O Driscoll and Coghlan (2004) reported Cronbach alpha reliability estimates of .93 for the questio ns used in assessing the organizational psychological ownership and estimates of .92 for the same questions when adapted to assess psy chological ownership of the job while the curr ent study produced an alpha of .84 for institution al psychological ownershi p and .82 for campus psychological ownership. 3 item modification Job Diagnostic Survey assessment have been estimated by Pierce .84 using Cronbach coefficient alpha for measurements of job aut onomy and Westman (1992) reported an alpha of .79 for the Decision Latitude S cale developed by Karasek (1979). The current study provided a Cronbach alpha of .88 for the Job Diagnostic Survey and of .81 for the Decision Latitude S cale Dewar, Whetten and Boje (1980) reported that both Hague and Index of Hierarchy of Authority and their Index of Participation in Decision M aking were reliable reporting reliability coefficients of .79 f or the Index of Hierarchy of Authority and 95 for the Index of Participation in Decision M aking. In the current study an alpha of .82 was observed for the Index of Hierarchy of Authority and .78 for the Index of Participation in Decision M aking. The Dec ision Matrix was adapted from a scale used in previous studies conducted by Hill (19 85 ) and Stahley (2002) on organizational structure and authority in branch campus administrators Although neither of the previous studies reported

PAGE 75

75 reliability values for the sc ale, i n the current study the matrix produced a Cronbach alpha of .76 Validity. Validity refers to the extent to which an instrument measures what it purports to measure. Validation evidence for the measures of psychological ownership of the orga nization and job were obtained from multiple field studies and the use of two independent panels of judges (Pierce et al. 1992; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004; Pierce, O Driscoll and Coghlan, 2004). Pierce, O Driscoll and Coghlan (2004) provided validation th at the instrument could be used to distinguish between feelings of ownership for two related constructs: the organization and the job (or campus). The validity of the Indexes of Hierarchy of Authority and Participation in Decision m aking were assessed by Dewar, Whetten and Boje (1980) who reported that both scales have validly indicate the sub con structs for which they were in Survey Instrument Jury Process In o rder to further validate the questionnaire for use with branch campus administrators the final survey instrument was juried by the research committee of the National Branch Campus Administrators (NABCA) organization as well as the members of the researche The NABCA research committee was made up of 10 members, all of whom were branch campus administrators. Half of the committee members were heads of community college branch campuses and the other half headed up university branc h campuses. The members of the jury were sent draft copies of the survey and copies of the survey protocol and asked to examine the survey for question clarification and appropriateness of language. Feedback from the members of the jury was used to make modifications to the survey instrument

PAGE 76

76 Population The population for this quantitative study consisted of all public community college branch campus heads nationally. Branch campus heads were identified through the 2010 Higher Education Directory (HEP) yielding a n initial population size of 5 34 individuals. The directory specifically codes branch campus administrators [(12) Director of Branch Campus], defining them as the official who is in charge of a branch campus (2010 Higher Education Directory). U ndeliverable e mail addresses and cha nges in personnel decreased the size of the population to 500 individuals The number of possible participants was small enough to include all possible subjects in the research study and all identified individuals were invited to participate in the study Contact information for all potential participants was purchased from HEP, Inc. Procedure for Data Collection The following 4 step protocol was used for administration of the survey (Creswell, 2009). Prior to beginn Institutional Review Board (IRB). Upon approval, a short advance notification ( Appendix B ) was sent to all commun ity college branch campus administrators identifie d in the 2010 Higher Education Directory via e mail describing the purpose of the study and invitin g them to participate. This preliminary e mail allowed the researchers to determine the viability of all e mail ad dresses on the purchased list. Attempts t o correct e mails that bounced back or produced an error message were made through examination of personnel directories on college websites. A second e mail was sent two weeks after the preliminary e mail with a request to participate in the research stud y (Appendix C) This request contained a uniform

PAGE 77

77 resource locator ( URL ) link to the web based survey embedded in the e mail message as well as a description of the study backgr ound and purpose The recipient was requested to complete the survey wi thin a 3 week time period. A follow up e mail was sent to all individuals who had not responded by the deadline reminding them of the survey and requesting that the y complete it within ten days ( Appendix D ) A third e mail request was sent to those who had not responded to the first two requests two weeks after the deadline of the second r equest and once again requested that the individual complete the survey ( Appendix E ) Ultimately a to tal of 167 surv eys were returned, yielding a 33% response rate. Data Anal ysis All data collected from all participants were recorded and tabulated anonymously and the responses from the survey instrument were statistically analyzed. Data were collected from the online surveys via Stellar Survey and Excel for tabulation. The survey information was then imported into SPSS PASW Statistics 1 9 a commercially available statistical software tool, and analyzed. Descriptive statistics, Pea rson correlation, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Multiple Linear R egression analysis were utilized to determine the relationship between the independent and dependent variables and to 21 null hypotheses. Summary This chapter has provided an overview of the research methods o f this study. The purpose of the study, the research question, the overall study design, the selection of the study participants, the design and administration of the survey instrumen t were all explained. The methods used for data ana lysis were also arti culated, the results of which will be presented in C hapter 4

PAGE 78

78 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to examine the nature of the relationship between levels of psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators and the individu as measure d by the level of job autonomy, level of authority, and participation in decision making. This chapter report s the results of the study including descriptive results, frequency and correlation d ata as well as the outcomes of a naly sis of v ariance and multiple regression analyses. Discussion of the findings and conclusions based on the result s of this study follow in C hapter 5. In addition to examining question the research also ex amined differences in levels of psychological ownership in branch campus administrators related to t s gender, the length of time in which the administrator served as a branch campus administrator, their longevity at the insti tution, their longevity at the specific branch campus, institutional and campus size, the reporting structure of the branch campus administrator, the type of administrative responsibility of the branch campus administrator, and the degree of centralization of To answer this question the following twelve research questions were addressed: 1. Did branch campus administrators develop psychological ownership for their institution? 2. Did branch campus administrators develop ps ychological ownership for their campuses? 3. Was there a difference between the feelings of psychological ownership branch campus administrators develop ed for their institution and the feelings of psychological ownership they develop ed for their campus?

PAGE 79

79 4. Was there a relationship between psychological ownership (campus and institution) and the individual respondent demographic characteristics of longevity in their current positions, tenure at their institution and branch campus and the number of years they had been in higher education and as a branch campus administrator? 5. Was there a relationship between the institutional characteristics pertaining to institutional size (college wide headcount), branch campus size (branch campus headcount), number of branch cam puses, the distance between the branch and main campuses, and the composite score for organizational reporting structure of the branch and psychological ownership (campus and institutional)? 6. Was there a difference in the level of psychological ownership (c ampus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators based on the levels of the individual respondent demographic characteristics of gender, to whom the branch campus administrator reported (BCA Supervisor), and the branch campus administra 7. Was there a difference in the level of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators based on the institutional characteristics of location of t he administrative offices, degree of centralization of decisions and branch campus staff reporting structure? 8. Were the feelings of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators related to their level of per ceived job autonomy? 9. Were the feelings of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrat ors related to their level of perceived participation in decision making? 10. Were the feelings of psychological ownership (cam pus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrat ors related to their level of perceived job authority? 11. Were the feelings of psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators related to their overall experiences of perceived sense of control (job autonomy, level of authority, and participation in decision making) by the branch campus administrator? 12. What was the nature of the relationship between the feelings of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators and their individual demographic characteristics, the institutional characteristics and their perception of control?

PAGE 80

80 Respondent and Institutional Demographics Contact information for all 2 year public college branch campus ad ministrators was obtained through the 2010 Higher Education Directory produce a population size of 500 individuals A to tal of 167 Internet delivered surv eys were returned, yielding a 33 % response rate. This return rate is higher than others who have rec ently conducted research with branch campus administrators. For example Krueger (2009) received 111 completed surveys in his study of both university and community college branch campus administrators, and Conover (2009), who used the same population as the current study, reported 134 responses for the demographic portion of her survey and 123 for its other portions. A small portion (10) of the surveys in the current study were returned with some items left blank, however all recorded responses were used in the analysis of the data. Tables 4 1 and 4 2 provide demographic information for the 153 branch campus administrators that completed the demographic survey questions and also present s information on gender tutions, campuses and as branch campus administrators Tables 4 3 4 4, and 4 5 contain information on the institution s that employ ed these administrators and presents information on institutional and branch campus size, the number of branch campus es th e location of the main campuses with respect to the branch campuses and organizational and reporting structure s Respondent Demographics Table 4 1 shows that of the 153 respondents who completed the survey question on gender 86 (56%) were male and 67 (44 %) were female. The majority (83 %) of the respondents were chief administrator s at a single branch campus with the remaining

PAGE 81

81 participants having responsibilities for all branch campuses within their institution. Sixty five (43 %) of the respondents repor ted that they had administrative responsibility for branch campus matters only, while 87 (57 %) indicated that they had responsibilities for both college wide and branch campus mat t ers. No respondent s reported that they only had responsibility for college wide matters. Table 4 1. Branch Demographic Variable Frequency Percent (%) Gender Male 84 56.2 Female 67 43.8 Administrative Role of BCA Chief a dministrator at a branch campus 127 82.5 Chief a dministrator of branch campuses responsible for all branch campus matters 25 16.2 2 1.3 Resp onsible for b ranch campus matters only 65 42.8 Respo nsible for both c ollege wi de and branch c amp us matters 87 57.2 As can be seen in Table 4 2, most of the branch campus administrators in the current sample had a significant degree of longevity at their institutions with a lesser number of years on their current campuses. The number of years at the ir current institution ranged from 1 to 45 years with a mean of 12.37 years ( SD = 10.04). Campus tenure ranged from less than one year to 39 years with a mean of 7.45 years ( SD = 6.97). less than a year to 32 years with a mean of 8 years ( SD = 6.75).

PAGE 82

82 Table 4 2. Branch c ampus administrators demographics: L ongevity Longevity Current Institution At Current Campus In Branch Campus Administration Mean 12.37 7.45 8.08 Std D eviation 10.04 6. 97 6.75 N 132 132 131 Institutional Characteristics Demographics. The sizes of the institutions at which the respondents were employed ranged from a f all term student head count of 1 100 to 16 0,000 with a median of 10,000. The campuses sizes ranged in size from a f all term student headcount of 103 to 26,000 with a median of 1,700 ( Table 4 3) The typical institution had three branch campuses located between 1 and 270 miles apart with the median distance being 28 miles The majority of institutions r epresented housed their central administrative o ffices on the main campus (69.5 %) ( Table 4 4 ) Table 4 3. Institutional d emographics Variable N 25 th Percentile 50 th Percentile 75 th Percentile College wide e nrollment 151 5,500 10,000 22,324 Campus e nroll ment 151 900 1 700 3 600 Number of c ampuses 137 1.5 3 5 Branch d istance from the main c ampus 153 12 miles 28 miles 45 miles Organizational structure. More than 75% of institutions housed their pus, howe ver the majority (47 %) of respondents indicated that they reported directly to the college President or system Chancellor, with t he next highest percentage (33 President f or Aca demic Affairs ( Table 4 4 ). This is consi stent with the reporting structure findings from previous branch campus research (Bebko and Huffman, in

PAGE 83

83 press; Kreuger, 2009; Conover, 2009; Stahley, 2002). Fifty six percent of the respondents reported that they perceived the organizational structure of their institution as moderately centralized with most decision making delegated, but some decisions still conducted only by top leaders. Another 32% reported that their institution was moderately centralized with most decision mak ing done at the top of in stitution; only two s organizational structure as decentralized In the decision matrix, ex cep t for student life and faculty personnel issues, the majority of the respondents indicated that decisions were shared equall y with the main campus. The only area in which the respondents indicated that they had limited decision authority was in the sphere of faculty personnel issues. The branches had exclusive responsibility for student life issues and planning. These findin gs are similar to those reported by both Hill (1985) branch campus exclusion from decision making 115). At most institutions the majority of the staff ( includi ng academic and non academic administrators, faculty, professional non faculty, and no n professional non administrative staff ) located on the campus either reported to the branch campus administrator or had a dual reporting structure to both the branch ca mpus and a main campus administrator ( Table 4 5). Again, this is consistent with the findings of other branch campus research (Stahley, 2002).

PAGE 84

84 Table 4 4 Profile of organizational structure Variable Number of respondents Percentage (%) Location of Admin istrative Office On main c ampus 116 75.8 Apart from any campus 24 15.7 On a branch campus 8 5.2 5 3.3 President 64 41.6 Chancellor 9 5.8 VP Academic Affairs 52 33.8 Provost 5 3.2 VP for Bran ch Campuses 2 1.3 AVP for Branch Campuses 2 1.3 Dean/Director of Branch Campuses 7 4.5 Other 13 8.4 Degree of Centralization Highly c entralized 16 10.3 Moderately centralized m ost decision making power at top 50 32.1 Moderately c e ntralized m ost de cision making power a delegated 88 56.4 Highly decentralized 2 1.3 Table 4 5. Reporting structure of branch campus staff Number of Respondents (Percentage) Type of Branch Campus Staff Reports to main campus only Reports to both main and branch campus Reports to branch campus only Academic Administrators 57 (37.5 % ) 21 (13.8 % ) 74 (48.7 % ) Non academic Administrators 30 (20.1 % ) 42 (28.2 % ) 77 (51.7 % ) Faculty 52 (33.8 % ) 34 (22.1 % ) 68 (44.2 % ) Professional Non faculty 25 (16.4 % ) 39 (25.7 % ) 88 (57.9 % ) No n professional Non administrative 13 (8.4 % ) 36 (23.2 % ) 106 (68.4 % )

PAGE 85

85 Hypothesis Testing The survey d ata were analyzed through a variety of tests to assess if they answer ed the specific research question s and their corresponding null hypothe ses. Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize the composite levels of institutional and campus psychological ownership, paired t tests were conducted to assess whether there were statistically significant differences in levels of institutional and campus psychological ownership, analyses of variance were conducted to examine relationships between the ordinal explanatory variables and the dependent measures and Pearson product moment correla tions were used to examine the relationships between th e various numerical explanatory variables and the two dependent measur es of psychological ownership. Finally, a simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the degree of association between the explanatory variables and the two de pendent variables. Research Question s One and Two Did the branch campus administrators de monstrate psychological ownership for their institution? Did bran ch campus administrators demonstrate psychologica l ownership for their campuses? Composite psycholog ical ownership scores were computed by summing the Likert scale values for each of the 7 questions pertaining to psychological ownership for both the institution and campus. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the composite levels of institution al and campus psychological ownership expressed by the branch campus administrators. Table 4 6 shows the mean levels of institutional and campus psychological ownershi p. O f th e 167 respondents only 148 answered both questions pertaining to psychological ownership. For those respondents the institutional psychological

PAGE 86

86 o wnership composite s cores ranged from a low of 14 to a high of 46 with a mean composite score of 34.68 ( SD = 6.21 ). Their c omposite campus psychological ownership scores ranged from a low of 11 to a high of 49 with a me an of 37.36 ( SD =5.81 ). Null hypotheses H 01 and H 02 were rejected. Table 4 6. Descriptive statistics for institutional and campus psychological ownership Mean N St an d ard Deviation 25 th Percentile 50 th Percentile 75 th Perce ntile Institutional Psychological Ownership 34. 6 8 148 6.21 31.0 35.0 40.0 Campus Psychological Ownership 37.36 148 5.81 34.0 38.0 42.0 Research Question Three Wa s there a difference between the feelings of psychological ownership bran ch cam pus administrators demonstrated for their institution and the feelings of psychological ownership th ey demonstrated for their campus ? A paired samples t test for related means was conducted to investigate whether there were significant differences among t he two types (campus and institutional) of psychological ownership. Results indicated that the level of psychological ownership for the campus was significantly higher than the level of institutional psychological ownership ( t (147) = 5.47, p =.000). Null hypothesis H 03 was rejected. Research Questions Four and Five Respondent demographic v ariables and psychological ownership Was there a relationship between psychological ownership (campus and institution) and the individual respondent demographic charac teristics of longevity in their current positions, tenure at their institution and branch campus and the number of years they had been in

PAGE 87

87 higher education and as a branch campus administrator? Table 4 7 report s the results of the correlati on conducted to analyze the relationships between each of the respondent demographic (explanatory) variables of longevity in their current positions, tenure at their institution and branch campus and the number of years they had been in higher education and as a branch campus administrator, the institutional characteristics pertaining to institutional size (college wide headcount), branch campus size (branch campus headcount), number of branch campuses, the distance between the branch and main campuses, and the composite score for organizational re porting structure of the branch and the two dependent measures Pearson product moment correlations for the respondent characteristics of longevity in their current positions, tenure at their institution and branch campus and th e number of years they had been in higher education and as a branch campus administrator indicated that n one of the variables were significantly correlated with psychological ownership of the campus thu s null hypothesis H 04b was not rejected Longevity at current institution ( r ( 151 ) = 0 190, p = 0 .019 ) and number of years in higher education ( r (151) = 0 .185, p = 0 .023) were the only two variables correlated with institutional psychological ownership, and these relationsh ips were weak thus H 04a was rejected. These results suggest ed that the longer and branch campus administrator served in branch campus administration, and at a specific institution the higher their psychological ownership for their instituti on was likely to be; but that none of the individual branch campus administrator characteristics measured by this study were related to psychological ownership for the

PAGE 88

88 Table 4 7 Correlations between respondent and institutional characteristics and psychological ownership for the institution and the campus Institutional Psychological Ownership Campus Psychological Ownership Respondent Characteristics N r p N r p # Years in Current Position 153 r = .018 p = .882 136 r = .085 p = .311 # Years at Current Institution 153 r = .190 p = .019 136 r = .109 p = .193 # Years on Current Campus 153 r =. 068 p = .402 136 r = .105 p = .207 # Years in Higher Education 152 r = .185 p=.023 135 r = .107 p = .203 # Years as a Branch Campus Administrator 152 r = .011 p = .897 136 r = .066 p = .428 Institutional Characteristics # of Branch campuses 137 r = .146 p = .09 137 r = .133 p = .132 College wide Enrollment 151 r = .133 p = .104 135 r = .104 p = .214 Branch Campus Enrollment 151 r = .160 p = .05 135 r = .136 p = .106 Distance Between Branch and main campuses 153 r = .048 p = .552 136 r = .066 p = .432 Reporting Structure 145 r = .251 ** p = .002 127 r = .055 p = .524 Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2 tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2 tailed) Institutional characteristics and psychological ownership. Wa s there a relationship between the institutional characteristics pertaining to institutional size (college wide headcount), branch campus size (branch campus headcount), number of branch campuses, the distance between the branch and main campuses, and the composite score for organizational re porting structure of the branch and psychological ownership (campus and institutional)? Table 4 7 also reports th e results of the correlational test conducted to analyze the relationships between the institutional

PAGE 89

89 demographic (explanatory) variables pertaining to institutional size (college wide headcount), branch campus size (branch campus headcount), number of b ran ch campuses the distance between the branch and main campuses, and the composite score for organizational reporting structure of the branch and the two dependent measures. The results of the se Pea rson product moment correlation analyses for the instituti onal characteristics showed that none of these variables were significantly correlated with psychological ownership of the campus; thus null hypothesis H 05b was not rejected. However, branch campus size ( r (149) = 0.160, p = 0.05) and the overall branch c ampus reporting structure ( r (143) = 0.251, p = 0.002) were significantly correlated with institutional psychological ownership ; thus null hypothesis H 05a was rejected. These results suggested that branch campus administrators of larger branches and those branch campus administrators with higher composite branch campus reporting structure scores were more likely to demonstrate higher levels of institutional psychological ownership, but that none of the institutional characteristics measured in this study w ere related to the feelings of campus psychological ownership. Research Hypotheses Six and Seven Respondent v ariables and psychological ownership Was there a difference in the level of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by bra nch campus administrators based on the levels of the individual respondent demographic characteristics of gender, to whom the branch campus administrator reported (BCA Supervisor), and t he branch campus administrator s administrative responsib ilities and a dministrative role? An independent t test was conducted to compare differences in levels of psychological ownership by gender with no significant

PAGE 90

90 effects observed for either institutional ( t (151 ) = 0.174, p = 0.862) or campus ( t (143) = 0.687, p = 0.493 ) psychological ownership. Table 4 8 presents the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests conducted on the respondent demographic variables of to who m the branch c ampus administrator reported (BCA Supervisor), and the branch campus administrators administrative responsibilities and administrative role. There was a significant effect for to whom the branch campus administrator reported for both institutional ( F ( 7, 146) = 2.78 p = 0 .01) and campus ( F (7,138 ) = 3.69, p = 0 .001) psychological owne rship thus null hypotheses H 06a and H 06b were both rejected. These results indicated that the higher up in the organizational chart the branch campus administrator reported, the greater their feelings of psychological ownership they demonstrated for both their institution and campus. No other significant effects were observed between respondent characteristics and psychological ownership for the campus. However, a significant effect was esponsibility and institutional psychological ownership ( F ( 1,150) = 6.69, p = 0 .011) with branch campus administrators having both college wide and branch campus responsibilities reporting higher levels of institutional psychological ownership than those with only branch campus responsibilities. Institutional characteristics and psychological ownership. Was there a difference in the level of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators based on the instit utional characteristics of location of the administrative offices, degree of centralization of decisions and branch campus staff reporting structure? The results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests

PAGE 91

91 Table 4 8. Analysis of variance comparing responde nt and institutional characteristics and psychological ownership for the institution and the campus Institutional Psychological Ownership Campus Psychological Ownership Respondents Characteristics F p F p F (7, 146) = 2.78 ** p = .01 F (7,13 8) = 3.69 **a p = .001 Responsibilities F (1,150) = 6.69 p = .011 F (1,142) = .651 p = .421 F (2, 151) = 1.09 p = .355 F (2, 143) = .160 p = .984 Institutional Characteristics Location of Administrative Office F (3 149) = 1.09 p = .355 F (3, 141) = 1.17 p = .323 Degree of Centralization F (3,152) = 3.31 *a p = .022 F (3, 144) = 1.10 p = .351 Branch Campus Staff Reporting Structure Academic Administrators F (2, 149) = 3.73 p = .02 F (2, 141) = 2.52 p =.109 Non academic Ad ministrators F (2, 146) = 5.04 ** p = .008 F (2, 139) = 1.22 p =.299 Faculty F (2, 151) = 3.23 p = .043 F (2, 143) = .013 p =.987 Professional non faculty F (2, 149) = 4.12 p = .018 F (2, 142) = .637 p =.53 Non professional, non administrative staff F (2, 152) = 1.11 p = .334 F (2, 145) = 402 p =.670 Test is significant at the .05 level (2 tailed) ** Test is significant at the .01 level (2 tailed) a Indicates violation of the Homogeneity of Variance assumption conducted on the se institutional demographic variables are presented in Table 4 8. Again, none of these variables showed a significant effect for psychological ownership of the campus thus null hypothesis H 07b was not rejected However, statistically significant effects were observed for the degree of centraliza tion (F (3,152) = 3.31, p = 0 .022) and for the reporting structure of branch campus academic administrators (F (2, 149) = 3.73, p = 0 .02), non academic administrators (F (2, 146) = 5.04, p = 0 .008), faculty (F (2, 151) = 3.23, p = 0 .043) and professional non facult y (F (2, 149) = 4.12, p = 0 .018) and instituti onal psychological ownership. Thus, n ull hypothesis H 07a was rejected. The se

PAGE 92

92 results suggest that the more delegation of decision ma king authority, or the more decentralized the institution was, the greater the ings of psychological ownership. H owever, interpretation of this result could be considered for homogeneity of variance was statistically significant suggesting that the assumption of eq ual variance s had been violated in this analysis. Fortunately the analysis of variance is not sensitive to violation of the equal variance assumption when sample sizes are moderate to large and the samples are approximately of equal size ( Gerstman, 2006) as was the case in the current study Research Question s Eight, Nine, Ten and Eleven Perceived control was measured by assessing levels of job autonomy, level s of authority, and degree of participation in de cision making by the branch campus administrat or Table 4 9 presents the results of the correlational analyses of these variables and psychological ownership (campus and institution) Table 4 9 Relationship between job autonomy, job authority and participation in decision making and psychological ownership for the institution and the campus Institutional Psychological Ownership (N=157) Campus Psychological Ownership (N=148) Job Autonomy Decision Latitude Scale r = .428 ** ; p = .000 r = .112, p = .176 Job Diagnostic Survey r = .391 ** ; p = .000 r = .132, p = .109 Level of Participation in Decision Making r = .430 ** ; p = .000 r = .116, p = .162 Job Authority Hierarchy of Authority Scale r = .250 ** ; p = .002 r = .069, p = .403 r = 344 ** ; p = .000 r = .082; p = .320 **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2 tailed)

PAGE 93

93 Job autonomy and institutional psychological ownership Are the feelings of institutional psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators related to their experienced level of p erceived job autonomy? As is shown in Table 4 9 scores on the Decision Latitude Scale ( r (155) = 0.428, p = 0.000) and the Job Diagnostic Survey ( r (155) = 0.391, p = 0.000) were significantly correlated with institutional psychological ownership allowi ng the rejection of H 08a and suggesting a moderately strong, positive correlation between job autonomy and institutional psychological ownership. Participation in decision making and institutional psychological ownership Are the feelings of institutional psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators related to their experienced level of perceived participation in decision making? Table 4 9 also showed that composite scores on the Participation in Decision making Scale were also sign ificantly correlated with institutional psychological ownership ( r ( 155) = 0.430, p = 0.000) causing the reject ion of null hypothesis H 09a and suggesting a moderately strong, positive relationship between the degree to which a branch campus administrator p articipates in decision making and feelings of institutional psychological ownership. Job a uthority and institutional psychological ownership Are the feelings of institutional psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators related to their experienced level of perceived job authority? T able 4 9 also showed that composite scores on Decision Matrix ( r (155) = 0.344, p = 0.000) and the Hierarchy of Authority Scale ( r (155) = 0.250, p = 0.002) were both statistically significantl y correlated with institutional psychological ownership Therefore, null

PAGE 94

94 hypothesis H 010a was rejected. The moderately strong positive correlation observed on Decision Matrix suggests that the more authority assigned to the branch campus administr ator, the more ownership the administrator will feel toward their institution. Since the Hierarchy of Authority Scale wa s a reverse scale in which lower composite scores are indicative of higher authority, the negative correlation between this measure and the measure of institutional psychological ownership was also indicative of a positive relationship between the degree of job authority experienced by the branch campus administrator and the degree of psychological ownership they fe l t for their institutio n. Perceived control and institutional psychological ownership. Are the feelings of institutional psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators related to their overall experiences of perceived sense of control (job autonomy, level of authority, and participation in decision making) by the branch campus administrator? A composite score for overall perception of control was computed by summing the scores on the Job Diagnostic Survey the Decision Latitude Scale the Index of Particip ation in Decision making the Hierarchy of Authority Scale and The Pearson product moment correlation conducted between the perceived control composite score and institutional psychological ownership was statistically significant ( r (157) = .479, p = .000). This wa s not surprising s ince all measures of perception of control were significantly related to institutional psychological ownership N ull hypothesis H 011a was rejected and it was concluded that there wa s a significant mode rately strong relationship between perceived sense of control and feelings of institutional psychological ownership experienced by the branch

PAGE 95

95 campus administrator s, with institutional psychological ownership being highest when the branch campus administrat or had the greatest perceived sense of control. Job autonomy and campus psychological ownership Are the feelings of campus psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators related to their experienced level of perceived job autonomy? As shown in Table 4 9 scores on the Decision Latitude Scale ( r (146) = 0.112, p = 0.176) and the Job Diagnostic Survey [ r (146) = 0.132, p = 0.109]) were not significantly correlated with psychological ownership for the campus. Thus null hypothesis H 08b was not rejected. Participation in decision making and campus psychological ownership Are the feelings of campus psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators related to their experienced level of perceived participation in decisio n making? Table 4 9 shows that composite scores on the Participation in Decision making Scale ( r (146) = 0.082; p = 0.320) were not statistically significant. Consequently, null hypothesis H 09b was not rejected. Job a uthority and campus psychological own ership Are the feelings of campus psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators related to their experienced level of perceived job authority? Table 4 9 also shows that composite scores on both measures of job a uthority [ Hierarchy of Authority Scale ( r (146) = 0.069, p = 0.403) and ( r (146) = 0.082; p = 0.320)] were not statistically significant. Accordingly null hypothesis H 010b was not rejected. Perceived control and psychological ownership for the campus The Pearson product moment correlation conducted between the perceived control composite score and campus psychological ownership was not statistically significant (r

PAGE 96

96 (148) = 0.158, p = 0.054). This is not surprising since all measures of perception of control were also not significantly related to campus psychological ownership independently. Null hypothesis H 011 b was not rejected. Research Question Twelve What is the nature of the relationship between the feelings of psychological ownership (campus an d institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators and their individual demographic characteristics, the institutional characteristics and their perception of control? A simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted using SPSS PASW St atistics 19 to learn more about the relationship between the specific explanatory variables and the outcome variable s of campus and institutional psychological ownership experienced by branch campus administrators. The explanatory varia bles used in this analysis were respondent demographic variables including gender, tenure at current institution and campus, longevity in higher education administration and as a branch campus administrator, to who m the branch campus administrator reports and the type of ad ministrative role and responsibilities the y held I nstitutional demographic variables included institutional size, branch campus size, location of main campus, number of branch campuses, degree of institutional centralization and branch campus staff repor ting structure and measures of perceived control including degree of job authority, job autonomy and participation in decision making Campus psychological ownership was also included as an explanatory variable in the regression analysis for institutiona l p sychologic al o wner ship The significance level was for treating records with missing data.

PAGE 97

97 Regression model for i nstitutional psychological o wnership. The proposed regression model was as follows: Institutional Psychological ownership = a constant + b (gender) + b (tenure at current institution) + b (tenure at current campus) + b (longevity in higher education administration) + b (tenure as a branch campus administrator) + b (who the branch c ampus administrator reports to) + b (the type of administrative role the branch campus adminis trator has) + b (the type of administrative responsibilities the branch campus administrator has ) + b ( institutional size) + b (branch campus size) + b (location of mai n campus) + b (number of branch campuses) + b(distance between branch and main campuses) + b (the degree of institutional centralization) + b (the branch campus staff reporting structure) + b ( the degree of job authority) + b (the degree of job autonomy) + b (th e degree of participation in decision making) + b(campus psychological ownership) The R 2 of 0 .546 for the model for institutional psychological ownership was statistically significant ( F ( 24, 96) = 4.231 p = 0 .000 ) suggesting that the explanatory variabl es were jointly associated with approximately 55 % of the variance seen in the measures of institutional psychological ownership. The adjusted R 2 was 0 .417 This value for the R 2 indicated a moderate ly strong association. Table 4 10 reports the unstandar dized regression coefficients ( b ), the standard regression coefficients ( ), the observed t test values and their significance levels. Two of the explanatory variables were statistically significant: r espondent characteristic tenure in higher education ( b = 0 .128 t (88 ) = 2.090 p = 0 .039 and the campus psychological o wnershi p s core ( b = 0 .381 t (88 ) = 4.412 p = 0 .00 0 ).

PAGE 98

98 The regression equation for the model for institu tional psychological ownership was as follows: institutional p sychological ownership = 1.145 + 0 .453 (gender) + 0.095 (tenure at current institution) + 0 .013 (tenure at current campus) + 0 .128 (longevity in higher education administration) + 0 .184 (tenure as a branch campus administrator) + 0 .377 (who the branch campus administrator reports to) + 0 .227 (the type of administrative role the branch campus adm inistrator has) + 0 .459 (the type of administrative responsibilities the branch campus administrator has) + 0 .000031 (institutional size) + 0 .000048 (branch campus size) + 0 .468 (location of main campus) + 0 .038 (number of branch campuses) + 0 .006 (dista nce between branch and main campuses) + 0.162 (the degree of institutional centralization) + .970 (whom the branch campus academic administrators report to ) + 0 .087 (whom the branch campus non academic administrators report to ) + 1.078 (whom the branch c ampus faculty report to ) + 0 .363 (whom the branch campus professional non faculty report to ) + 0 .578 (whom the branch campus non professional, non administrative staff report to ) + 0 .031 ( Index of job authority score ) + 0 .480 (decision latitude scale score ) + 0 .059 ( job diagnostic survey score ) + 0 .062 (score on the decision matrix) + 0 .137 (the degree of participation in decision making) + 0 .381 (campus psychological ownership) Interpretation of the unstandardized regression coefficient fo r any explanator y variable is dependent on the scale used to measure the variable. For the statistically si gnificant explanatory variable t enure in h igher e ducation the regression coefficient ( b ) value of 0 .128 suggest ed that for each one year increase in tenure in high er education there is a 0 .128 point increase in institutional psychological ownership and for the other statistically significant variable, the regression coefficient ( b ) value of 0 381 suggest ed

PAGE 99

99 that for each 1 point increase in the campus p sychological ownership s core there is a 0 .381 point increase in institutional psychological ownership. Table 4 10. R egression table for institutional psychological ownership Variables b Std error t p Constant 1.145 7.090 .161 872 Campus psychological ownership .381 .086 .352 4.412 .000 Respondent Characteristics Gender .453 1.0 1 .037 .452 .653 Tenure at i nstitution .0 95 .06 7 .1 46 1. 416 .160 Tenure at c ampus .0 13 .1 09 .0 14 118 .907 Tenure in higher e d .12 8 .06 1 .20 2 2.0 90 .0 39 Tenure as a BCA .1 8 4 098 216 1. 879 .064 To whom BCA reports .3 77 .2 28 .1 39 1.652 .1 02 Administrative r ole 227 1. 344 .0 14 169 866 Administrative r esponsibility 459 .5 31 .0 74 .863 .3 90 Institutional Characteristics Institution size .00003 1 .000 .1 11 7 46 .458 Campus size .0000 49 .000 .0 33 297 .767 Location of administrative offices 468 588 084 .796 .428 Number of branch campuses 038 .2 20 .0 22 .174 .863 Distance between branch and main campuses .00 6 .01 5 .0 37 438 .662 Degree of centraliz ation .162 .8 58 .0 18 .189 .851 Branch staff reporting structure Academic administrators .970 776 .1 48 1. 251 214 Non academic administrators .087 .874 .011 .100 .921 Faculty 1.078 .846 .151 1.274 .206 Professional non faculty .363 .952 .046 .381 .704 Non professional, non administrative staff .578 .960 .058 .602 .549 Job Authority Index of job authority .031 .229 .016 .136 .892 Decision latitude scale .480 .268 .261 1.790 .077 Job Autonomy Job diagnostic survey .059 .221 .0 31 .281 .779 Decision matrix .062 .084 .088 .735 .464 Index of participation in decision making .137 .181 .094 .755 .452

PAGE 100

100 Regression model for campus psychological o wnership. The proposed regression model was as follows: c ampus p sychological ownership = a constant + b (gender) + b (tenure at current institution) + b (tenure at current campus) + b (longevity in higher education administration) + b (tenure as a branch campus administrator) + b (who the branch campus administrator reports to) + b (the type of adm inistrative role the branch campus administrator has) + b (the type of administrative responsibilities the branch campus administrator has) + b (institutional size) + b (branch campus size) + b (location of main campus) + b (number of branch campuses) + b(distan ce between branch and main campuses) + b (the degree of institutional centralization) + b (the branch campus staff reporting structure) + b (the degree of job authority) + b (the degree of job autonomy) + b (the degree of participation in decision making) The R 2 of 0.191 for the model for campus psychological ownership was not statistically significant (F (23, 91) = 0.874, p = 0.635) and none of the explanatory variables except for the constant ( b = 18.403, SD = 8.478, t (113) = 2.171, p =.033) were significan t ( Table 4 11). This result suggests that although the proposed model for campus psychological ownership might account for approximately 19% of the variance in the campus psychological ownership score, the var iables measured by this study did not signific antly explain the variation in the campus psychological ownership measure. Summary E mail requests to participate in an on line survey were sent to 500 community college branch campus administrators throughout the United States. A total of 167 respondents completed the informed consent and participated in the survey, a 33% response rate. However, 10 of those surveys were left completely blank, thus there were 157 useable responses, or a 31% response rate.

PAGE 101

101 Table 4 11 Regression table for campus psycholo gical ownership Variables b Std error t p Constant 8.403 8.478 2.171 .033 Respondent Characteristics Gender .692 1.230 .060 .562 .575 Tenure at i nstitution .015 .082 .026 .187 .852 Tenure at c ampus .086 .134 .101 .643 .522 Tenure in higher e d .089 .074 .152 1.198 .234 Tenu re as a BCA .004 .120 .005 .035 .972 To whom BCA reports .146 .280 .058 .522 .603 Administrative r ole .847 1.647 .056 .515 .608 Administrative r esponsibility .298 .651 052 .458 .648 Institutional Characteristics Institution size .000 0308 .000 .121 .616 .540 Campus size .0000210 .000 .016 .104 .917 Location of administrative offices 1.065 .712 .207 1.495 .138 Number of branch campuses .204 .270 .127 .758 .451 Distance between branch and main campuses .008 .018 .053 .477 .63 5 Degree of centralization 1.677 1.037 .205 1.616 .110 Branch staff reporting structure Academic administrators .716 .949 .118 .754 .453 Non academic administrators 1.567 1.059 .221 1.479 .143 Faculty .501 1.036 .076 .484 .630 Professional non faculty .665 1.166 .091 .571 .570 Non professional, non administrative staff .789 1.175 .086 .672 .504 Job Authority Index of job authority .503 .276 .273 1.823 .072 Decision latitude scale .314 .327 .85 .959 .340 Job Autonomy Job di agnostic survey .117 .258 .066 .452 .653 Decision matrix .050 .103 .077 .482 .631 Index of participation in decision making .298 .220 .222 1.354 .179 Survey data provided a profile of community college branch campus administrators and their institution s as well as composite scores on Idazak and (1987) modification of (1975) Job Diagnostic Survey assessment (1979) Decision Latitude S cale Hage and (1966) Index

PAGE 102

102 of Hierarchy of Authority (1985) Deci sion Matrix and Hag Index of Participation in Decision Making and institutional and campus psychological ownership. Bivariate analyses were conducted between the two dependent variables, and between the independent (explanatory) a nd b oth dependent variables via t tests, analysis of variance and Pearson product moment correlation tests. Evaluation of r esearch hypothesis one and two found that branch campus administrators did demonstrate psychological ownership for both their in stituti ons and their campuses (m ean p sychol ogical o wnership (institution) = 34.6 ; SD = 6.206; m ean p sychological ownership (campus) = 37.36; SD = 5.814). In the test of research hypothesis three a paired test showed significant differences between the two meas ures of psychological ownership with the psychological ownership for the campus significantly higher than institutional psychological ownership ( t (147) = 5.47, p = 0 .000) Investigation of research hypotheses four and five found that Pearson product momen t correlation analyses showed weak, but significant relationships between institutional psychological ownership and the respondent demographic characteristics of current institution ( r ( 151 ) =0. 190, p = 0 .019 ) and number of years in higher education ( r (151)= 0.185, p = 0.023). Significant weak correlations were also observed between institutional psychological ownership and the institutional demographics characteristics of branch campus size ( r (149) = 0.160, p = 0.05) and the overall branch campus reporting structure ( r (143) = 0.251, p = 0.002). No significant correlations were observed for any of the respondent or institutional demographic characteristics and psychological ownership for the campus.

PAGE 103

103 Examina tion of research hypotheses six and seven using a nalysis of variance (ANOVA) tests showed significant effects between institutional psychological ownership and the respondent demographic variables of whom the branch campus administrator reported to (BCA Su pervisor) ( F (7, 146) = 2.78, p = 0 .01), and the branch campus administrators administrative responsibilities (F (1,150) = 6.69, p = 0 .011) and between the institutional characteristics of degree of centralization (F (3,152) = 3.31, p = 0 .022), and the reportin g structure of branch campus academic administrators (F (2, 149) = 3.73, p = 0 .02) non academic administrators (F (2, 146) = 5.04, p = 0 .008) faculty (F (2, 151) = 3.23, p = 0 .043) and professional non faculty (F (2, 149) = 4.12, p = 0 .018). For the dependent v ariable of campus psychological ownership only the respondent demographic characteristic of to who m the branch campus administrator reported was statistically significant ( F (7,138) = 3.69, p = 0 .001) Exploration of research hypotheses eight, nine, ten an d eleven found s ignificant moderate correlations between institutional psychological ownership and both measures of job autonomy [ Decision Latitude Scale ( r (155) = 0 .428, p = 0 .000), and Job Diagnostic Survey ( r (155) = 0 .391, p = 0 .000)], and c omposite s cores on the Participation in Decision making Scale ( r (155) = 0 .430, p = 0 .000) B oth measures of job authority [ ( r (155) = 0 .344, p = 0 .000) and the Hierarchy of Authority Scale ( r (155) = 0 .250, p = 0 .002)] showed weaker, but sti ll significant relationships. These correlations all support ed the co nclusion that the more autonomy, authority and participation in decision making a branch campus administrator had the higher the level of institutional psychological ownership On the other hand, there were no significant relationships observed for any of these variables and psychological

PAGE 104

104 ownership for the campus ; suggesting that sense of con trol may not be related to job based psychological ownership. Finally, to examine research hypo thesis twelve, a simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted to learn more about the relationship between the various explanatory variables and both outcome variables. The R 2 of 0 .546 for the model for institutional psychological ownership was statistically significant (F (24, 88 ) = 4231 p = 0 .000) suggesting that the explanatory variables were jointly associated with approximately 55 % of the variance seen in the measures of institutional psychological ownership. Two of the explanatory variabl es were a lso statistically significant: r espondent characteristic tenure in higher education ( b = 0 .128 t (88 ) = 2.090 p = 0 .039 and the campus psychological ownership s core ( b = 0 .564, t (88) = 4.412 p = 0 .00 0 ). The R 2 of 0 .191 for the model for campus p sychological ownership was not statistically significant (F (24, 89 ) = 0 .874 p = 0 .635 ) and none of the explanatory variables with the exception of the constant ( b = 18.403, SD = 8.478, t (113) = 2.171, p =.033) were significant ; a gain suggesting that t he variables measured in this study were significantly related to the experience of institutional psyc hological ownership, but not to psychological ownership for the campus in branch campus administrators. The implications of these results will be discus sed further in Chapter 5.

PAGE 105

105 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS This research empirically explored the concept of psychological ownership and its relationship to perceived control in branch campus administrators It examine d the factors that contributed to psychologica l ownership that branch campus administrators develop towards their campus (job based) and institution (organization based) This chapter conclude s the study with a discussion of the results, suggestions for future research and the implications for practi ce in branch campus settings Discussion of Finding The intent of this quantitative study was to examine the factors that contributed to The goal of the study was to assess the degree to which factors including perception of control, and individual and institutional demographic characteristics were associated with the cognitive and affective feelings of ownership developed by branch campus administrators with respect to their institution and campus usi ng the theory of psychological ownership espoused by Pierce, and colleagues (2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008). Branch Campus Administrators and Psychological Ownership Did branch campus administrators develop psychological ownership for their institution and their campuses? As expected the results of the present study found that that branch campus administrators demonstrate d psychological ownership for both their institutions and their campuses. The se results parallel ed outcomes of studies by Vandewalle, Va n Dyne, and Kostova (1995) and Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) who reported moderate levels of organization based psychological ownership in various

PAGE 106

106 types of U S employees and by and Coghlan (2006), Ma yhew, Ashjanasy, Bramble and G ardner ( 2007 ), and McIntyre, Srivastava and Fuller (2009) who found moderate levels of both job and organization based psychological ownersh ip reported by employees at for profit companies in New Zealand and the United States Furthermore, the results of this study als o correspo nd with the outcomes of two additional studies conducted in educational setting s Wood (2003) found that job based psychological ownership increased sel f directed learning in college level marketing students and a more recent study by Md Sidin et al (2010) demonstrated the presence and impact of feelings of organization based psychological ownership in business school lecturers. Md Sidin et al at which t he lecturers were employed and suggest ed that this was not surprising since academicians tend to have m ore control over their work. Thus, psychological ownership was established as an important construct in for profit, non profit and educational settings Was there a difference between the feelings of psychological ownership branch campus administrators developed for their institution and the feelings of psychological ownership they developed for their campus? Significant differences were observed betwee n the two measures of psychological ownership. Campus (job based) psychological ownership was significantly higher th an institutional (organization based) psychological ownership. These findings are comparable to the findings of all studies that have mea sured job and organization based psychological ownership ( Pierce, riscoll and Coghlan 2004 ; Ma yhew, Ashjanasy, Bramble and G ardner 2007 ; McIntyre, Srivastava and Fuller 2009) which also found that job based psychological

PAGE 107

107 ownership levels were high er than organization based psychological ownership. Ma yhew, Ashjanasy, Bramble and G ardner ( 2007 ) asserted that the differences in observed values of job and organization based psychological ownership indicated that the two constructs were distinctly dif riscoll and Coghlan ( 2004 ) further contended that si n c e employees experience the organization through their job experiences which are closer to self and more intimate, job based psychological ownership would be expected to be higher, and was an important component of organization based psychological ownership Respondent and Institutional Characteristics and Psychological Ownership Was there a relationship between psychological ownership (campus and institution) and the ind ividual respondent demographic characteristics (longevity in their current positions, tenure at their institution and branch campus and the number of years they had bee n in higher education and as a branch campus administrator) or institutional characteris tics (institutional size, branch campus size, number of branch campuses, the distance between the branch and main campuses, and the composite score for organizational reporting structure of the branch)? Weak, but significant relationships were observed be tween institutional psychological ownership and the respondent demographic characteristics of longevity at the institution, number of years in higher education institutional demographic characteristics of branch campus size and the overall branch campus reporting structure. The positive correlations between each of these variables and organization al psychological ownership indicate d that as each variable increased, so did organizational psychological ownership. These results correspond with those that would be expected by the theory of organizational psychological ownership espoused by Pierce et a l. (2003) According to Pierce et al

PAGE 108

108 (2003) people find themselves psychologically tied to things as a result of their active participation or intimate association with the m. Thus it was not surprising that longer tenures at the institution especially as a higher education administrator were associated with higher levels of organizational psychological ownership. Furthermore, the positive correlation between branch campus repo rting structure and psychological ownership also supported the theoretical assertion made by Pierce et al (2003 ) that individuals who create, shape, or produce (p. 93) are more invested in the target and more likely to ex perience ownership. Was there a difference in the level of psychological ownership (campus and institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators based on the levels of the individual respondent demographic characteristics (gender, to whom the bran ch campus administrator reported responsibilities and administrative role) or institutional characteristics (location of the administrative offices, degree of centralization of decisions and branch campu s staff reporting structure)? Significant differences were observed in levels of institutional psychological ownership on the respondent demographic variables of to whom the admini strative responsibilities Again, these findings provide support for the theory of psychological ownership espoused by Pierce et al. (2003) Pierce and his colleagues asserted that individuals who are provided the opportunity to become invested in a tar get are more likely to develop higher levels of psychological ownership. The results of this study showed that branch campus administrators who have both institutional and branch campus responsibilities and who report to senior level institutional managem ent

PAGE 109

109 tend to develop higher levels of organizational psychological ownership. As expect ed, those employe es who had invested more time and mental energy into the organization and had more influence in how the institution was run were more likely to develop strong feeling of ownership for the institution. Significant differences were also observed in levels of institutional psychological ownership for the institutional characteristics of degree of centralization and the reporting structure s of branch campus staff. These finding s were also antic ipated based on assertions made by Pierce and his colleagues (2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009) Branch campus administrators who were employed at institutions where there was more delegati on of decision making authority experienced greater feelings of psychological ownership. Pierce et al (2001, 2003) assert ed that this is due to the fact that the individual s are provided more of an opportunity to invest themselves in the institution, fulfilling their motive to intimately know the target, invest self in, and control it. These three motives, according to Pierce and his colleagues we re the key routes that facilitate d expression of psychological ownership. Perception of Control and Psychological Ownership Were the feelings of psychological ownership (campus a nd institutional) experienced by branch campus administrators related to their experienced level of perceived job autonomy, participation in decision making and level of perceived job authority and overall degree of perceived control? Moderate relationshi ps were observed for job autonomy, and participation in decision making and institutional psychological ownership. Weaker, but still significant relationships were also found between degree of job authority and institutional psychological ownership. Thes e results correspond to those found by previous researchers (Parker et al., 1997: Pierce

PAGE 110

110 nd Coghlan 2004 riscoll, Pierce, and Coghlan 2006 ; Mayhew, Ashjanasy, Bramble a nd Gardner 2007 ; Han, Chiang a nd Chang 2010 ) who explored the r elationship between autonomy, participation in decision making, and perceived control in the expression of organization based psychological ownership. Furthermore, these results conform to those predicted by the theory of psychological ownership espoused by Pierce et al. (2001, 2003) Branch campus administrators who are given the freedom and latitude to decide where and how they do their jobs, and are permitted to take an active part in organizational decision making, are more likely to express high le vels of psychological o wnership for their institution. Institutional and Campus Psychological Ownership I nstitutional psychological ownership. What was the nature of the relationship between the feelings of psychological ownership (institutional) experien ced by branch campus administrators and individual demographic characteristics, institutional characteristics and perception of control? The linear regression model for organization based psychological ownership was statistically significant, with the pro posed model accounting for approximately 55% of the variance observed in organization based psychological ownership. This suggests that individual, institutional and cont rol factors are all important in facilitating the expression of psychological ownersh ip in branch campus administrators. Furthermore, the overall significance of the job based psychological ownership factor in the regression model provides support for the contention made by riscoll and Coghlan ( 2004 ) that, si n c e employees experienc e the organization through their job job based psychological ownership was an important component of organization based psychological ownership

PAGE 111

111 Campus psychological ownership. What was the nature of the relationship between the feelings of psychological ownership (campus) experienced by branch campus administrators and individual demographic characteristics, institutional characteristics and perception of control? The failure to observe any significant relationship between any of the variables measured in this study and campus (job based) psychological ownership, as well as the non significance of the overall regression model for campus (job based) psychological ownership was surprising and inconsistent with earlier results from and C o ghlan (2004 ) who demonstrated that perception of control was a direct and positive mediating variable in the experience of both job based and organization based psychological ownership in employees of a New Zealand for Pierce, and C oghlan ( 2006 ) who found that the degree of autonomy and degree of participation in decision making of New Zealand workers were related to both job and organization based psychological ownership. However, Asatryn (2006) also found no relationsh ip between the perception of control and degree of psychological ownership that customers developed for a particular restaurant brand Asatryn (2006) suggest ed a possible reason for the failure of the regression model may be that the model was missing a ke y variable, or variables. This was highly probable due to the relative newness of psych ological ownership as construct and the limited research that has been conducted. It was possible, and highly probable, that important relevant variables may have not yet been identified. This contention was supported by Pierce, Kostova and Dirks (2003) in their theoretical proposal where they included a discussion of the possibility that factors other than those

PAGE 112

112 they had presented could be related to psychological ow nership, including individual characteristics, personality traits and culture. Recently McIntyre, Srivastava and F uller ( 2009 ) provided empirical support for this assertion when they demonstrated a relationship between the personality traits locus of cont rol and individualism and organization based psychological ownership. More research into the differences between job based and organization based psychological ownership wa s needed to test these assertions. Another possible explanation for the differing results in this study as compared to other studies examining job based psychological ownership and its antecedents et al. 2006 ; Pierce et al. 2004 ) was related to the different organizational contexts (for profit versus government) in which the employees worked. Pierce, Kostova and Dirks (2003) also posited that, in addition to possible individual characteristics and traits, it was possible that organizational characteristics could also influence the expression of psychological ownership. T he majority of research on psychological ownership cited in this study has been conducted in for profit industries not no n profit or government settings. All of the respondents in this study were employed in public, government supported community college s, a very different environment from the for profit corporate world. Recently, Md Sidin et al. (2010) studied the link between psychological ownership and job performance, satisfaction, and commitment in a public academic setting, and although the se authors estab lished the existence of psychological ownership in th e busin ess school lecturers studied, the study measured only organization based psychological ownership, not job based and was conducted in

PAGE 113

113 Malaysia, a collectivist society very different from the individualistic society in which the subjects of the c urrent study lived and worked More exploration of the differences between job based and organization based psychological ownership needs to be conducted in government/non profit organizations. Implicatio ns for Higher Education Administration The results of this study demonstrated that mid level educational administrators, like employees in for profit companies, develop a sense of psy chological ownership for their jobs and their colleges. P revious researc h conducted in for profit env ironments suggested that c reating an organizational culture that encourages psycho lo gical ownership is valuable for both the organization and the employees (McIntyre et al., 2009, p. 398) It could be argued that crea ting the same type of ownership facilitating environment would also be valuable in educational settings. Pierce et al. (2003), in their initial consideration of the theory of psychological ownership contended that t he development of psycho logical owners hip wa s good for the organization because it and other altruistic behaviors toward it 307) ; and Aryee, Sun and Zhou (2009) further asserted that o rganizations that prompt e d ownership beliefs or psychological ownership in their employees would benefit from positive organiz ational citizenship behaviors. Fr e i berg (2001) contended that employees that feel like o wner s cater to the purpose of the organization by actively suppo rting its mission, vision, values, and strategy and Sharp (2005) stated that ownership provides the A ll of these consequences are likely to be just as desirable in government supp orted educational environments as they are in for profit companies and further exploration of the se contex ts is encouraged.

PAGE 114

114 If organizational psychological ownership produces these same consequences in educational settings as it d oes in for profit companies then e ducat ional leaders who desire d to facilitate the development of psychological ownership in their employees would want to use a flexible, a daptive leadership style characterized by participation and delegation (Wood, 2003 ). Higher education man a gers could promo te the same routes for facilitation of p sychol o gical ownership with their employees as do for profit managers F or example they c ould organize work such that there we re increased opportunities for employee con trol, increased intimate knowledge and provi de occasions for the employees to make significant investments of self into the institution (Pierce et al. 2001 ). Fu rther more, educational managers would want to rely on practices that will develop organizational un derstanding and provide opp ortunities for influence. A participatory climate of employee influence, control and self d etermination facilitates the development of organizational psychological ownership in for profit industries b y promot ing employee shar ing of organiz ation al goals and the beli ef that they are trus ted to act in the best interest of the institution (Wagner, Parker, and Christiansen, 2003) ; such a climate is likely to promote the same in educational settings In addition to creating a participatory culture, Pierce, Jussila an d Cummings (2009) further asserted that man a gers could accomplish the facilitation of psychological ownership in employees by focus ing on designing jobs that we re complex non routine, and require d high skill variety and autonomy. Complex, non routine job s provide employees the opportunity to personalize and invest themselves in their work, thus providing them intimate knowledge, a sense of control and a feeling of belongingness;

PAGE 115

115 meeting all three of the routes that facilitate the development of organizati onal psychological ownership. Thus, if future research continues to suggest that the psychological ownership theory applies to higher educational institutions; educational managers w ould want to create organizational structures such that their administrat ors we re provided with a maximum degree of flexibility, participation in decision making and local control over their work. Implications for Branch Campus Administration Branch campus administrators have been shown to demonstrate psychological ownership fo r both their campuses (job based ) and institution (organization based) indicating that the theory of psychological ownership can be applied specifically to branch campus administration. P revious research conducted in for profit industries links psychologi cal ownership to positive organizational citizenship behaviors such as stronger job performance and increased or ganizational commitment (Pierce et al., 2001, 2003; McIntyre et al. 2009 ) and Md Sidin et al. ( 2010 ) found similar outcomes in Mala ysian busi ness school lecturers; therefore it is likely that this would also be true for branch campus administrator s. Unfortunately, this study examined only those factors that facilitated the development of psychological ownership and not it s consequences s o i t is recommended that future research examine both the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in branch campus administrators. Hermanson (1995) asserted that supportive supervisors were important to the success of a branch campus administra tor. Therefore, if psychological ownership was found to be related to positive organizational citizenship behaviors in branch campus administrators, then senior leaders of multi campus institutions would want to strive to provide an empowering environment to their branch campus administrator s. Pierce et

PAGE 116

116 al ( 2001, 2003 ) McIntyr e et al., ( 2009 ) and Md Sidin et al., ( 2010 ) all argued that by provid ing administrators with the authority, autonomy, and opportunity to participate in decision making th e college wou ld creat e a campus culture that empowered individuals and enhance d the ir sense of psychological ownership On the other hand, however, both McIntyre et al., (2009) and Pierce et al. (2009) caution that the picture may not be all positive when it comes to the potential consequences of psychological ownership. Dirks et al., (1996) found that organization based psychological ownership was also associated with the negative organizational citizenship behaviors of resistance to organizational change and a reluctance to share work (or workspace) with co workers Brown Lawrence and Robinson (2005) further contended that territorial and defensive behaviors were potential outcomes of psychological ownership and that jealousy might arise when othe rs begi n to develop intimate knowledge of the target of ownership or in the case of branch campus administrators, the branch campus These potential negative consequ ences are particularly significant for branch campus administration since a territorial a nd could lead to a failure by the branch campus administrator to share information about their campus with the rest of the college thus affecting the critically important branch/main campus relationship Given St combination of shared decision making or decision making after consultation with the further research is needed into both negative and positive consequences of psychological ownership in branch campus administrators.

PAGE 117

117 Directions for Future Research There is a very limited body of research in the literature concerning branch campus at an amorphous Sidin et al., 2010 p. 55 ) Thus it is not surprising that several questions remain yet to be answered. 1. The role of the branch campus administrator as a campus and institutional leader in the multi campus organization should be examined further. 2. Research should be conducted to validate the existence of psychological ownership in other higher education administrators. 3. Research should be conducted to examine the influence of psychological ownership on positive organizational ci tizenship behaviors i.e., job satisfaction, or organizational commitment, in branch campus administrators. 4. Research should be conducted to examine the influence of psychological ownership on negative organizational citizenship behaviors like territoriality and resistance to organizational change in branch campus administrators. 5. Differences between job based and organization based psychological ownership should be examined in both for profit and government/non profit organizations. 6. The impact of individual diffe rences such as personality traits and characteristics on the expression of psychological ownership should be examined in for profit, non profit and educational environments. 7. The impact of cultural differences characteristics on the expression of psychologic al ownership should be examined in for profit, non profit and educational environments. 8. The role of organizational characteristics on the expression of psychological ownership should be examined in for profit, non profit and educational environments. 9. The ro le that the leadership style of senior level management plays in the development of psychological ownership in their direct reports should be examined. 10. The relationship between organizational and campus psychological ownership and ed ucational management pr actices should be further examined. 11. The relationship between organizational and campus psychological ownership and institutional size should be further examined.

PAGE 118

118 12. The relationship between organizational and campus psychological ownership and institutional g overnance patterns should be further examined. Final Conclusion s The results of this study provide evidence that branch campus administrators, like employees in for profit organizations, develop a cognitive affective sense of possession (psychological owne rship) for both the ir campuses and their colleges. This f inding provided support for application of the theory of psychological ownership in higher education settings Differences were observed in the levels of campus (job based) and institutional (organization based) psychological ownership, which suggested that these two types of psychological ownership were different constructs with potentially differing facilitation routes. Unlike previous research conducted in the for profit realm, t he result s of this study did not allow conclusions as to potential facilitating factors for job based (campus) psychological ownership. Further research into the factors influencing the development of job based (campus) psychological ownership is needed in branch campus administrators as well as in other educational and non profit environments. On the other hand, the results of this study did demonstrate that individual and institutional characteristics that promoted the development of an intimate knowledge and an investment of self into the college, as well as the perception of autonomy and control, helped to facilitate the development of institutional psychological ownership in educational settings Thi s indicated that the theor y of organizational psychological ownership could be applied to communit y college administrators However, further research is needed into the consequences of the experience of organizational

PAGE 119

119 psychological ownership in non pro fit and educational settings, as well as into the implications this would have on educational managem ent practices.

PAGE 120

120 APPENDIX A SURVEY

PAGE 121

121

PAGE 122

122

PAGE 123

123

PAGE 124

124

PAGE 125

125

PAGE 126

126

PAGE 127

127

PAGE 128

128

PAGE 129

129

PAGE 130

130

PAGE 131

131 APPENDIX B PRE NOTICE E MAIL Hello! You are receiving this e mail because you have been identified as an educational leader who has responsibility for branch or regional campus matters at your i nstitutio n. In a few days you will receive an e mail request to fill out a survey for an important project being conducted by the Community College Leadership Consortium at the University of Florida. The survey is entitled Branch Campus Administrators: Ow nership and Control and its purpose is to collect information to examine the factors that contribute to the psychological ownership that branch campus administrators experience in the course of leading their campuses. The perceptions of branch campus admi nistrators are the important aspects of this study. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I hope you will take the time to complete the survey; the information provided by campus leaders like you is essential to furthering research in branch campus administration. Lisa Valentino Doctoral Student, College of Education, University of Florida Campus Provost, Seminole State College of Florida Dr. Dale Campbell Director of the Community College Leadership Consortium Interim Director of School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education, College o f Education University of Florida

PAGE 132

1 32 APPENDIX C EMAIL LETTER REQUEST ING PARTICIPATION Dear Branch Campus colleagues, You have been identified as an educational leader who has responsibility for branch or regional campus matters at your institution. Your views about these matters are highly valued, so we invite you to participate in a research study entitled Psychological Ownership in Branch Campus Administrators: Influence of Perceived Contr ol. The intent of the study is to examine the factors that contribute to the psychological ownership that branch campus administrators experience in the course of leading their campuses The perceptions of branch campus administrators are the important as pects of this study. Therefore, you are asked to please (a) complete the web survey located at http://www.stellarsurvey.com/s.aspx?u=7FB9304E B9AC 4372 93F2 2371F98AA9 3D& by December 1, 2010 The study is being conducted under the guidance of Professor Dale Campbell at the University of Florida. It has been designed to: 1. Assess the levels of psychological ownership Branch Campus administrators experience for their institutions and campuses. 2. Examine the factors that contribute to the psychological ownership that branch campus administrators experience in the course of leading their campuses. The survey instrument should take no longer than 20 to 30 minutes for yo u to complete. Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary and your decision to participate or not will in no way impact your relationship with the College of Education or University of Florida. To encourage full participation however, a r eminder notice will be sent to anyone who has not completed the survey by December 1, 2010. The results of the data gathered will be aggregated. Therefore, individual responses will not be identified. If, for any reason you are unable to complete the web based survey, a pencil and paper version can be sent to you. Also, if you would like to have a copy of the results of this study, please check the box at the end of the questionnaire and insert your e mail address in the space provided. Thank you very m uch for your time and cooperation! Sincerely, Lisa Valentino Doctoral Student, College of Education, University of Florida Campus Provost, Seminole State College of Florida Dr. Dale Campbell

PAGE 133

133 Director of the Community College Leadership Consortium Inter im Director of School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education College of Education, University of Florida

PAGE 134

134 APPENDIX D SECOND REQUEST FOR Y OUR PARTICIPATION Dear branch campus colleague. Recently I sent you a request for your participa tion in a survey about your experiences as a branch campus administrator entitled Psychological Ownership in Branch Campus Administrators: Influence of Perceived Control. You were chosen to participate in this study due to that fact that you are recognize d as an educational leader who has responsibility for branch or regional campus matters at your institution. Your views about these matters are highly valued. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire to us, please accept our sincere th anks. If not, we urge you to please consider doing so today. Your opinions are very important in helping us further research in branch campus administration. We are very grateful for your help. The intent of the study is to examine the factors that contr ibute to the psychological ownership that branch campus administrators experience in the course of leading their campuses It is hoped that the results of this study will aid in a better understanding of branch campus administration. Therefore, you are a sked to please (a) complete the web survey located at http://stellarsurvey.com/s.aspx?u=7FB9304E B9AC 4372 93F2 2371F98AA93D& before Monday December 13, 2010. The study is being conducted under the guidance of Professor Dale Campbell at the University of Florida. It has been designed to: 1. Assess the levels of psychological ownership Branch Campus administrators experience for their institutions and campuses. 2. Examine the fa ctors that contribute to the psychological ownership that branch campus administrators experience in the course of leading their campuses. The survey instrument should take no longer than 20 to 30 minutes for you to complete. Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary and your decision to participate or not will in no way impact your relationship with the College of Education or the University of Florida The results of the data gathered will be aggregated. Therefore, individual responses will not be identified. No individual responses will be included in the report, so please take a few minutes to log in and complete the twenty item survey. If, for any reason you are unable to complete the web based survey pencil and paper version can b e sent to you. Also, if you would like to have a copy of the results of this study, please check the box at the end of the questionnaire and insert your e mail address in the space provided.

PAGE 135

135 Thank you very much for your time and cooperation! Sincerely, Lisa Valentino Doctoral Student, College of Education, University of Florida Campus Provost, Seminole State College of Florida Dr. Dale Campbell Director of the Community College Leadership Consortium Interim Director of School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education College of Education, University of Florida

PAGE 136

136 APPENDIX E FINAL FOLLOW UP EMAIL REQUESTING PARTICIPATION Dear Branch campus colleague, At the end of last year we sent you a survey about your experiences as a branch campus administrator entitled Psychological Ownership in Branch Campus Administrators: Influence of Perceived Control. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please accept our sincere thanks. If not, we urge you to please consider doing so today. Your opinions are very important in helping us further research in branch campus administration. We are very grateful for your help. You were chosen to participate in this study due to that fact that you are recognized as an educational leader wh o has responsibility for branch or regional campus matters at your institution. Your views about these matters are highly valued. You are one of only 500 branch campus administrators to receive this survey and your input is extremely importa nt to the outco me of the study. The intent of the study is to examine the factors that contribute to the psychological ownership that branch campus administrators experience in the co urse of leading their campuses. It is hoped that the results of this study will aid in a better understanding of branch campus administration. Therefore, you are asked to please (a) complete the web survey located at http://stellarsurvey.com/s.aspx?u=7FB9304E B9AC 4372 93F2 2371F98AA93D& before January 12, 2011. The study is being conducted under the guidance of Professor Dale Campbell at the University of Florida. It has been designed t o: 1. Assess the levels of psychological ownership Branch Campus administrators experience for their institutions and campuses. 2. Examine the factors that contribute to the psychological ownership that branch campus administrators experience in the course of leading their campuses. The survey instrument should take approximately 20 to 30 minutes for you to complete. Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary and your decision to participate or not will in no way impact your relationship wi th the College of Education or University of Florida. The results of the data gathered will be aggregated. Therefore, individual responses will not be identified. No individual responses will be included in the report, so please take a few minutes to log in and complete the twenty item survey. If, for any reason you are unable to complete the web based survey pencil and paper version can be sent to you. Also, if you would like to have a copy of the results of this study, please check the box at the end o f the questionnaire and insert your e mail address in the space provided. Thank you very much for your time and cooperation!

PAGE 137

137 Sincerely, Lisa Valentino Doctoral Student, College of Education, University of Florida Campus Provost, Seminole State College o f Florida Dr. Dale Campbell Director of the Community College Leadership Consortium Interim Director of School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education College of Education, University of Florida

PAGE 138

138 LIST OF REFERENCES American Associat ion of Community Colleges (AACC). (1995). AACC facts 1995 Washington D.C.: AACC. AACC. (2000). Community colleges past to present Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Ab outCC/history/Pages/pasttopresent.aspx AACC. (2007) Serving communities, strengthening the nation Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/serving.aspx AACC. (2009 ). Abo ut community college: Fast facts Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/fastfacts.aspx AACC. (2011). About community colleges Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/default.aspx Alfred, R. (1998). Redesigning community colleges to compete for the future. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22 315 333. Amey, M. Jessup Ang er, E. & Jessup Anger, J. (2008). Community college governance: What matters and why? New Directions for Community Colleges, 141 5 14. Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2003). Electronic survey methodology: A case study in reaching hard to involv e Internet users. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 16 (2), 185 210. Anthony, J. (1976). Ref lections on the cluster college. New Directions for Community Colleges 13, 11 24. Asatryn, V. (2006). Psychologic al ownership theory: An appl ication for the restaurant industry (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from h ttp://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=4&did=1158516971&SrchM ode=2&sid=2&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS= 1296878131&clientId=20179 Aryee, S., Sun, L., & Zhou, Q. (2009). Employee organization relationship, psychological o wner sh ip and contextual performance: A social exchange p erspective Academy o f Management Proceedings 2009 1 6. Avey, J ., Avolio B., Crossley C., & Luthan, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outco mes. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30 (2), 173 191

PAGE 139

139 Bailey, N. (2002). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by branch campus executive officers in multi campus communit y college systems (Doctoral disserta tion). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=7 27400581&SrchMo de=2&sid=2&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1 239486057&clientId=20179 Bebko, P (2009). Definition profiles: An update on the work of the NABCA research committee Presentation at the 12 th annual con ference of the National B ranch C ampus Administrators (NABCA). Panama City Beach, FL. April 16, 2009. Bebko, P. & Huffman, D. (in press). Developing a typology of branch campuses: findings from the NABCA campus and center administrator survey. Metropolitan Universities Becker I. (1964). The case for community/junior colleges Junior College Journal, 34 26 30. Beggan, J. (1991). Using what you own to get what you need: The role of possessions in satisfying control motivation. In Rudmin, F.W. (Ed.). To have possessions: A h andbo ok on ownership and property. (Special issue) Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6 (6), 129 146. Beggan, J. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 62 (2) 22 9 237. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 139 168. Belton, L. (2008). in collaborative wildlife management: A survey of sage grous e local working groups (D o ctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?did=1568967671&sid=2& Fmt=6&c lientId=20179&RQT=309&VName=PQD Bennis W.G. (1999). The leadership advantage. Leader to Leader 12 18 23. Berger, J. (2002). The influence of the organizational structures of colleges and universities on college student learning. Peabody Journ al of Education 77 (3), 10 59. Bernstein, P. (1979). Workplace democratization: Its internal dynamics New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Bird, C. (in press). A perspective on the future of branch campuses. Metropolitan Universities

PAGE 140

140 Birnbaum, R. (1991). H ow colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leader ship San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Blevins, R. (2001). A study of the association between organizational trust a nd decision making, communications and collaborations incomprehensive, regional institutions of higher education (D octoral dissertation ) Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 4236. Block, M. (1970). M.U.D An increasing dilemma for community junior college. Community and Junior College Journal, 40, 23 25 Blocker, C ., & Campbell, H. (1963). Administrative practices in university extension centers and branch campuses Austin TX : University of Texas Blocker, C., Plummer, R., & Richardson, Jr., R. (1 965). The two year college: A social synthesis. Englewood Cliff s NJ: Prentice Hall Boldman, L. & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: A rtistry, choice and leadership 3 rd edition. San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass, Inc. Bond, J. (1983). Perceptions of s elected community college parent campus administrators, accountable for branch campuses, concerning the desirable functions and responsibilities of community college branch campuses (D octoral dissertation ). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?did=753574711&sid=1&Fmt=6&cli entId=20179&RQT=309&VName=PQD Boone, E. J. (1997). National perspective of community col leges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21 1 12. Brass, D. (1985). Technology and the structuring of jobs: Employee satisfaction, performance and influence. Organiza tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35 (2), 216 240. Buchko, A. (1992). Effects of e mployee ownership on employee at titudes: Three theoretical persp ectives. Work and Occupations, 19 59 78. Burk, C. ( 1900 ) The collecting instinct. Pedagogica l Seminary, 7, 179 207. Cattell, N. (1971). The branch campus role in community based education. The Educational Record, Fall 368 370. Chang, N. (1978). Organizational structure in the multi campus community junior colleges/districts Community Colleg e of Denver. ( Eric Document Reproduction Service No ED 158 795 )

PAGE 141

141 Chieffo, A. (1991). Factors contributing to job satisfaction and organizational commitment of community college leadership teams. Community College Review, 19 (2), 15 25. Chi, N. & Han, T. (2008). Exploring the linkages between formal ownership and psychological ownership for the organization: The mediating role of organizational justice. Journal of Occupational and Or ganizational Psychology, 81, 691 711 Clark, B. (1983). The higher edu cation system: Academic organization in cross national perspective. Berkley, CA: U niversity of California Press. Clark, G. (1992). Culture, leadership and organizational systems. In G. Baker III and Associates (Ed). munity colleges Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges Cohen, A. (2001). Are all community colleges alike? Los Angeles, CA: Eric Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Document No. ED 452 313 ) C ohen A. (1999). Governmental policies affecting community coll eges. Draft of a chapter from B Townsend (Ed). Community colleges: Policy in the future context (ERIC Reproduction Service Document No. ED 429 623 ) Cohen, A. (1995). Projecting the futur e of community colleges. Los Angeles, CA: Eric Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. ( ERIC Digest Document No. ED 388 351 ) Cohen, A. & Brawer, F. (2003). The American community college (4 th Ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Cohen A. & Brawer, F. (1994). The challenging environment: Context, concepts and crisis. In A. M. Cohen, and F. B. Brawer, (Eds.) (1994). Managing community colleges (p. 5 21). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Cohen, M. (1972) Junior college growth. Change, 4 (9), 32a 32d. Conover, K. (2009). Leadership competencies of branch campus administrators in multi campus community college systems (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?did=1820123691&sid=3&Fmt=6&c lientId=20179&RQT=309&VName=PQD Corbelli, J. (1989). Administrative decision making styles in higher education (D octoral dissertation ) Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=24&did=746870051&SrchM od e=1&sid=2&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS= 1239486713&clientId=20179

PAGE 142

142 Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods a pproaches (3rd ed.). Los Ang e les CA : Sage Crom, M. (2000). The new key to employee retention. Leader to Leader, 18 12 14. Crowne, D. & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24 349 354. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg Halton, E. ( 1981 ) The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self Cambridge MA : Cambridge University Press. Das, G. ( 1993 ) Local memoirs of a global manager. Harvard Business Review 71 (2): 38 47. Davis, G. (2001). Issues in community college governa nce. Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/pastprojects/Pages/issuesccg overnance.aspx Dean Dad (2011, January 9 ). Blog: Confession of a community college dean Inside Higher Ed (Online) Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions_of_a_community_college_dean/ an_op en_letter_to_ed_d_candidates Dengerink, H. (2001). Branch campuses as the new metropolitan universities. Metropolitan Universities, 12 (2), 7 9. Dewar, R., Whetten, D., and Boje, D. (1980). An examination of the reliability and validity of the Aiken and Hage scales of centralization, formalization, and task routineness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (1), 120 128. Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New York NY Dirks, K. T., Cummin gs, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. (1996). Psychological ownership in organizations: Conditions under which individuals promote and resist change. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Res earch in Organizational Change a nd Development, 9 1 23. Greenwich, CT: IAI Press. Donhardt, G. (1996). How far will commuters travel? Planning For Higher Education, 25 (1), 34 43. Dunderstadt, J. (2000). A university for the 21 st century Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Eaton, J. (1994). Strengthening colleg iate education in community colleges San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

PAGE 143

143 Etzioni, A. (1991). The socio economics of property. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 465 468. Evans, J. P. (1999). Benefits and barriers to shared authority. In M. Mi ller (ed.), (1999). Responsive academic decision making involving faculty in higher education governance. Stillwater, OK: New Forums. Ewers, P. (2000). Report to Roosevelt University: On governance for a multi campus university. Chicago, IL: Roosevelt U niversity. Fink, A. (2008). How to conduct surveys: A step by step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Fonseca, J. & Bird, C. (2007, October). Under the radar: Branch campuses take off. University Business (Online) Retrieved from. http://www.universitybusiness.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=924 Freiberg, K. (2001, July). Owner mentality. Executive Excellence 7 8. Frye, J. (1992). The vision of the public j unior college 1900 1940 Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Fryer, T., Jr. & Lovas, J. (1990). Leadership in governance: Creating conditions for successful decision making in the community college San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Furby, L. ( 1978a ) Possessions: Toward a theory of their meaning and function throughout the life cycle. In P. B. Baltes (Ed.), Life Span Development a nd Behavior, 1 297 336. New York: Academic Press. Furby, L. ( 1978b ) Possession in humans: An exploratory study of its meaning and motivatio n. Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (1), 49 65. Furby, L. ( 1980 ) The origins and early development of possessive behavior. Political Psychology, 2 (1), 30 42. Furby, L. (1991). Understanding the psychology of possession and owner ship: A personal memoir and an appraisal of our progress. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 457 463. Gade, M. (1993). Four multi campus systems: Some policies and practices that work Washington DC: Association of Governing Boards of Colleg es and Universities. Gaither, G. (Ed). (1999). The multi campus system Sterling, VA: Stylus. Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1999). Studying on line social networks. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing i nternet research: Critical issues and metho ds for examining the net (pp. 75 105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

PAGE 144

144 Gerstman, B. (2006). StatPrimer (Version 6.4). (13) ANOVA topics (post h oc comparisons, Levene's test, n on parametric tests) Retrieved from http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/gerstman/StatPrimer/anova b.pdf gillie go ssom, j & Pelton, M. (in press ). Branch campus leadership: Like running a three ring circus? Metropolitan Universities Glatter, R. (1999). From struggling t o juggling: Towards a redefinition of the field of educational leadership and management. Educational Management and Administration 25 (2), 181 192. Glatter, R. (1979). Educational policy and management: One field or two? Educational Analysis, 1 (2), 15 24. Gleazer, E. (1998). Values, vision and vitality Washington, DC: Community College Press. Gleazer, E. (1991). Evolution of junior colleges into community colleges. In: G. Baker, III and associates. (1991) A handbook on the community college in Ame rica: Its history, mission and management Westport, CT: Greenwood press. Gleazer, E. (1971). The emerging role of the community junior college. Peabody Journal of Education 48 (4), 255 256. Gliem, J. & Gliem, R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting C ha reliability coefficient for L ikert type scales Midwest research to practice conference in adult, continuing, and community education 2003 c onfer ence p roceedings 82 88 Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/344/Gliem+&+Gliem.pdf?seq uence=1 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal Applied Psychology, 60 159 170. Hag e J ., & Aiken, M. ( 1967 ). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 72 92. Han, T., Chiang, H & Chang A. (2010) Employee participation in decision making, psychological ow nership and knowledge sharing: M ediating role of organizational commitment in Taiwanese high tech organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21 ( 12 ), 2218 2233 Havighurst, R. & Neurfarten, B. (1957). Society and education Englewood Cliff, NJ: Allyn & Bacon

PAGE 145

145 Harper, W. (1971) The community and junior college: An overview. Peabody Journal of Education 48 (4), 257 261. Heermann, B. (Ed). (1976). Changing managerial perspectives. New Directions for Community Colleges, 13 4 Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations New York NY : Wiley. Hermanson, D. (1993). critic al issues of lower division branch campuses of four year institutions Grand Forks : University of North Dakota. ( Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 358 897 ) Hermanson, D. (1995). Inter campus relations as perceived by branch campus and main camp us administrators (D octoral dissertation ). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?did=742872231&sid=2&Fmt=6&c li entId=20179&RQT=309&VName=PQD Hill, R. (1985). Multi campus university organizational structure and branch campus administrative problems (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=1&did=752951321&SrchMo de=1&sid=3&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1 239486950&clientId =20179 Holland, B. (2001). From the Editor. Metropolitan Universities, 12 (2), 4 6. Honeyman, D., Wattenbarger, J. & Westbrook, K. (Eds.) 1996). A struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next century Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc Huitt, R. (1972) The 10,000 mile campus: University branches put education where students are. College and University Business, 53 41 43, 45 Idaszak, J. & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the job diagnostic survey: Elimination of a measurement ar tifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69 74. Institutional Eligibility. 34 C F R pt. 600.2 (2011) Retrieved from http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text idx?c=ecfr&sid=702c7e87ace35f7eefc7466b2beb3c3f&rgn=div8&view=text&node =34:3.1.3.1.1.1.23.2&idno=34 Jenkins, J. (1974 ). An exploratory study of relationships between control and authority patterns and organizational efficiency in urban multi unit community college systems (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=761309781&SrchMo de=1&sid=4&Fmt=1&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1 239487056&clientId=20179

PAGE 146

146 Jenkins, J. & Rossmeier, J. (1974). Relationships between centralization/decentralization and organizational effectiveness in urban multiunit community college systems A summary report. Ann Arbor MI: Center for the Study of Higher Education. ( Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 110 103 ). Jensen, A. (1965). An investigation of the administration of junior college districts with multi campuses (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=754571331&SrchMo de=1&sid=6&Fmt=1&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1 239487155&clientId=20179 Jensen, A. (1984). Multi campus c ommunity colleges: Twenty years later Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education National Institute of Education (p. 5 23) (ERIC Reproduction Service Document No. ED256413 ) Johnsrud, L. K. (1996). Maintaining morale: A guide to assessing the moral e of midlevel administrators and faculty Washington, DC: Colleg e and University Personnel Asso ciation. Johnsrund, L. Heck, R. & Rosser, V. (2000). Morale matters: Midlevel administrators and their intent to leave. The Journal of Higher Education 71 (1) 34 59 Johnsrud, L. & Rosser, V. (1999). College and university midlevel administrators: Explaining and improving their morale. The Review for Higher Education, 22 (2), 121 141. Johnstone, D. B. (1992). Central administration of public multi campus col lege and university systems Albany, NY: State University of New York P ress Jones, M. (1968). The development of multiunit junior colleges. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information. Karasek R. (1979). Job demands, job decis ion latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 285 306. Katsinas, S. & Hardy, D. E. (2004). Publicly controlled two year institutions in the United States. ( Unpublished draft re port). D enton, TX: University of N orth Texas Kenny, D. (2011, September 22). A teacher quality manifesto. The Wall Street Journal (O nline). Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/ article/SB10001424052748703440604575496281030445268 .html Kerr, C., Millett, J. D., Clark, B. R., MacArthur, B., & Bowen, H. R. (1978). 12 Systems of Higher Education: 6 Decisive Issues. New York NY : Inter national Council for Education al Development. ( Eric Document Reproduction Service Document No. ED 177 952 ).

PAGE 147

147 Kezar, A. (2004). What is more effective governance: Relationships, trust and leadership or structures and formal processes? New Directions for Higher Education, 127 San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bas s Kintzer, F. (1969). The multi institution junior college district Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community Colleg es (ERIC Document Reproduction S ervice Document No. ED 030 415). Kintzer, F., Jensen A., & Hansen, J. (1969). The multi ins titution junior college district Washington, D C : American Association of Junior Colleges. (Eric R eproduction Services Document No ED 030 41 5 ). Kline, L., & France, C. J. ( 1899 ) The psychology of mine. Pedagogical Seminary & Genetic Psychology, 6 ( 4), 421 470. Koos, L. (1944a). How to democratize the junior college. School Review, 52, 271 284 Koos, L. (1944b). Local versus regional junior colleges. School Review, 52, 525 531. Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B.Z. (1997). Leadership Challenge (5 th Editi on ) San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Krueger, J. (2009). Branch campus leaders descriptions of the main campus administrative, departmental and faculty attitudes toward the branch organization, and their level of job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?did=1878782491&sid=3&Fmt=6&c lientId=20179&R QT=309&VName=PQD Krysan, M. (1998). Privacy and the expression of white racial attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62 506 544. Kubzansky, P. E., & Druskat, V. U. ( 1993 ) Psychological sense of ownership in the workplace: Conceptualization and measur ement Paper present ed at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario. Ladner, M. D., Wingenbach, G., & Raven, M. (2002). Internet and paper based data collection methods in agricultural education research Proceedings of the Southern Agricultural Education Research Conference, Orlando, FL. Retrieved from http://pubs.aged.tamu.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/jsaer/pdf/Vol52/52 02 040.pdf Lander V. (1977). The significance of structure in Arizona community college districts: A limited study. Graduate seminar Paper: University of Arizona. ( Eric Document Reproduction S ervices Document No ED 139 481 ) Lee, E. & Bowen, F. (1971). The multi cam pus university: A study of academic governance New York NY : McGraw Hill Co.

PAGE 148

148 Lee, E. & Bowen, F. (1975). Managing multi campus systems: Effective administration in and unsteady state San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Levinson, D. (2005). Community college s: A reference handbook Santa Barbara, CA: ABC CLIO. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/ books?id=xrnPJcb7c54C&printsec=copyright&dq=%22Le vinson%22+%22Community+colleges:+A+reference+handbook%22+&lr=#PPR4, M1 Litwinski, L. (1947). Philosophy, 22, 240 251. Llieva, J., Baron, S., & Healey, N. M. (2002). Online surv eys in marketing research: Pros and cons. International Journal of Market Research, 44 (3), 361 367. Mayhew, M., Ashkansy, N., Bramble, T, & Gardner, J. (2007). A study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational setti ngs. Journal of Social Psychology, 147 177 500. McCabe, R. (1977). Planning for a community college system. Planning For Higher Education, 6, 41 43. McClenney, K. (2004). The promise of community colleges. Community College Journal, 75 (3) 12 15. McG regor, D. (1986). The human side of enterprise New York NY : Mc G raw Hill. McIntrye, N., Srivastava, A., & Fuller, J. (2009). The relationship of locus of control and motives with psychological ownership in organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues 21 (3) 383 401. Md Sidin, S., Sambasivan, M. & Muniandt, N. (2010). Impact of psychological ownership on the performance of business school lecturers Jo urnal of Education for Busine ss 85 (1) 50 56. Medsker, L. (1960). The junior college: Progress and prospe ct New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Medsker, L. & Trent, J. (1965). The influence of different types of public higher institutions on college attendance from varying socioeconomic and ability levels. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Cooperat ive Research Project No. 438. Berkeley, C A .: Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley. (ERIC Reproduction Service D ocument No. ED 002 875 ) Mehta, R. & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing responses rates and response cont ent in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37 (4), 429 440

PAGE 149

149 Mertzer, M. (2008) Perceptions of inter campus relations by branch campus and main campus student affairs administrators in multi campus public universit ies in Florida (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.co m.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=1481676501&SrchM ode=1&sid=7&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS= 1239487535&clientId=20179 Miller, M. & Miles, J. (2008). Internal g overnance in the community college: Models and quilts. New Direction s for Community Colleges, 141 35 44. Moltz, D. (2011, January 13). To library, or not to library. Inside Higher Ed (on line). Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/13/community_colleges_debate_wh en_branch_campuses_need_libraries Monroe, C. (1972). Profile of the community college San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. sident reports on trends in higher education. AAHE bulletin, 53( 10), 7 9. Mutahseb, A. (2004). The Internet as an alternative source of information and alternative forum of expression for Arab Americans. (Doctoral dissertation ). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=766261911&SrchMo de=2&sid=1&Fmt=6& VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1 240281681&clientId=20179 Norby, P. (2005). Out on a limb: serving students at one community college branch campus. (D octoral dissertation ). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=1020076871&SrchM ode=1&sid=8&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS = 1239487641&clientId=20179 Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory New York NY : McGraw Hill. A learning college for the 21 st century Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. & Coghlan, A. (2006). The psychology of owners hip: Work environment structure, organizational commitment and citizenship behaviors. Group and Organizational Management, 31 (3), 388 416. The wrong kind of ownership. Across the Board September, 19 20. Parker, S. Wall T., & Jacks on, P. ( 1997 ). eveloping flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (4), 899 929.

PAGE 150

150 Parilla, R. (1993). Adapting institutional structure and culture to change. New Directions for Community Colleges, 84 21 3 3. Peterson, M. W., & Dill, D. D. (1997). Understanding the competitive environment of the postsecondary knowledge industry. In Marvin W. Peterson, David D. Dill, Lisa A. Mets and Associates, Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary I nstitutions (pp. 3 29). San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Peters, T., & Austin, N. ( 1985 ) A passion for excellence New York NY : Random House. Pierce, J, Jussilia, I ., & Cummings, A. (2009). Psychological ownership within the job d esign context: R evision of the job characteristics model Journal of Organizational B ehavior, 30 477 496. Pierce, J. Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review 26 298 310 Pierce, J. Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and expending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7, 84 107. Pierce, J., M. & Coghlan, A. ( 2004) Work environment structur e an d psychological ownership: The mediating effects of control. Journal of Social Psychology, 144 50 7 534. Pierce, J ., & Rodgers, L. (2004). The psycholog y of ownership and worker owner productivity. Group and Organization M anagement, 29 599 613. Pierc e, J. L., Rubenfeld, S. A., & Morgan, S. ( 1991 ) Employee ownership: A conceptual model of process and effects. Academy of Management Review, 16 121 144. Pierce, J. Van Dyne L. & Cummings L. (1992) Psychological o wnership: A c onceptual and operational exploration New Orleans LA : Southern Management Association Proceedings (pp. 203 211). Pratt, M., & Dutton, J ( 2000 ) Owning up or opting out: The role of identities and emotions in issue ownership. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Hartel, & W. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotion s in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice. (pp. 103 129 ) New York NY : Quorum. Protch, O. (2006). Delegation of authority. Supervision, 67 (4), 12 14. Reitano, J. (1988). The community college mission: Access or anarchy? Paper presented at the Co nference on General Education and The Two Year College, Buffalo, NY April 22 23, 1988 ( Eric Document Reproduction S ervices Document No ED 295 698). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED29569 8.pdf

PAGE 151

151 Richardson, R. (1973). Governing the multi unit community college system. Educational Record, 54, 141 146 Richardson, R., Blocker, C. & Bender, L. (1972). Governance for the two year college. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Romesburg, K. ( 1972). Characteristics of branch colleges in the United States Ann Arbor, MI: University press Rosenbaum, J. (2001). Beyond college for all: Career paths for the forgotten half New York NY : Russell Sage Foundation. Rossmeier, J. (1973). An exploratory study of the relationship between control and authority patterns and organizational responsiveness in urban multiunit community college systems. (Doctoral dissertation ). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=759169611&SrchMo de=1&sid=9&Fmt=1&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1 239487741&client Id=20179 Rossmei er, J. (1976). Perspectives on m ultiunit colleges. New Directio ns for Community Colleges, 13 77 88 Rosser, V. (2000). Midlevel Administrators: What we know New Directions for Higher Education 111 5 13. Rushing, J. (1970). Managing the multi campus. College Management, 5 14 16. Rucker, R. (1979). College. (D octoral dissertation ). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=749235081&SrchMo de=1&sid=11&Fmt=1&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS= 1239487956&c lientId=20179 Rudmin, F. W., & Berry, J. W. ( 1987 ) Semantics of ownership: A free recall study of property. The Psychological Record, 37 257 268. Sammartino, P. (1964). Multiple campuses Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickenson University Press. Santos, J.R. (1999). Cronbach's a lpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of E xtension, 37 (2). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.php Sasser, J. (1978). Satellite c enters: An educational medium of the future. Community College Frontiers, 6, 25 27.

PAGE 152

152 Scott, R. (1978). Lords, squires and yeoman: Collegiate middle managers and their organizations. ASHE ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No 7 Washington DC: America n Association for Higher Education. Schindler, C. (1952). Stepchild of the college campus. The Journal of Higher Education, 23 (4), 191 197+227 228. Seligman, M. E. P. ( 1975 ) Helplessness. San Francisco CA : Freeman. Sethi, D. (2000). Leading from the mid dle. Leader to Leader, 7 6 9 Shaw, K & Bornhoft, S. (In press) C ommunity support and relevance to community: Indispensable underpinnings for branch campuses Metropolitan Universities Sharp, D. (2005, March 12). Developing managers. New Straits T imes 12. Smith, C., Tisak, J., Hahn, S. & Schmieder, R (1997). The measurement of job control Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 18 ( 3 ), 225 237 Smith, S. (2010) How do I become a ringmaster? Retrieved from http://www.wisegeek.com/how do i become a ringmaster.htm Spencer, P (1997). Breaking free: Forces that affect a center becoming a college San Jacinto CA : Mt San Jacinto College. ( Eric Document Reproduction S ervices Doc ument No ED 409 964 ). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED409964.pdf Stahley, M. (2002). Multi campus university organizational structure and branch campus administrative problems: An iteration an d expansion of Hill (Doctoral Dissertation ). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi .com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=726486681&SrchMo de=1&sid=12&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS= 1239488037&clientId=20179 Sue, V. & Ritter, L. (2007). Conducting Online Surveys Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Tanaka, K. & Yamauchi, H. (2000). Influence of autonomy on perceived control beliefs and self regulated learning in Japanese undergraduate students. North American Journal of Psychology, 2 (2), 255 273. Tollefson, T., Garrett, R., & Ingram, W. (Eds.) (1999). Fifty s tate systems of community colleges: Mission, governance, funding and accountability Johnson City, TN: Overmountain Press. Umbach, P. (2005). Getting back to the basics of survey research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 127 91 100.

PAGE 153

153 Underwoo d, J. & Hammons, J. (1999). Past present and future variations in community college organization structure. Community College Review, 26 (4), 39 60 Upton, J. (1973). The small multi campus college. Community and Junior College Journal, 43 28 29. Van D yne L. & Pierce J. (2004) Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 439 459. Van Dyne, L., VandeWalle, D., Kos tova, L., Latham, M., & Cummings, L. (2000). Collecti vi sm, propensity to trust and self esteem as predictors of organizational citizenship in a non work setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 3 23. VandeWalle, D., Van Dyne, L., & Kostova, T. ( 19 95 ) Psychological ownership: An empirical examination of its consequences. Group and Organization Management, 20 210 226. VanSelm, M. & Jankowski, N (2006). Conducting online surveys. Quality and Quan t ity, 40 (3), 435 456. Vaughan, G. B. (1986). The community college presidency New York NY : American Council on Education/Macmillan Publishing Company. Vaughan, G. (2000). The community college story ( 2 nd ed ) Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges, Community College Press. Vaughan, G. (2006). The community college story ( 3 rd ed ) Washington, D C: Community College Press. Verhoeven, C. (2003). Job conditions and wellness/health outcomes in Dutch secondary school teachers. Psychology and Health 18 473 487. Wagner, S. Parker, C ., & Chr istansen, N. (2003). Effects of ownership beliefs and behaviors on organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 56, 817 871. W attenbarger, J. (1971). The future of the community junior college. Peabody Journal of Education 48 (4) 307 313. Watte nbarger, J., Cage, B., & Arney, L. (1970). The community junior college: Target population, program costs and cost differentials. ( National Educational Finance Project Special S tudy GO.6 ). Gainesville FL: University of Florida,. Wattenbarger, J., & Hol combe, W. (1975). Central a dministration in multi unit community colleges. Gainesville, FL: Institute of Higher Education. ( ERI C Reproduction Service Document No. ED 10 7 328 ) Retrieved from http:/ /www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED107328.pdf

PAGE 154

154 Wells, E. (1985) Branches for opportunity. American Education, 2 (4), 5 8. Westman, N. (1992). Moderating effect of decision latitude on stress strain relationship: Does organizational level matter? Journal o f Organi zational Behavior, 13 713 722 Willis, B. (1956). Report on Chicago city junior college to the Chicago board of education Chicago, IL: Chicago Board of E ducation Wilson, J. (1980). Administrative functions and tasks common to the positions of preside nt, vice president of academic affairs, academic deans, and department chairpersons in public institutions of higher education (D octoral dissertation ). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=748832891&SrchMo de=1&sid=14&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS= 1239488207&clientId=20179 Wondol leck, J. M. & Yaffee, S. L. ( 2000 ) Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management Washington, D C.: Island Press. Wood, C. ( 2003 ). The effects of creating psychological ownership among students in group projects Jo urnal of Marketing Education 25 241 249. Wright, K. (2005). Researching Internet based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer M ediated Communication, 10 (3), article 11. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/wright.html Wygal, A. & Owen, D. (1975) Community college needs: A model for assessing education al needs of metro communities to be fulfilled by multi campus public community colleges. College and University Business, 55, 24 31. Wynn, J. (1969). Study of selected aspects o f centralization versus autonomy in the administration of multi campus two ye ar colleges ( Doctoral dissertation ) Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?did=754907711&sid=3&Fmt=1&cli entId =20179&RQT=309&VName=PQD Wynn, J. (1972). Administering multi campus junior colleges. College and University Business, 53 44. Yamauchi, H., Kumagai Y. & Kawasaki Y. (1999 ). Perceived control, autonomy and self regulated learning strategies among Jap anese high school students. Psychological Reports, 85 779 798.

PAGE 155

155 Yun, G. W., & Trumbo, C. W. (2000). Comparative response to a survey executed by post, email, and web form. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6 (1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/yun.html

PAGE 156

156 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH M. Lisa Valentino received her bachelor of s cience in psychology from the Universi ty of Kentucky in 1980 and her master of a rts, also in psycholo gy, from Clark University in 1984. She began her professional career as an adjunct faculty member at Seminole Community College (now Seminole State College of Florida) where she found her passion for helping community college students. She earned her tenure as a full time professor of psychology at Seminole in 1993 and in 2005 she was promoted to the position of first full service branch campus I n 2010 she became the Oviedo C rovost. Valentino was a member of the 2007 LEAD cohort at the University of Florida and completed her doctorate in higher education administration in May of 2011. She serves on the research committee of the National Association of Branch Campus Administ rators (NABCA) and is a founding member of the Florida Branch Campus Administrator (FABCA) organization. She contin ues to serve as the FABCA treasurer.