Citation
The locus of formal decision making in Christian College Coalition institutions

Material Information

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

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic departments ( jstor )
Area development ( jstor )
Boards of trustees ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
College trustees ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
Community colleges ( jstor )
Private colleges ( jstor )
Trust administration ( jstor )
Universities ( jstor )
Christian universities and colleges -- Administration -- United States ( lcsh )
Decision making ( lcsh )

Notes

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

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
030570285 ( ALEPH )
ACQ5223 ( NOTIS )
11903273 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











THE LOCU
CHRISTIAN


OF FORMAL DECISION MAKING IN
COLLEGE COALITION INSTITUTIONS


WESLEY


LEE


ROUSE


IN PA


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


R


SCHOOL

THE


DEGREE


UNIVERSITY


OF FLORIDA


1983












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


writer


Nunnery,


especially


Chairperson


indebted


Doctoral


to Dr.


Committee,


Michael


to Drs.


John


Nickens


Robert


Soar,


their


guidance


throughout


study.


Sincere


gratitude


given


to Dr.


John


Dellenback,


President


Christian


College


Coalition,


support.


Acknowledgment


is also


made


presidents


Coalition


who


helped


provide


the


required


data;


without


them


there


would


have


been


no study.


final


note


thanks


extended


the


writer


wife,


ecky,


her


continued


patience,


understanding,


help,


and


to Joy


Jay,


the


children


who


continually


encouraged


their


this


endeavor.











TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

CHAPTER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDICES

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






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












Abstract


of Dissertation Presented


to the Graduate


School


University


of Florida


in Partial Fulfillment


the Requirements
Doctor of


for the


Degree


Philosophy


THE LOCUS OF FORMAL DECISION MAKING


CHRISTIAN COLLEGE COALITION


Wesley


INSTITUTIONS


Lee Rouse


December,


1983


Chairman:


Michael


Nunnery


Major


Department


: Educational Administration and


Supervision


problem was


to determine


perceptions of


those


involved about


locus


formal


decision making


relative


to academic,


student affairs,


development,


administration


decisions


for Coalition


colleges.


Answers


were


sought


to questions about which specific position


incumbents/units were


perceived


to be


involved


in making and


participating

perceptions b


in making


ased


decisions,


on respondent


and


role


differences


(trustees,


administration,


administration/faculty,


faculty


level


involvement


involvement,


provides


information,


recommends,


makes


decision).


Data


analysis


were obtained


instrument


from


by means


of a decision


point


institutions


with


returns.


Analysis


variance was


utilized


to determine







Faculty members,


academic deans,


and presidents were


perceived


students


presidents,


trustees


perceived


to be major decision makers


presidents


and business


presidents


to participate were


in academics;


in student affairs;


officers


deans of


trustees,


development;


in administration.


chairpersons


Most frequently


and academic


deans


in academics;


presidents,


academic deans,


deans


students,


and


business


officers


in student affairs;


presidents


presidents,


and development


officers


academic deans,


in development;


business


officers


administration.


Based


about


on position,


who makes


there were


the decision


significant differences


items and about


who


participates


significant


differences


in who


makes


grade,


the decision


changing


were


an admission


adding


policy,


a course,


building


changing


a building,


changing


purpose


the college,


changing


bylaws.


Based


level


of involvement,


there were


significant


differences about


who makes


the decision


items.


These were


adding


a course,


beginning


a fund


raising project,


filling


an administrative


vacancy.


It was


concluded


that


there was


considerable


unanimity


of opinion about who makes


decisions,


little


about who


participates.


The most


frequent


decision makers


were


those


top of


the hierarchy


(trustees and


presidents),


and











CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


Background


Rationale


Decision-making


authority


in educational


institutions


basic


educational


process,


ecific


loci


formal


deci


sion-making


authority,


especially


small


private


studi


church-relat


Because


coll


this


eges


lack


not


study,


been


adequately


research


needed


be conducted


order


to know


how


such


small


coll


eges


functioned;


furthermore,


results


research


locus


decision


making,


conducted


primarily


large


public


private


universe


ities


were


conflicting.


Thus,


there


was


need


further


research


this


area.


Cowl


1980


traced


types


formal


decision


making


that


were


emerging


conc


currently


with


development


higher


education


United


States


showed


that


deci


sion


making


evolved


from


a rather


chaotic


state


into


the


basic


governing


units


found


virtually


higher


educational


institutions


Unit


ed Stat


es--a


board


trustees,


a president


with


supporting


administrators,


faculty.


He also indicated


that


there


were


other


influences


on college


deci


sion


making


(students,


alumni,


government,


philanthropists,


general


public


indicated


that








Rosenzweig


(1970)


description


control


educational


institutions,


although


written


several


years


ago,


still


pertinent.


To describe


singular


nature.


to begin t
It is held


apprec


trust


iate


small


group
period
respon


men


who


time


sible


and


their


are


appointing


office
in some


their


for a long
instances


successors


--who


may


themselves.


Respons


ibility


universe


ity'


conduct


is conferred


trustees


a man


answerable


hired
only


responsibility


a


to
nd


them
them.
that


Given


line


principle
that
accountability,


however,
important


those


who


this


hired


individual


adver


him


but


finds


that


series, an
two other


most


judges
large,


are


not


quite


amorphous


that


does


groups.
the chie


those


work


the


groups,


the


one


institution,


consists
security
United S
consists
children


is wholly


faculty,


individuals


each


independence


states
of i
but


Supreme
individual


who


have


adult.


group


Court.
s most


a capacity
267)


"that


does


of whom


group
legally
uble which


of whom


are
tro


institution,


" has


been


involved


many


control


battles


within


higher


education.


Cowley


(1980


stated


that


"one


most


persistent


myths


prevailing


American


higher


education


professors


insists


operated


that


a golden


own


once


institutions


existed


in some


wherein


sort


'free


republic


scholars'"


That


this


was


a myth


borne


out


studies


of early


American


college


leaders


who


adopted


system


German,


French,


and


English


counterparts,


none


of which


operated


in such


a manner.


Harvard


University.


Collaee


of William


rLa L A


Mary.


Brown


hold


who


upon


allies,


justice
he other


work


their









use


many

much


small

like


time


study


church-related


that


report


colleges


established at


ed herein.


a board

in 1784


Princeton


Even


of

by


in 1983


trustees

Jonathan


Belcher--a


strong


control


board


composed


of mini


sters


laymen


in equal


While


proportions


ins


titutions


Cowley,


(such


1980,


as Harvard


47) .


have


bicameral


structure


control


which


includes


faculty


major


deci


sion


making,


most


colleges


have


unicameral


designating


much


major


formal


decision m

unicameral


making


system,


trustees


largely


(Herbst,


bypassing


1974).

faculty,


This

became


major


feature


coll


governance


structure


United


States.


Herron


(1969)


contended


that


"the


board


trustees


single


most


important


agency


institution.


'U (p*


He further


stated


that


trustee


needed


to understand


s/her


role


because


organizations


world,


institutions


of higher


learning


are


in ferment,


intellectually


dynamic


because


are


rightfully


committed


to social


improvement,


dynamic


because


they


challenge


hierarchies


thought


structure"


xv ) .


How


trustees


small


church


-related


coll


eges


adapt


role


trustees


was


from


clear


larger


from


institutions


literature.


investigated


ground


Hartnett


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


J ** *


I *


*







It has


long


been


thought


that


board


trustees


wielded


major


decision-making


power


in colleges


though


these


deci


sions


may


made


with


little


the


proper


background


information


(Harnett,


1969,


135).


Rosenzweig


(1970)


made


an analysis


universities


concluded


that


is unreasonable


to expect


a group


men,


with


full-


time


responsibilities


elsewhere,


to adequately


govern


university"


270).


While


decision-making


responsibilities


trustees


have


been


sted


numerous


authors,


Franzreb


(1978


Rosenzweig


(1970)


intimate


that


board


members


are


generally


unaware


of educational


admini


station,


that


mos


are


even


unaware


purposes


of the in

surprised


Legal


trustees


stitution


they represent,


legal


decision-making


is quite


responsibilities


authority


encompassing


with


that

they


vest


many

have


ed in


would


assumed.


a board


definitions


and


limitations


charter


that


authority


institution


contained


and


corporate


laws


state


incorporation.


In general,


the


board


member


charged


with


acting


"fairly


responsibly


in protecting


institution


resources


and


interests"


(Kaplin,


1978,


48).


Unlike


vested


public


in a state


institutions

constitution


whos

that


authority


cannot


may


easily


changed,


somewhat


less


stringent


limits


are


imposed


state


on private


college


through


eir


articles







private


colleges


long


: trustees


change


was


cbuld


not


change


inconsistent


college


with


bylaws


college


articles


of incorporation


and/


laws


state


(Kaplin,


1978,


46).


These


articles


incorporation,


including


any


decision-making


authorities


associated


with


them,


constitute


a binding


contract


between


state


and


coll


ege.


This


compatible


separation


consis


tent


with


landmark


Trust


ees


of Dartmouth


College


Woodward


(1819)


case


which


was


ruled


that


a private


college


operating


with


state-granted


charter


right


to exist


without


being


taken


over


state.


Other


court


cases


relative


decision-making


authority


trustees


have


been


few.


Only


one


was


noted


Kaplin


(1978)--financial


responsibility.


This


responsibility


was


discussed


Stern


was


held


that


boards


trustees


corporate


directors


can


held


accountable


mismanagement,


nonmanagement,


and


self-


dealing.


It also


extended


the


response


ibility


of boards


(which


could


egated


to maximize


the


trust


income


prudent


investments


(Kaplin,


1978,


48) .


Kaplin


(1978,


further


state
C~ ~~ T


that


some


confusion


existed


over


trustee


del


egation


deci


sion-making


authority.


responsible


In several


a deci


cases


sion


boards


even


have


when


been


was


held


delegated


administrators


(e.g.,


president,


deans),


faculty,


and/








While


legal


decision-making


respon


sibilities


duties


are


largely


a part


bylaws,


liability


tort,


even


those


to whom


board


has


delegated


authority,


falls


board


trustees.


Without


sovereign


immunity


some


public


institutions,


liability


contracts


made


subordinates


at private


coll


eges,


whether


del


egated


or not,


often


becomes


individual


responsibility


members


corporation


board


usually


or even


the


the


officers


board


trustees


(Kaplin,


of private


1978,


institutions


-67) .


are


often


Therefore,


boards


a dilemma--


they


must


make


deci


sions


for


they


may


be properly


prepared


and


they


must


accept


responsibility


deci


sons


made


subordinates


over


whom


they


may


have


little


effective


control.


While


legal


decision


making


private


colleges


university


been


adjudicated


some


extent,


during


the


1960s


1970s


policy


and


operational


control


was


still


turmoil.


George


Pake


(1971)


writing


in Science


noted


following:


How do
could
answer


es


manage
, but


happen
, now
I keep


that u
cannot?
coming


universities


There


back


which


is not
the f


once
simple


aculty.


faculty
trustee


holds
holds


power


in a


a practical


legal


sense


sense


faculty


were


to responsibly


delegate


power


administration


recent


as effectively


decades


administrators


crisis.


SO. AS tflA


believe


could,


the faculty


farcl .


I C2. rl


fact
has


become


as
that


the trustees
able universe


cope


been


with


have
ity


today


unwilling


larger.


to do


more









Rosenzweig


(1970)


gave


faculty


similarly


high


responsibility:


faculty


genuine


is not
cannot.
campus


because


cons


titutes


self-government


they


can,


because


with


establish


themselves


they


e authority
rules of th


are


and


the only
campus.
govern;


the only


hope
This
they


group


the prestige


game,


the


ways


which


things


can


cannot


be done--not


so much


substance
substance


policy


emerges.


as the


Equally


process


from


important,


which


they


are


only
his


enable


take
short


group


that


can


administration


him


similar


time


to enforce


action


and


confer on
sufficient


those
brute


at exorbitant


rules.


force,


the president


legitimacy
Trustees


but


can


only


cost


institution.


Only


faculty


can


a way


that


strengthens


rather


than


weak


ens


the


institution.


272)


Laird


Bell,


a member


trustee


board


versity


of Chicago,


Carleton


College,


Harvard


University


that


trustees h
be College
hands off


best bear


faculty a
education.


in mind


that


. Once


that


they


should
overall


could


their


policy


decided


it ougi


experts shou
implemented.
24)


lid


ht


to b


5


determine
(Special


true th
e how t
Trustee


at


the educational


he policy i
Committee,


to be


1957,


Few


educational


institutions


openly


concede


operational


decision


making


faculty,


especially


that


means


weak


presidency.


However,


Yale


ins


tituted


such


a policy


early


1800s


Pierson,


1952,


129)


to a great


extent


Cowl


was


(1980,


still


91-94)


same


time


discus


four


this


areas


writing.


where









associated


instructional


materials


methods.


this


connection


should


be noted


that


colleges


controlled


churches


often


have


heavy


outside


influence


on curricula


and


accreditation


associations


dominate


some


segments


education


programs.


Although


some


early


writers


went


so far


to suggest


that


faculty


take


over


all


decision


making


doing


away


with


administration


1918/1965),


most


and


authorities,


board


trustees


including


the


(Veblen,


American


Ass


ociation


of University


Professors


(AAUP),


have


taken


different


multicameral


approach.


concept


In 1960


academic


AAUP


endorsed


government


making


faculty


and


trustees


mutually,


even


though


differentially,


involved


deci


sion


making


(American


Association


University


Professors,


1960


Most boards


trustees


delegate


much


operational


decision


making,


faculty,


but


president.


In fact,


some


trustees


have


advocate


a rather


complete


delegation


such


authority;


consider


the


following


Charles


Coolridge


while


a member


the


Harvard


board:


can


a big


sum
don


the


't--DON


rules


conduct


MEDDLE.


. You


trust
must r


ees


realize


that
see


you
it,


are
the


not
job


an expert


in education.


member


. As


a governing


board...boils


*4


down


S_ S__4.


this


N
a a a


your


best
*AN *


see







there
23-24)


for.


(Special


Trustee


Committee,


1957,


While


control


over


operations


and


execution


of policy


most


educational


institutions


vested


in a president


(Balderston,

management r


committees,


1974,


resulted


either


88),


some


from


early


experiments


institutions


board


being


trustees


college

controlled


or from


faculty.


A few,


such


University


Virginia


1900s,


operated


without


a president.


However,


such


experiments


were


short-lived


and,


last


few


decades


president


has had


strongest


influence


educational


deci


sion


making


(Cowley,


1980,


45) .


It is


position


general

strong


thought


that


influence


trend


pres


ident


leading


had


genesis


works


of Frederick


Taylor,


the


industrialist


who


conducted


time


motion


studies


late


1800s


(Cowley,


1980,


63-64).


of his


sciples,


Morris


Cooke,


carried


Taylor


s scientific


principles


education


when


1910


the Carnegie


Foundation


public


shed his


work


under


title


Academic


Industrial


Efficiency.


Three


of Cooke


1910


concepts


may


have


to major


changes


deci


sion-making


power


esident--


functional


organization,


efficiency,


operations


research.


first,


functional


organization,


found


wide


acceptance


in educational


circles.


Present


day


governing


nosi .-i nns


snlh


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


rnA


*roflP


y~b(q


*hhi r


#'I f il








structure


educational


institutions


much


decision-making


power


gravitated


that


direction.


The

as a deci


second


concept,


sion-making


efficiency,


guide


Taylor


was

for


heavily

industry


advocated


Cooke


for


education.


Although


it gained


credence


industry,


education


been


able


to implement


only


small


extent.


Although


presidents


offer


numerous


deci


sion


alternatives


intended


to produce


efficiency,


waste


still


a major


part


of modern


education


institutions


Cowley,


1980,


63).

useful


Regardless


whether


to education,


such

been


efficiency


used


lack


presidents


charge


that


rival


bodies


should


or should


not


have


decision-


making


authority.


The

generally


third

gain


concept,

ed wide a


operations


acceptance


research,


in educational


institutions


(Balderston,


1974,


72).


However,


in some


places


such


research


has become


a major


influence


on institutional


decis

Since


ion making

such res


(Van


earch


seldorp,


often


Richardson,


ordered


Foley,


1971).


or prepared


president,


use


usually


the


prerogative


president


Despite


results


increased


evolutionary


process


presidential


that


power.


permitted


survival


education


and


to a workable


institutions


, "the


situation


steadiest


at most


fires


higher


controversy









groups


had


been


studied


in some


detail


universities;


however,


there


been


little


study


of decision


making


private


church-related


colleges.


Therefore,


the


focus


research


herein


was


locus


formal


decision


making


within


various


governing


positions


units


in such


colleges.


Problem


Statement


Problem


The


problem


study


was


to determine


perceptions


those


involved


about


locus


formal


deci


sion


making


four


basic


areas


small


church-related


colleges.


More


specifically,


answers


following


questions


were


sought:


To what


units


extent


perce


are


ived


specific


to parti


position


cipate


incumbents


decision


making


specific


deci


sion


areas


1.e.


academics,


student


affairs,


development,


administration)


there


differences


decision


items


within


four


deci


sion


areas


(academics,


student


affairs,


development,


admini


station


in perceptions


extent


to which


position


incumb


ents


and/or


units


are


involved


making


a decision


and


narticinate in


ma k i. na


a d~ni


s i nn


has~d


'- At I K I. I rr









Are


four


there


differences


decision


areas


decision


academici


items


student


within


affairs,


development,


and


admini


station)


in perceptions


the e

units


xtent

are


to which

involved


position


making


incumbents

a decision


and/or

based


res


pondent


erceived


involvement


deci


sion


(makes


deci


sion,


recommends


deci


sion,


provides


information,


or no participation


Limitations


Delimitations


While


conducting


investigation


several


restrictions


were


observed.


confined


population


to representatives


from


the


each


investigation


the


was


church-


related


colleges


that


made


Christian


College


Coalition


as of August,


1982


see


Appendix


Further,


the


population


was


confined


incumbent


from


each


coll


following


administrative


positions


pres


ident,


admini


strator


academic


affairs,


chief


of business


chief


affairs,


development


chief


officer;


stud

and


ent

the


affairs

following


officer,


and


selected


president:


one


trustee,


one


department


chairperson,


and


one


faculty


member.


The


total


number


role


incumbents


who


could


possibly


involved


from


institutions


was


552,


total


number


responses


received


was


293.


LJ *









format


provided,


institutions


not


respond.


respondents


include


trustees,


34 presidents,


academic


deans,


chief


business


offi


cers


, 41


chief


student


affairs


personnel,


38 development


officers,


department


chairpersons,


faculty


members,


oth


ers


was


recognized


that


lack


of a 100%


return


from


sample


could


limit


extent


to which


the results


could


generalized.


an effort


to deal


with


this


basic


weakness


in survey


research,


an analy


S'S


was


made


those


role


incumbents


who


respond


first


request


comparison


responses


those


responding


second


request


(257


versus


36) .


This


comparison


was


done


using


square


analysis


each


items


deci


sion


point


analysis


instrument


whi


was


used


to gather


the data.


was


found


there


were


no significant


differences


level


between


two


samples.


Therefore


, it


was


felt


that


less


than


100%


sample


return


rate


didn


create


a major


bias


because


diff


erences


between


followed


those


was


responding


first


significant.


time


(Also,


and


the


those


data


who


from


two


summaries


received


were


similar


that


provided


usable


samples.)


Given


nature


problem,


a descriptive


survey


design


was


used


(Fox


1969,


Chap.


15) .


This


design,


included








There


an absence


information


about


a problem


that


educational


significance.


situation


obtained


exist


from

s and


which

the


the

data


information


can


may


gathered


researcher


(Fox,


1969,


24) .


Campbell


Stani


(1963,


scussed


correlational


design.


the


cause


However,

relation b


and

the


betweenn


effect

present


aspects

t study


success


ex cost


no claims


one


are


college


facto


made


over


another


and


certain


decision-making


methods,


or between


specific


deci


sion


and


a change


subs


equent


success


coll


ege.


At best


external


validity


extends


sampled


the


population,


Christian


College


private


Coalition.


church-related colleges

Generalization to all


Christian


colleges


was


~05


sible


although


sampled


population


represented


a sizable


proportion


Christian


colleges.


was


recognized


that


the


validity


decision


point


analysis


instrument


could


be questioned.


mechanics


design


such


an ins


trument


had


been


used


previously


(Holcombe,


1974),


modifications


were


made


use


present


study.


Therefore,


only


face


value


could


be claimed.


Definition


Terms







Decision


point


analysis


instrument.


An opinionnaire


instrument


presenting


statements


individual


decisions


that


must


be made


at educational


institutions


and


area


in which


these


decisions


may


made.


Governing


units.


The


board


trustees


administration,


administration/faculty,


and


faculty.


Governing


positions.


board


trustee


members,


president,


academic


affairs,


of business


affairs,


chief


student


affairs


officer,


development


officer,


departmental


chairpersons,


and


faculty


members.


Locus.


role


position/unit


that


effective


responsibility


deci


sion


making


specific


task


units


institution.


This


may


include


actual


making


sion


and/or


parti


cipation


making


of a deci


sion.


Position


incumbent.


individual


involved


in key


decisions


identified


this


study.


Private


church


-related


coll


eges.


A nonpublic


institution


controlled


a religious


denomination.


Procedures


Introduction.


In order


to conduct


this


study


locus


formal


deci


sion


making


private


church-related


institutions


was


necessary


to determine


colleges


to parti


cipate


study


and


governing


position


s/units


within


colleges


that


could


contribute


to deci


sion


making;


S-- 9







perceptions


these


persons;


to determine


procedures


collection


data;


to analyze


the


data


terms


the questions.


paragraphs


following


attention


given


to each


these


topics.


Selection


Colleges


was


discus


previously


most


the


research


decision


making


within


higher


education


been


done


large


colleges


university


es.


target


population


this


study


was


a group


small


private


Chri


stian


colleges,


in particular,


those


colleges


that


membership


Christian


College


Coalition


(Appendix


Chri


a group


stian


Christian


College


liberal


Coalition


arts


was


coll


formed


eges


1976


combined


when


ces


to help


preserve


strengthen


their


Chri


stian


convictions.


Coalition,


a Washington,


D.C.


based


organization,


had


following


objectives:


monitoring


judicial


of public


activity,


and


opinion,


governmental


legislation,

regulations


matters


which


affect


the


freedom


Christian


colleges


to function


educationally


and


religiously.


development


issues


unified


presentation


positions


to government


on critical

al agencies,


other


organizations,


and


those


influential


formation


public


policy.








freedom


Christian


coll


movement.


(Chri


stian


Coalition


College


was


Coalition,


governed


1979)


a board


directors


nine


members


each


being


president


of a Coalition


college.


An executive


staff


was


elected


board


directors


and


was


made


of a chairman


board,


press


ident


Coalition,


and


a secretary.


Participants


Within


Each


Institution


To determine


colleges


deci


was


sion-making


necessary


perce


options


identify


individual


persons


who


were


incumbents


in several


comparable


positions.


Therefore


determination


was


made


see


persons


representing


each


generally


recognized


major


governing


positions


units


in small


private


coll


eges


Specifically,


was


decided


participation


trustees


was


admini


nee


strators


from


governing


in the chi


areas


board


operation


admini


station,


academic


, student


affairs


eve


lopment),


persons


who


were


full-time


faculty


members


and


part


time


academic


admini


strators


who


also


teach


divi


sion/d


in thi


department


study


included


chairpersons


members


Therefore,


board


participants


trustees


presidents,


academic


deans,


business


officers,


student


affairs


officers,


development


officers


divi


sion/department


chairpersons,


and


faculty


members


r a


. .. S S I 4







deans,


business


officers


41 deans


students,


development


officers


43 department


chairper


sons,


faculty


members


and


others


. an


athl


etic


director


director


of marketing]


This


repre


sented


sample


population.


As has


been


noted,


in an effort


support


the


case


generalization


the


Christian


College


Coalition,


an analysis


the


responses


from


the


initial


mailing


was


compared


with


the


responses


after


a repeated


appeal


and


no significant


differences


between


sets


were


found.


Instrumentation


Even


though


there


been


considerable


divers


ity


methodology


used


to study


locus


deci


sion


making,


most


frequently


such


studi


have


been


based


on the social-


res


earch


stionnaire


style


as delineated


Oppenh


(1966).


Such


an approach


was


used


Baldridge


1971a)


his


study


the


political


model


the


New


York


Univers


ity


stem,


Gross


and


Grambsch


(1974).


A research


technique


to help


"translate


the


theoretical


concern


into


applied


research"


(Holcombe,


1974,


was


realized


with


the development


of a deci


sion


point


analysis


instrument.


instrument


was


st developed


Eye,


Gregg,


Francke,


Lipham,


and


Netzer


1966)


as part


project


United


States


Offi


Education


related


the


deci


sion-making


responsibilities


school








characteristics


of public


sec


ondary


school


superintendents


and


the


centralization


of deci


sion


making.


studies


that


used


instrument


in community


colleges


were


McCluskey


who


used


a modification


instrument


in res


earch


student


rsonnel


decision


making


and


Scaggs


(1980)


who


studied


deci


sion


making


curriculum


change.


basic


instrument


structure


present


research


came


from


these


studies,


although


the


items


of each


task


units


and


governing


altered


to fit


positions/units


peculiarities


instrument


present


were


study.


Data


Collection.


Data


analysis


were


collected


instrument


with


using


deci


sion


19-item


deci


statements


sion


unique


point


this


rese


arch


(Appendix


statements


were


divid


ed into


four


deci


sion


areas--academics,


student


affairs,


development,


and


administration--with


deci


sion


statements/items


each


area.


Endorsement


sought,


from


a letter


the


was


Christian


sent


College


pres


Coalition


ident


was


the


organization

encouraging


letter


to each


them


president


to participate


presidents,


of a Coalition

in the study.


an introductory


college


cover


better


role


incumbent,


deci


sion


point


analy


instruments


were


sent


to presidents


the


Coalition


colleges.








hundred


ninty


three


opinionnaires


some


usable


item


responses.


As has


been


noted,


opinionnaires


from


52 of


colleges

mailing


were

was m


received


ade


from


those


first


colleges


mailing. A second

responding to the


first


mailing,


opinionnaires


were


received


from


seven


additional


stitutions.


This


represented


some


usable


res


ponses


from


colleges.


Three


additional


colleges


wrote


letters


choosing


not


to parti


cipate,


sent


summarized


opinions


from


the


president


(neither


of which


were


used


analysis


no response


was


received


from


five


institutions.


Data


analysis


answer


the


first


question,


tabular


distributions


responses


total


group


of respondents


decision-


making


areas


items


were


made.


To provide


answers


second


and


third


questions,


single

compare


factor

the p


governing


analysis


variance


erceptions


units


and


(ANOVA)


was


incumbents


positions.


The


statistical


used


various

null


hypotheses


were


follows:


There


no significant


difference


the


level


deci


sion


items


within


four


decision


areas


in the


perceptions


role


incumbents








decision


who


participates


making


decision.


There


no significant


difference


level


deci


sion


items


within


four


deci


sion


areas


perceptions


role


incumbents


about


who


makes


deci


sion


based


their


level


of participation


decision


(makes


decision,


recommends


deci


sion,


provides


information,


or no


participation).


In applying


analy


variance


relation


first


hypothe


, for


each


decis


item


the


four


governing


groups


(trustees,


administrators,


administrator/faculty,


faculty)


positions


were


were


treated


treated


levels


within


an ordered


factor


series


and


and


assigned


number


based


on level


in the


administrative


hierarchy


suggested


literature


trustees


, pre


sident,


academic


trustees,


dean,


being


chairperson,


the


faculty,


level


"oth


er").


hierarchy


were


assigned


where


there


was


president


a significant


and

the


so on.

Tukey


In instances

multiple


comparisons


test


based


on the


studentized


range


was


used


a follow


up procedure


an effort


to determine


the


location(


difference(


was


done


both


"makes


deci


sion"


responses


and


"participates


making


- a









participation,


provide


information,


recommend,


and


make


decision


and


analysis


was


done


the


"makes


decision"


responses


only.


Organization


Remainder


the


Study


Contained


Chapter


II which


follows


immediately


review


the


relevant


literature.


Chapter


devoted


presentation


data


relative


the


three


basic


questions


which


gave


direction


the


study.


Chapter


IV contains


summary,


conclusions,


and


discussion.















REVIEW


CHAPTER
OF THE


LITERATURE


Included


present


literature


review


locus


decision


making


is research


and


authoritative


opinion.


review


divided


into


studies


and


authoritative


opinion


that


deal


with


more


than


one


governing


unit


those


that


deal


with


a single


governing


position


and/or


unit.


In all


major


studies


rese


archers


have


concerned


themselves


with


universities,


mostly


public.


There


are


some


limited


data


available


about


large


private


colleges


universities


some


authoritative


opinion


about


small


colleges.


review


concluded


with


critique.


The authoritative


opinion


approach


was


taken


Sammartino


1954)


when


was


pres


ident


of Fairl


eigh


Dickinson


College.


He pointed


that


small


college


president


makes


decisions


that


have


to do with


departmental


organization,


public


relations,


evaluation


instructors,


guidance


students,


fund


sing,


alumni,


parents,


food


service,


office


management,


custodial


service,


library.


This


cons


trasts


sharply


with


statement


Dani


not


el Griffith


function


(1959)


concerning


f the chief


universities


executive


to make


that


decisions;









Between


these


ideas


a wide


diversity


thought


what


happens


and


what


should


happen


decision


making


educational


institutions.


Although


this


review


could


extend


back


several


years,


limited


literature


since


the


1960


primarily


because


authority


such


as Griffiths


(1969,


have


suggest


that


only


1960


were


educational


stitutions


becoming


serious


about


study


decis


making.


Multiple


Governing


Unit


Literature


university


level,


three


major


research


studi


that


included


deci


sion


making


the


various


governing


positions


have


been


made


since


the


1960s


: Gross


and


Grambsch


(1968,


1974


Although


Baldridge


data


from


(1971a);


these


and


Cohen


researches


lend


March


themselves


1974).


more


study


of goals


related


to perceived


deci


sion


making,


the


relation


ships


to perceptions


individual


s involved


decision


making


obvious.


The


Gross


Grambsch


Studi


Gross


Grambsch


(1968,


1974)


using


an opinion-


naire/questionnaire


developed


the


authors


their


data


collection


strument,


conducted


surveys


involving


univer


siti


public


private),


one


1964


and


one


SW n-ri


---- -!


- -


---"3


- -


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


Jf


1









In almost


universities


samples


president


was


perceived


as having


most


decision-making


power


with


trustees


perceived


only


slightly


less


powerful.


Participants


were


asked


to rank


goals


university


from


absolut


ely


top


importance


little


or no


importance,


to indicate


which


governing


position


least


in making


deci


sions,


to decide


whether


influence


these


positions


had


increased


last


seven


or eight


years


1971


survey),


and


indicate


perceived


surveys


power


showed


thought


that


to be


students,


held


him/herself.


faculty,


federal


government


gained


influence


in private


universities,


while


students,


legi


slators,


trustees,


state


government


gained


some


influence


in public


universities.


Several


conclu


sons


concerning


these


data


were


drawn


Richman


Farmer


(1974


One,


power


may


be different


state


universities


than


private


institutions.


Two,


external


groups


probably


have


much


more


power


public


sector.


judging


Three


from


there


total


may


an expansable


scores


the public


supply


sector


power


being


substantially


higher


than


private


sector.


Richman


and


Farmer


(1974)


pointed


that


one


major


results


studies


was


that


a more


important


role


in decision


making


has


now


become


available


to a wider








went


on to state


that


"the


power


structure


many


institutions


probably


been


shifting


substantially


outsiders


and


perhaps


also


lesser


extent


to potential


students


as compared


with


faculty


administrators"


163).


Baldridge


Study


Baldridge


1971a,


1971b)


studied


the


New


York


University


system


during


the


1960s,


through


this


study


he develop


political


a description


model.


a new


He concluded


method


that


governance--


conflict


natural


part


the goal-setting


and


deci


sion-making


process,


that


small


groups


political


elites


major


decision


mak


ers,


and


that


decisions


are


influenced


greatly


external


interest


groups


with


internal


groups


left


with


little


power.


According


to Cleary


1978),


who


commented


the


Baldridge


study,


political


mod


established


through


debate


and


governance


administratively


ass


signed


through


resident.


Roles


perceived


response


ibility


were


delineated


Baldridge


study


various


governing


areas


the


university


system.


He further


pointed


out


that


the


central


administration


(used


interchangeably


with


presidents)


been


successful


gaining


deci


sion-making


power


degree


confidence


of faculty


members


in administration


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








administration


was


shown


to have


the


greatest


influence


overall,


to have


clearly


dominant


role


influence


over


college


budget,


university


budget,


physical


plant,


master


plan,


public


relations.


Richman


Farmer


1974)


point


that


this


study


also


showed


that


power


may


not


finite:


Baldridge
influence


studies


do not


suggest


neces


sarily


that


come


power


cans


that


actions


and


by
and


filling


deci


influence


power


sons,


without


sense


one


vacuums


can


others


least.


and


often


losing
. 167)


initiating


gain


any


power
theirs,


Cohen


March


Study


This


1974


study


included


interviews


with


univer


sity


residents,


officers,


chief


28 other


academic


officials


officers,


close


financial


president,


student


leaders


editors


31 public


and


private


university


campuses


across


country.


authors


concluded


from


their


results


that


power


was


rather


ambiguous


and


diffused


at institutions


of higher


learning


even


though


president


usually


exerted


the


most


influence


over


individual


deci


sions.


Cohen


March


1974)


called


mod


that


they


found


organized


anarchy.


Richman


and


Farmer


1974)


summari


basic


properties:


Organized
and probl


anarchies


ematic


goals


include


uncle


ambiguity


ear


technology


purpose
; fluid


participation;


ambiguity


power;


ambiguity


S S S a -












looking


might b
which t
looking


deci


e aired,


hey
for


sion


situations


solutions


might
work.


answer


looking
s, and


which


for
deci


they


issues


sion


makers


Balderston


1974)


also


commented


model.


pres


engine


idency ha
, changes


organization.


tend,


the


In each


and


complex


major


area


periodically


structure
, large


numbers


of deci


sions


have


to be made


Thus


necess


ary


develop


adequate


general


poli


and


accompanying


procedures


that


most


these


deci


where


sions


they


can


need


exceptional,


made
to be


or ad hoc


quickly,


made.
cases


near


Only
that


those


point
large,


can


settle


d in


ecentralized


way


should


have


to be


sse


on to higher


level


. As Cohen


March


point
at all


out,


problems


may


ins


may


tead


not


actually


held in


res


"garbage


olved


cans


Single


Governing


Unit


Literature


There


was


much


erature


that


placed


empha


board


trustees.


A diverse


view


trustee


decis


ion-making


was


presented.


divers


ity


and


multifaceted


makeup


boards,


especially


in small


colleges,


make


difficult


see


just


what


board


trustees


play


decision


making.


literature


abounds


with


statements


concerning


*the


phenomenological


nature


boards


trustees


in American


institutions.


Although


boards


can


found


in many


kinds


institutions,


educational


institutions


are


almost


always


seen


"controlled"


a board


trustees.


Heilbron


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









problem


who


humor


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


requires


t

n
e

p
P
a
f
e
t
i


special


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


a

o
o
w


meti
ught
be
he b
is
cann


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


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


not


t.
aga
utsi
st b
o me
ted


handling


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


a f


h h
or
on
ing
wh
wi
ng


being


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


ees,
be
libe
a b
o a
ere
to
blic


cording


so
es

y
a
ro


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

h


a
from
He is
the

m the


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


en


change.
is a
little
or to
er


too
o


, honest,
riction
rate
nks and,


disappointed.


Armour


(1965)


own


description:


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


dom makes
ernoon in
me he has


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


he w
watc


ent
it
rta
bee
han
he
to


i
h


th4
sp,
to
th
i


lem
is
nt


end


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


ting
at
to
corp
eni


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


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


fall;
all
n,

nd,

ty,
ty,
o Reds
t heads
ng bit


i








Most


scholars


writing


subject


have


a list


decisions


that


should


ass


signed


to the


board


trustees.


Some


them


are


more


detailed


than


others,


are


supposedly


what


responsibilities


should


One


most


concise


was


offered


Rauh


(1969):


They


hold


the


basic


legal


document


origin.


They


evolve


purpose


the


institution


consonant


with


the


terms


this


document.


They


seek


a planned


development.


They


select


and


determine


the


tenure


chief


executive.


hold


the


assets


trust.


They


act


as a court


last


resort.


The


tenor


Rauh


(1969


writing


indicated


that


felt


most


trustees


might


aware


purpose


or the


bylaws


institution.


He proposed


that


the


faculty


president


than


usually


all


have


trustees


more


influence


combined.


institution


He further


commented


that


wherever


influence


held


or whatever


the


locus


influence,


position


or unit,


probably


a function


pure


chance


forced


fiscal


contingencies.


Potter


(1976


suggested


that


trustees


were


more


involved


the


day-to-day


decision-making


responsibilities


the


college.


He identify


ed the


following


specific


areas









maintaining


facilities


defining


role


ssion


college;


engaging


in public


relations;


evaluating


institutional


institutional


independence;


performance;


creating


preserving


a climate


change;


insisting


on being


informed;


engaging


planning;


and


asse


ssing


board


performance


(pp.


11-12).


Included


above


responsibilities


a deci


sion


responsibility


that


was


found


only


one


other


list


(Carnegie


Commi


ssion,


1973


--the


trustee


as a change


agent.


Most


authors


felt


that


boards


functioned


the role


change


agent.


Clark


Kerr


Conversations,


1973)


presented


a series


deci


sion-making


responsibilities


that


followed


would


make


board


much


more


locus


control


center


institution:


Study


their


own


membership


to develop


a board


fully


independent


devoted


members


who


are


sensitive


to but


not


committed


views


several


constituencies


that


relate


institution.


Protect


the


essential


independence


their


institutions


Review


from


external


periodically


control.


purposes


their


institution.








many


academic


community.


This


includes


the


selection


active


presidents.


Manage


eir


resources


effectively.


Contemplate


levels


and


nature


future


enrollments


and


plan


adjustments


advance.


This


includes


potential


cooperation,


tenure


adju

and


stments


in faculty


non-tenure,


and


participation


women


members


of minority


groups.


Be cognizant


the


new


mentalities


developing


among

new m


faculty
. a S


motivation


members

s and i


students,


interests,


and


new

new


attitudes,


styles


life.


To be


touch.


Assure

federal

under d


a voice

levels


for

when


discussion


trustees

matters


such


as tax


the


state


common


policy


and


concern


on gifts


are

and


policies


on control


over


higher


education.


Kerr


would


have


the


trustee


the


"brain"


to recognize


and/or


overrule


various


"mentalities"


the


institution.


How


this


was


to be


done


the


modern


college


or university


was


explained.


a more


pertinent


nature


present


study


was


the


discussion


of decision-making


responsibilities


church-


related


college


boards


Messersmith


(1964).


These


* a a S a -S fl S.









position


pointing


out


that


was


being


optimistic.


decision-making


approval


list


control,


included


current


policy


matters,


operations


budget


, planning


and


financing


physical


facilities,


administrative


services,


faculty


student


servi


ces


and


curricular


extracurricular


activities.


Mes


sersmith


(1964


decision-making


list


was


the


only


one


that


gave


trustees


duty


of financing


current


operations.


Also,


Messersmith


provided


only


definitive


statement


found


about


deci


sion-making


responsibilities


small


private


coll


eges.


Rauh


topics


(1969)


commonly


research


ed small


considered


coll


boards


eges


, but


included


whether


decisions


concerning


these


topics


were


ratified


or actually


made


board


were


scal
S ~


trustees


delineat


was


personnel


nonfaculty


life (dormitory

student-invited


rules,


unclear.


(faculty


personnel,


athletic


speakers);


finance


following


appointments,


retirement


programs,


(inve


plans


poli


stment,


categories


wage


student


cies


budget


analy


sis,


long-range


planning);


plant


(development


campus master

drawings for

(decision abo


undergraduate


plan,


selection


a particular

ut a research


program,


an architect,


building


contract,


structional


educational


changes


methods,


architectural

program


in the


library








colleges


trustees


are


considered


college


legally


(also


see


Chambers


programs


1976)


those


they


tru


are


stees


involved


in other


public


college


colleges


high


level


involvement


. [trustees


private


institutions


trustees


are


combined.


consistently


This


ess


suggests


involved


stronger


than


commitment


these


trustees


to delegation


of management


functions


the


college


staff"


(p.190).


Herron


(1969


elt


that


proper


delegation


deci


sion


making


duti


was


only


ssibl


with


proper


communication


also


discu


ssed


Balder


ston,


1974,


85).


He prepared


a checkli


questionnaire


to study


communication


between


board


s and


other


areas


the


college


(president,


faculty,


students).


Most


returns


were


from


large


colleges


and


univer


siti


although


few


were


from


private


coll


eges.


Herron


committees


(1969


was


conclude


most


ed that


effective


the


deci


use


trustee


sion-making


method


between


board


administration,


faculty,


students.


He further


conclude


that


each


committee


should


have


deci


sion-making


responsibility


one


the


major


divi


sions


college


--academic,


student,


finance,


development,


buildings,


and


personnel.


About


half


board


no response


the


questions


reaularitv


- A-


committee


meetings


with


Orl


.


.








study


was


answered


"infrequently"


40%.


For


contacting


administration


members


directly,


the


results


were


virtually


same


(43%).


Herron


did


report


on some


aspects


questionnaire


results;


particularly


lacking


were


results


on board


interaction


with


students


whether


pres


idents


encouraged


board


members


to contact


individuals


unilaterally


before


making


decision.


Other


decision-making


literature


pertaining


directly


presidents


and/or


faculty


from


small


colleges


are


virtually


nonexistent.


Most


additional


research


from


universities


and

and


much

the


it is


resultant


tied

gain


the c

power


collective


faculty


bargaining

y rather t


process


han


decision


making


per


.g.,


Garbarino,


1974;


Tice,


1972).


A study


Hud


son


1973


showed


that


loci


of deci


sion


making


shifted


some


toward


faculty


after


the advent


coll


ective


bargaining,


that


most


major


deci


sion-making


duties


were


within


the role


administration.


further


stated


that


"actually


making


a deci


sion


may


not


nearly


important


a meaningful


way


to a faculty


deliberation


. as being


which


consulted


preced


decision"


34).


more


pertinence


present


study


(although


research


Dykes


was


(1968


done


who


university


studied


level)


perceptions


was


faculty


study


members


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


q







high


majority


faculty


felt


that


they


should


always


usually


determine


deci


sions


academic


affairs


86%)


and


personnel


financial


affairs


affairs


(69%),


(11%),


fewer


capital


felt


same


improvements


about


(21%)


student


affairs


(24%),


public


and


alumni


relations


(0%).


Most


the others


felt


that


faculty


should


recommend


admini


station


matters.


Richardson


presidents


(1980)


would


felt


trying


that


to seek


during


more


the


1980s


faculty


most


and


other


outside


involvement


order


to share


the


responsibility


unpopular


decisions.


Goldschmidt


1978),


however,


study


structures


power


and


decision


making


higher


education


systems


seven


countries


, reported


that


professors


the


Unit


ed States


were


being


consulted


less,


while


junior


academic


staff,


students,


nonacademic


personnel


were


gaining


deci


sion-making


power.


In 1967


the


American


Association


Higher


Education


public


shed


a report


which


was


to be a forecast


subsequent


faculty


statements


involvement


comprise


in academic


summary


governance.


those


following


findings:


There


faculty


discontent


institutions


higher


learning


the


United


States.


Campus governance

authority between


should

faculty


built


and


on shared


administration.


Such


shared


authority


should


include


educational









total


resources


institution


to compensation


particular


individuals,


public


questions


that


affect


role


and


functions


institutions,


procedures


faculty


representation


campus


governance.


Faculty


representation


must


be related


locus


deci


sion


making


the institution.


Faculty


should


have


right


to select


type


representation


desired


e.g.,


academic


senate,


bargaining


agent).


Three


alternate


approaches


to faculty-


administration


deci


sion


making


should


be available


to faculty--information


sharing


appeals


reason;


use


neutral


third


parties


including


arbitration;


application


of political,


educational,


or economic


sanctions


including


strikes.


shared


authority


concept


could


best


implement


through


an internal


organization,


preferably


an academic


senate


including


both


faculty


and


admini


strators,


with


a majority


the


senate b

directly


eing


faculty


affect


members.

faculty,


Issues


such


which


as general


allocations


of budget,


should


be decided









An appeals


procedure


unfair


decisions,


scope


of which


would


be determined


the


senate,


should


be establi


shed


including


third-party


intermediators


and


arbitration.


External


professional


associations


should


be used


to act


as a cons


tructive


complement


senate


providing


information


and


technical


services


and/or


supporting


educational


sanctions.


The


faculty


should


have


the


right


to choose


bargaining


representative


especially


institutions


that


have


not


established


internal


organizations


faculty


representation.


Kerlinger


(1968)


writing


about


the


same


time


during


student


power


struggle


the


late


1960s,


felt


that


faculty


had


legitimacy,


competence,


responsibility


to make


program,


policy-making


curriculum,


deci


course


sions


concerning


structure


and


educational


content,


admissions


requirements.


faculty


did


not


undertake


these


responsibilities,


thus


forcing


administration


make


these


decisions,


would


lead


to academic


mediocrity


and


result


in student


respect.


He further


thought


that


students


should


be involved


the


study


educational


policies


and


practices


even


point


criticizing


such


policies


making


opinions









struggle


decision-making


power


late


1960s


and


early


1970s


seemed


to be summarized


1971


seminar


sponsored


American


Association


Higher


Education.


They


discussed


major


problem


areas


relative


organization


and


governance


American


higher


education


resulting


from


changes


occurring


locus


deci


sion


making--the


decline


in autonomy,


procedural


regularization


standardization


conflict


recognition


management,


decentralization,


the challenge


professionalism,


demise


academic


mystique.


Ikenberry


1971),


reporting


this


meeting,


stated


that


the dilemma


of restoration


acceptable
conflict,
of college


and
and


and


preserving th
organization.


confronting


or purpose,
manageable


higher


education
achieving


level of


engthening


university,


esse


ntial


s that


campus


the accountability


while


essence


the
the


same


time


academic


428)


Critique


one


reviews


deci


sion-making


erature


related


to higher


education,


quickly


apparent


that


only


a few


apply


to a study


loci


of decision


making


small


colleges


even


fewer


to small


Christian


colleges.


There


a large


body


literature


concerned


with


lead


ership


styles


and


deci


sions


made


the


different


styles.


(Blake,


Mouton,


Williams


[1981]


synthesized


literature.)


However.


this


t a


little


helix


in understanding


F









work


that


been


done,


that


dealing


with


board


trustees


seems


most


relevant


to the


present


study.


The


literature


consisted


mainly


authoritative


opinion


and


commentary


number


reflecting

institutions


experience

. Also,


one


a comment


or perhaps


offered


limited


several


writers


concerned


the

more


effect


with


that


the


decision


opinions

ns that


expressed


should


were

made


certain


governing


units


rather


than


deci


sions


that


were


actually


made


unit


or position,


is most


appropriate.


This


to a rather


wide


variation


opinion


about


what


was


actually


done


with


little


evidence


to support


the


several


opinions.











CHAPTER


RESULTS


OF THE


STUDY


this


chapter


an analysis


formal


decision-


making


procedures


Chri


stian


Coll


Coalition


institutions


presented.


decision-making


procedures


focus


used


study


the colleges


was


which


ranged


from


to 2700


students


in enrollment.


There


were


69 members


s coalition


in 1982


, and


some


usable


data


were


received


from


these


institutions.


total


number


responses


rece


ived


was


a possible


was


reported


Chapter


square


analyst


opinionnaire


items


was


made


between


a first


returns


those


sequently


rece


ived


and


no significant


diff


erences


were


found.


Therefore


was


that


although


there


may


be certain


effects


external


remaining


validity,


sample


there


from


was


which


some


reason


no returns


expec


were


received


that


might


differ


significantly.


chapter


tabular


divided


distribution


into


three


responses


sections.


items


within


deci


sion


areas


is pres


ented


both


as to who


makes


decisions


who


part


cipates


in making


the d


sions.


Major


sion-making


areas


small


private


coll


eges


were









colleges


are


organized


to give


attention


to each


these


areas.


Second,


results


analysis


variance


determine


differences


among


perceptions


the


governing


positions/units


(trustees,


administration,


administration/faculty,


and


faculty)


are


reported.


This


includes


both


perceptions


the


~05


ition/unit


actually


making


the


decision


and


whether


or not


sition


incumbent


was


perceived


as having


participated


making


the


deci


sion.


Third,


findings


are


presented


relative


the


analysis


variance


differences


in perceptions


role


incumbents


about


positions/units


making


decisions


based


their


personal


level


of parti


cipation.


The


categories


personal


participation


were


as follows:


"I made


decision"


"I recommend


the


deci


sion"


"I provide


information"


and


participation"


Perceptions


Relative


to Who


Makes


and


Participates


Selected


Deci


sons


Within


this


section


data


relative


to who


makes


and


participates


selected


deci


sions


are


presented.


The


data


are


organized


four


deci


sion


areas


common


small


private


colleges


: academics


student


affairs,


development,


and


administration.


Contained


in Appendix


C is


w


v









each of


four


decision areas


under


consideration.


Reference

better un


to this


appendix may assist


derstanding of


the data


presented


reader in having a

herein. The


governing positions


from and about which


responses


were


obtained were


president


trustees,


presidents,


academic affairs,


dean


academic deans


of faculty),


(vice


business


officers


(manager,


controller),


vice


deans


president


students


for finance,


(vice


treasurer,


president for


student


affairs/student


services/student development/student


life),


development


director


officers


college


(vice


president


relations,


vice


for public affairs,


president


institutional advancement/church relations),


academic


department


chairpersons,


faculty members,


others


(one


athletic director and


one director


of marketing).


Academic


Area


Presented in


Table


are


perceptions of


respondents


in regard


to who actually makes decisions


relative


to five


selected academic


items.


Four


role


incumbents were most

decisions--trustees,


often

the p


perceived


resident,


as making


academic


the academic dean,


and


the faculty.


The trustees were most


often mentioned


decision makers


giving


faculty raises,


giving


promotions,


and hiring new faculty.


frequently mentioned as


a major


president was


decision maker


also


for these








Un
dI l *


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


1r4
c'cJ


Ir~I


>1

w-w
LA -rl U
en~


'en


tNIO

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


CIrH
'a'


rHICNI
'I
'.0101
I0I
Ir~I


Irli


JJdP

r)~U
-'400
~zrz4C


a)
WVd9
Oflu
CIh4
ttjc~
'C


'LA


O l l


010~
'a'


1e4


Otto
IC.'


I I
I I

AI 0 l
I I

IrHI


1 0


I0


WdP
Ow
s-I

'00
%CUC


1r4
I.
'('4


l'.0


- I I

I I
I 0 I


nI~
IC"


U]
4-)
r4
C

ON

-n


*r41








highest


percentage


mentions


(74.2%


academic


items


totals


academic


making


showed


deci


deci


academic


sions


sion


dean


(31.3%


to change


as most


time)


a grade.


frequently


with


Overall


making


faculty


second


24.8%)


president


third


21.9%).


Respondents


perceived


busin


ess


officers,


deans


stud


ents,


development


officers


as rarely


making


decisions


relative


academic


items;


they


were


mentioned


times


possible


1,417.


Perceptions


those


participating


in making


decisions


(Table


show


that


department


chairpersons


academic


make


business

in decis


deans


deci


were


sions


officer


major


relative


was


making


perceived


related


participants


academic


frequently


to faculty


in helping


items.


as participating


raises.


more


complete


picture


total


involvement


can


seen


combined


examination


the


"makes


sion"


table


(Table


"participates


in making


decision"


table


(Table


For


student


Appendix


making


(item


C for


slon


virtually


each


item.


to change


respondents


grade


perceived


faculty


(74.2%


the mentions


and


academic


dean


(20.4%


deci


sion


makers.


A few


respondents


indicated


"other"


remarked


that


committee


was


responsible


either









I
'010

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


>1

Wr~W
>~r4
LA C.) CO


cja.~
lu-i


~I~I

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


46


S
C
0

U,
*r4
C,
a)
V

0)
-c
4.)

0'
C
*4
*54
Co

C
r4


cia'


OICN

IN


>1
AJ*



UJrO
zrz4c




4)


cs-I
'OLD
-C
uroc


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


I0


IN
ILA


I 0


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

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


'LA


IN


I0.'
I.
I~o


a)
ms-i


I









changing


grades,


almost


no involvement


actually


making


the deci


sion.


This


item


was


the only


item


that


showed


both


trustees


and


pres


ident


as having


involvement

concerning


trustees


in making

disciplinin


making


a decision.

g a student,


the decision


Except


no other


(also


Item


item


participation


no other


(only


item


indicated


president


participation)


making


(Tables


deci


and


sion


was


highest


total


involvement


(making


deci


sion


plus


participation)


faculty


items.


results


relative


deci


sion


item


to hire


a new


faculty


member


(item


were


concentrated


among


president,


academic


dean,


trustees


who


97.5%


"makes


deci


however,


sion"


had


perceptions.


a frequent


mention


department


participation


chairperson,


(highest


items


chairpersons).


For


deci


sion


to promote


a faculty


member


(item


highest


total


involvement


was


percei


to be


academic


"makes


dean.


deci


Thirty-two


II


responses


and


nine-tenths


were


percent


academic


dean


were


25.1%


"participates


making


decision"


responses.


Perceptions


of position


incumbents


concerning


decision


to give


faculty


raise


(item


were


concentrated







makers


deci


sion,


but


some


participation


making


decision


Student


was


Affairs


perceived.


Area


Most


deci


sons


concerning


student


affairs


were


perceived


to be made


press


ident


and


dean


students


with


several


res


pondents


selecting


the


"other"


category


(Table


Tru


stees


were


perceived


to have


the


lowe


st involvement


student


affairs


all


the


deci


sion


areas


both


"makes


decision"


and


"participates


making


the


deci


sion"


(Tables


and


student


affairs


area


had


highest


number


responses


In the


"other"


indicated


egory.


that


Remarks accompanying

respondents perceived


responses


frequent


committee


decision


making


this


decision


area.


sion


to change


a financial


aid


policy


item


had


second


high


"other"


perceptions


the 19


items


(Table


Many


attached


remarks


(88%)


indicated


that


a committee


was


responsible


making


this


deci


sion.


The


other


"makes


deci


sion"


choices


regard


s item


were


concentrated


among


president,


trustees


business


officer,


and


dean


students


The


business


officer


was


perceived


as making


deci


sion


or participating


making


the


decision


about


financial


policy


the


respondents


(71.6%)


while


dean


stud


ents


was


identified


9 of the


respondents


(53.6%).


_



























no
*1


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


V
'C


s.d

cw*
r454



uaJc

-'-4
C


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


'a'


10


I0


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

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

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

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

('4101

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

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

U~1r4I


ICM


HO'
-I


Va.
ZEJ2C


C
0

Omt
Cc
'u-I

UCIC
a)




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


I-I
Iu.~


IC'
I .
IN


Ir41


U
C r4
S


so

































' a'


C

(0~.I

U2-4

V


S..
'U
cci-




U2Z
'.4
0



cc
'-4-4


-'cc
ci




a
41
$4

eQ.
zwc



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



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


~Di
S

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

a'Io
I0
'-4


IN
I.
'en


I


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

I I
I I
I
~Io'
*I

IC I
I-I


I e


I.


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


010
*I
ctIlIO
e410
'-4


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


IN


I '


1F


4-4
3.4
0
U
'-4
44


UJBM










res


pondents,


saw


dean


students


as making


deci


sion


saw


him/her


as part


cipating


Tabi


Making


item


deci


were


sions


perceive


involved

d to be


with


beginning


res


a new


ponsibility


sport

the


president


almost


sample


academic


dean


was


received


to have


a higher


total


involvement


than


dean


students.


can


seen


from


Tabi


, item


decision


have


highest


a series


of religious


incidence


"other"


meetings


on campus,


responses


the


items


out


cases


. As


other


student


affairs


items,


committees


were


mentioned


a high


percentage


cases


where


remarks


were


made


The president


was


most


frequently


seen


the decision


maker


50.0%


responses)


with


ean


students


academic


dean


seen


frequently


participating


and


17.8%


responses).


Perceptions


about


acting


on a di


sciplinary


measure


(item


position


were


heavily


with


concentrated


responses


dean


(70.7%


stud


being


that


he/


makes


deci


sion.


Total


involvement


was


highest


the dean


of student


position


items


(278


283)


(Tabli


and 4). This


item


one


lowest








Perceptions


about


deci


sion-making


responsibility


admission


poli


(item


were


diverse


distribution


was


follows


: the


president,


31.8%;


the


academic


dean,


20.0%;


others,


17.1%;


trustees


, 12.9%;


faculty,


12.1%;


with


other


positions/units


ess


than


4.0%


each.


Development


Area


Development


deci


sions


were


perceived


to be


made


trustees


almost


one


half


time


with


presidents,


business


officers


and


development


officers


perc


eived


other


frequent


deci


sion


makers


s area


(Table


same


positions/units


were


perceived


as most


frequently


participating


in development


divi


sions


Tabl


Item


deci


sion


to begin


a new


fund


sing


proj


ect,


had


the high


est perceived


total


involvement


"makes


sion"


plus


"participates


in making


sion"


development


personnel


(241


responses)


(Tabli


overall


total


indicated


that


44.1%


respondents


perceived


the president


to be making


deci


sion


their


institutions


Except


changing


the


bylaws


(item


19),


the


trustees


were


perceived


to have


most


deci


sion-making


involvement


concerning


ques


tion


constructing


a new


building


(item


13) .


They


were


selected


on 235


opinionnaires


decision


makers.


pres


was


perc


eived


persons


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


K __


q






























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


'a.'
1r4


'n ia.'j
I101

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


~I0
I0
In
I
nun

leN)


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

I I
Hi0I

I I


I eIrirl


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



F:4


r-e o


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


1r4


U)
4.)
r4
C


2-. If 1


1(N)






















0~110I
SI 'I
~IoI
I0I
IHI


r4IC~I


I

I 0
I r I


In'


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


'WI


nio~
IC'


*r4~r4


I', I
I I
r-i i


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



F14


Dell


''Cl
I I


C
or-'
*rlC
Co
S-4r4


5.40)
PC
04-i

4-4C
I-ri


4-I


tel









chairpersons


faculty


reportedly


most


participation


on thi


item.


The business


officer


highest


involvement


any


incumbents


deci


sion


to make


new


investments


(item


14),


and


except


rals


tuition/fees


, investing


money


was


indicated


highest


business


officer


involvement


(Tables


and


s item


lowest


perceived


involvement


chairpersons


faculty.


Admini


station


Area


deci


sions


area


admini


station


were


almost


exclusively


thought


to be made


trustees


presidents.


can


seen


in Tabi


the


trustees


were


seen


decision


makers


60.8%


time


president


33.5%.


Tabli


shows


that


the admini


strators


as a group


were


seen


as having


a high


level


of participation.


Deci


sions


about


long-range


plan


item


were


indicated


as being


purview


trustees


presid


ents


almost


the


respondents


The numerical


distribution


total


involvement


(Tabl


regard


long


-range


plans


was


as follows


: trustees


, 202


presid


ent,


academic


dean,


226;


siness


officer


193;


dean


student


, 174;


development


officer,


200;


chairpersons


, 86;


faculty,


116.


"other"


category


was


also


highest


outside


student


affairs


sion


















WU)
o~Cm

Sc>.'

urn



a)
a)u)
0"0


QPh4
0)

4-'
'a>.'
s-do

r4H U
cm

S
V
"C



a)
rH.r4 ci)





0)
0'
C
mc
-I -

C
0


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


It-I
1r41


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

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


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

IN I
I I


-LA


01 I r-4 I
*I *1

I r-t 1


cia'


~I0
IC.'
I
I




















OJW*

ccc


C
0)02*
0~10


UP4C

a)
H


WI


~I CI
I0I
i-I


mID
c~io'


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


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


0I~
4010
ICN


I-I


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


I
IN


a)
U,',,
't0H di


'en
*I


0101
*1
fbi
i0I
I I
mimi

I0I


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


dP B en


ic'
Br'
In


'to'


(Ni


'('4


jr-I
1r4


1r4


1W
'en


'en
1r4


dPI


C
0


U)
4J
r4
C


CU)









responses


(Table


It had


one


highest


total


involvements


the presidents


opinionnaires


response


es).


The deci


sion


to fill


administration


vacancy


item


was


mark


ed by


67.9%


the


res


pondents


as being


made


president


who


had


the high


total


involvement


this


item


items


with


perc


eived


involvement


on 276


returns


(Tabi


and


Total


involvement


relative


deci


sion


to change


purpose


college


(item


was


high


sident,


second


only


to making


long


range


plans


(Tables


Trustees


, however,


were


perceived


to actually


make


decision


in almost


cases.


trustees


were


seen


as making


sion


in regard


item


changing


the bylaws,


91.4%


respondents


This


repr


esents


greatest


unanimity


expressed


respondents.


It also


had


the high


total


involvement


trustees


out


returns)


(Tables


Involvement


Deci


sion


Areas


Governing


Position/Units


Table


shows


which


frequency


represents


perceived


a synthesis


involvement


Table


the four


deci


sion


areas


overall


each


governing


positions/units.


Involvemen


shown


terms


"makes


.


-


v




































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

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


-. 'C
I


C I


In
S 4
S S


C I


o q, I
S S S
C I


*0 I
I


i I


- U'
S I
0 -4 I
-4


p
N -


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


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


-4 S
5


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


a
U
C
a
U

k
44

6
A
a


Sn
0

I
a

S
14
U
3

C
S
14
C

C
0
-I
U
-4
U
0
'U

4'
A


C
-.4
S
a
-4

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


I.. C I


,..a


a I


SI


* *
0 -


C 1








Trustees.


can


seen


Table


this


governing


unit


was


most


frequently


perceived


actually


making


decis


(1,645


5,343


responses


SHowever,


they


were


perceived


least


frequently


as participating


making


decis


(even


lower


than


"other"


category).


Their


most


frequent


total


involvement


("makes


deci


'I


plus


"participates


making


the


deci


sion")


was


for


admini


station


decisions,


followed


development,


academic


and


student


affairs


President.


The president


was


perceived


to have


mos


frequent


deci


sion-making


involvement


administrative


area


and


least


frequent


the


development


area.


can


be det


ermined


from


Tabl


position


had


highest


level


total


involvement


position


s/units


with


4,161


selections


19,573.


Academic


Dean.


total


involvement


academic


dean


was


highest


academic


area


and


lowe


st for


development


area.


Overall,


position


was


selected


3,157


times


out


a poss


19,573.


Business


Officer.


Involvement


ess


officer/manager


was


most


evident


the


admini


station


development


areas.


Involvement


the


business


manager


the


academic


area


was


limited


(Table


Dean


Students


. This


~05


ition


had


the


third


high


est


- ^ R S


.*--a--- 1


. ... .1 .. .9


flu,,' a a a a a a a


-In


A







most


frequently


involved


in student


affairs


and


least


frequently


academics.


Development


Officer.


This


ition


was


next


lowest


actually


making


deci


sion


5,343


responses).


areas,


highest


involvement


was


development


and


lowest


was


in academics.


Department


Chairperson.


Chairpersons


had


high


perceived


involvement


academics,


were


other


deci


sion


areas


Table


Chairpersons


lowest


total


position


incumbents/units


"makes


decision"


category


5,343).


Faculty.


faculty


was


perceived


to have


most


frequent

student


Table


total i

affairs,


shows


involvement


admini


that


academic


station,


frequency


area


development


"makes


followed

SReview


decision"


responses


academic


area


can


attributed


items--to


a course


curriculum


to change


grade.


their


times


they


were


selected


as making


deci


sion,


were


adding


course


were


changing


a grade.


Other.


According


to remarks


provided


respondents,


the


"other"


category


represented


large


number


res


pon


ses


considered


to be


committee


decisions.


shown


in Table


this


category


was


seen


as having


more


total


involvement


than


department


chairpersons


1,282


to 1,242).









Diff


erences


Perceptions


About


Extent


Involvement in Selected Decisions Based on the


Position


pondent


As indicated,


second


question


that


gave


direction


study


related


to differences


responses


about


making


participating


decis


ions


based


position


the


res


pondent.


To det


ermine


there


were


diff


erences


a single


groups


factor


used


analysis


level


variance


within


(ANOVA)


factor


was


were


utilized.


trustees,


administrators

business office:


(including

rs, deans


presidents,


students


academic


eans,


development


officers


, faculty/admini


strators


(faculty


members


serving


in part


-time


admini


strator


such


as department


chairpersons),


and


faculty.


Dropped


from


this


analysis


were


responses


from


per


sons


who


were


classified


"other"


because


they


made


such


a small


percentage


total.


To provide


direction


analysis


was


hypothesized


that


there


would


no significant


difference


level


deci


sion


items


within


four


deci


sion


areas


the


perceptions


role


incumbents


from


the


various


governing


groups


board


trustees


admini


strators


admini


strator/faculty


members


, and


faculty


members


about


who


makes


the


deci


sion


and


who


participates


making


deci


sion.







































I %OUThW
I .
I NU9%OW


* *
waw r"r-


* *
. P. .


. I *
N In


I I I I
N N N


C
H





w.v-i
v-I

Via,

212


I


.-ir-ec
M-IN


00%0C4


N Ci In


0000


O m-4NM


OONr4


C4Wr40


WI




C

02
Tea)

a,


wire
CIC
4-410

~Iw
010)


I 0000


0000


0000


0000


0000


I I


I 0000


I 0000


0000


0000


0000


0000


04r40


0000


0000


0r4r40


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


rtnNm


I r4~
I


WI
4)8 r-'n-o


0000


'-0,-u'


& I'


I ** O


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


1 r^


0000


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


oe.~
r~O.-4r4


nmr~a


0-


a
O~.

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


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


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


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

o Wnd.r4 ~
-4~Ea0
veu


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


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


5-4
I


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


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


t~I


WI
wH.
0)10
.0 IC)









incumbents/units


were


mentioned


four


respondent


groups


as making


deci


sion


that


item.


(The


reader


remind


that


admini


station


included


presidents


academic


deans


, busin


ess


officers,


deans


students,


and


development


officers


that


"others


" cat


egory


responses


were


dropped.


shown


a respondent


group


mean


each


item


and


F value


res


ulting


from


application


analysis


variance.


(The


reader


further


remind


that


the


governing


positions/units


were


ass


signed


a number


based


on level


hierarchy


with


1 being


assigned


trustees


and


so on.


Thus,


means


shown


are


based


numbers


assigned


the


level


and


lower


the


mean,


higher


hierarchy


respondent


group


perceived


deci


sion


making


or participation.)


can


seen


an examination


Tabli


there


were


two


instances


in which


there


were


significant


differences


in perceptions


sition


respondent--in


regard


the


items


adding


a new


course


and


changing


a grade.


Using


the


Tukey


as a


follow


-up study


procedure,


was


found


that


the


diff


erence


first


instance


was


caused


significant


differences


level


perceptions


the


trustees


compared


those


the

the


other


groups


trustees


More


was


cifically,


item,


the


where


mean

s the


response


mean


for

the








the


administrative


hierarchy


than


other


groups.


second


instance,


Tukey


test


revealed


significant


differences


eve


between


any


two


groups


even


significant


though


that


the overall


level.


ome


difference


was


overall


significance


may


have


been


that


virtually


no faculty


members


perceived


other


incumbent


position


s/units


as making


the


deci


sion


change


a grade


item


(Table


10);


however,


total


group


respond


ents,


20.4%


thought


that


academic


dean


made


decis


(Appendix


Even


20.5%


academic


deans


perceived


their


office


as making


deci


sion.


Even


though


item


making


the deci


sion


give


(item


produce


a significant


diff


erence


specified


level,


trustees


felt


that


their


own


position


had


a more


frequent


deci


sion-making


than


overall


statisti


showed


(40.9%


perceived


themsel


ves


making


decis


while


the


total


sample


perce


ived


same


can


determine


ed from


Appendix


academic


deans p

overall


erceived

total (


that


7.5%


position

indicated


to be

their


ess


own


involved

position


than

makes


deci


sion


while


27.5%


entire


sample


perce


lived


same).


However,


each


groups


perceived


decis


about


giving


faculty


a rai


to be made


the


upper


eve


the


H rstmrrhv


U
OS7lAOflfl


a a a


rannn *nf


f-rnrm


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


r


aI-4 l|









echelons


administrative


hierarchy.


Table


shows


similar


information


incumbents


who


were


perceived


to have


participated


making


the


deci


sion.


This


involvement


must


viewed


relation


data


about


who


makes


deci


sion;


may


appear


that


a role


incumbent/unit


little


involvement


when


examining


only


partic


ipation


data


when,


fact,


incumbent


may


have


been


selec


frequently


as making


decision.


indicated


Table


four


five


deci


sion


items


there


were


significant


differences


level.


There


was


a significant


difference


about


participation


in decisions


adding


a course,


changing


grade,


faculty


promotion,


and


giving


the


faculty


member


raise.


When


Tukey


test


was


used


as a follow-up


item


concerned


with


adding


a course


curriculum


item


no significant


difference


between


groups


the


level


was


found.


Further


examination


the


means


shows


that


the


trustees


perceived


the


participation


to be


higher


levels


in the


hierarchy


than


did


admini


stration/faculty.


can


seen


from


the


table


the


mean


the


trustees


was


and


administration/faculty


. In regard


item


about


participating


decision


to change


a grade


(item


the


application


Tukey


did


reveal


any


significant


difference


the


























. S
u~u~'D&fl


(NOr4r4
. .
~tflDLfl


Soor-


a S
nwnm


flLflr4tt~
v-I-


or-nm


C(4-


ocNQ~
rt W r -.


e.4(NCNJCN


-5*-co


r-~a'o


0rlr4~
r4tflr4


0000


NO (N


U3~Lfl~
r-$Lfl(flCN


I.ou-~On
'0~4e4


~Da'cnO


.-.cflo(N


r4MfflN


e-diflOO


0~-0


r~r-n4m


-a'-.-.


r4~Nr4


('40.00


0000


NNv4r4


NWN4


N-4r4


C4NW~
.-4-4e4r4


.-40%U)N


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


Ce.,--


0000


rnto~om
r40'-4-~


Cr4


r-cntoe~a
40%1r4


w a' in
ra


rI --.


-'-4


C
C

U
6
4344
M04)
C


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


C
0>9
-

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


r4 -v.4 4J

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


44-.s
ON 4) -4 N

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


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


o"n r-m


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


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


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


I 4)PC


01


U,
4),


w 'n oo


S-Il.-


*-* I


tfl~.-40


U

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

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

CA








trustees


= 6.6)


(Table


11).


trustees


perceived


chairpersons


the


faculty


participating


more


perceived


than


academic


twice


dean


frequency


at about


third


frequency.


third


item


that


had


a significant


difference


was


promoting


a faculty


member


rank


(item


Although


Tukey


test


did


show


any


significant


differences


level


selected


between


any


the president


two


the


groups


academic


ean


, trustees


to be


participators


while


27.4%


and


faculty


17.7%


that


time


ese


incumbents


respectively,


were


participating


14.6%


and


26.8%


respectively


(Appendix


These


were


almost


reversed


perceptions.


fourth


academic


item


where


perceptions


regard


to participation


were


found


to be


significantly


different


through


the


analysis


variance


was


concerned


with


Tukey


giving


test


faculty


not


raises


reveal


(item


any


(Table


Again,


differences


level


between


any


two


groups


however,


an examination


Appendix


shows


that


some


the


diff


erence


was


perceptions


business


officers


' participation.


Tru


stees


selected


iness


office


incumbent


position


participating


21.0%


time


while


admini


stration/faculty


and


faculty


selected


offi


13.1%


time


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


T ..-. a. a .a


____ _S









Different


Bas


ces


on Pos


in Perceptions
ition


About


Student


Affairs


Decisions


There


was


one


student


affairs


decision


items


where


there


was


a significant


difference


level


perceptions


about


who


makes


the decision-


-the


item


related


to a deci


sion


to change


an admission


policy


Tabl


Application


Tukey


test


showed


significance


between


group


differences


level.


However,


from


Table


can


seen


that


mean


trustees


in regard


item


was


2.4,


mean


administration/faculty


was


which


was


largest


difference


between


any


two


means


item


related


admi


ssion


policy.


Although


significant,


deci


sion


to begin


a new


sport


(item


showed


a divergence


in perceptions


between


trustees


admini


station


(Table


, espec


ally


with


perceptions


the presidents


trustees


perceived


themselves


as making


the


deci


sion


30.4%


time


while


overall


the percentage


was


18.6%.


presidents


direction


the


percentages


was


reversed--


30.3%


presid


ents


pierce


ived


that


they


were


deci


sion


makers


while


overall


the percentage


was


39.4%


(Appendix


Perceptions


incumbents


about


participation


making


ql-iivisnt


mffa i r


tine-i Cl flfl~@


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


tiff































NI


I U
a a S


I


Ifl.-4 NI-I
a a *


.-4N4M


crrtC


0-400


I O.-4N..4


-4


I ww


"win"


rwMfl
W.4


Cewo


0000


Os""


E1


o u~w.n


Ou.4MM


Ow-to


ONe.4


0000


rIiflNr


0000


0000


i-i N 0 0


I


..4U--4


r-e-^w r-


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

U..'
-. a a -


.-r- v-4


OP-NM


0m4J.4N

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

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


-~-,4 41-


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


%ONQIA


0.940r4


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


0000


Or,.-t0


0 040


ONNO


0000


N.^-4


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


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


i-I %0 r4


0000


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


-I--I 4)-'

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


* '4.4


"4
4,
A
a,
.94
A

4,
A
a

C
C
a,
U
U
A
'A

14
0
3
a
-4

0
A
a

-4

Is

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

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

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

Os

aug
64*
4









changing


an admission


policy


(Table


13).


Application


Tukey


test


showed


no significant


differences


level


between


any


groups


on any


these


four


items.


However,


some


differences


were


noted


upon


examination


data.


Differences


perceptions


participation


item


changing


a financial


aid


policy,


were


apparent


between


trustees


faculty


that


on an overall


basis


trustees


frequently


selected


higher


administration


while


faculty


selections


were


more


diverse


(Table


13).


Specifically,


mean


trustees


this


item


was


whereas


mean


administration


was


4.5.


Furthermore


admini


strators


tended


indicate


that


persons


in the


"others


category


were


involved


to a greater


extent


than


non


-administrators


(Appendix


Differences


between


views


trustees


other


groups


were


apparent


when


considering


participation


sions


to begin


a new


intercollegiate


sport


(item


Table


13).


Trustees


perceived


almost


participation


from


"oth


ers"


category


while


remainder


respondents


selected


the


"others"


category


rather


frequently.


Relative


to acting


on a


serious


disciplinary


measure


item


10),


there


were


apparent


diff


erences


between





















































NOt~fl
'0





Cr4 u9 W
-4


a,


r~wr-t
N


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





a,-


0U~CNO


wor-..4
S I S S
tfflflflIfl




or-
U-,


M -4


S S S
wttflnu,




4*efltfld%


N -


U-Ic-u,
U,-


r-~N-4
U9r4.-4


MWr4M


MN.-4(fl


0% Ofld~ 4.


U~Nu~O%
~0


N 0 N 'n


r4r-r~4


It,


0.-i
-4


I 0 <4 -n 4


Mwrfld,
-~0 (N -4
-4




00%Ofl
r40%N4


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





N0%UV4.
~1





wtnra%
%0r4


a~'nrC
cr4-






Wr.4





or-~nc


Nr-tnl-
.4O~r4r.4


MC'~CC


4.9-49-4


.n'oe-4
-4


OONri
r40'...4.-4


-4NN.~4


I 4)
I 1..



ad
WE


I *u'4
I 0243

I
I 0.

0~'-4
I )w

z
I 4)0

I


'no r-u~


rNCr
0% u-i


0%'WN9-4
r-r$ri


NN'00
U.S 0r4


r.4OWW


I
I


I

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


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

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


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


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

La W-~4'~4J



~NVVC


a,-.
'-0

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

4aM
440SF'.>.
Li WdNAJ

QuLid.4 ~
02~210
1.4 V V C


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

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


4) c
a a>.
4.)~

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

,4 U-4~4 Z

U La V C


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


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


I 4)
I 1hZ


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


I


a,


A"
'flu
4PrS

-dO
4)0.
U

4).-
a..

0-4
1h4'a
0-4

C
flu
Sc
S-s

U

1..









level


Tukey


test.


perceptions


about


participating


making


deci


sons


to change


admissions


poli


(item


showed


differences,


even


though


not


significant


level


between


any


groups,


between


trustees


business


officers


one


side


and


presidents,


academic


deans,


deans


students,


and


faculty


on the


other.


Different


Based


ces


on Pos


in Perceptions
ition


About


Development


Decisions


items


concerned


with


making


development


decisions


(Table


14),


one


item


showed


significant


difference


level--the


item


related


to the deci


sion


to build


a new


building.


Again,


Tukey


test


did


show


any


significant

groups. Ho


differences


wever,


inspection


.05

the


level


between


frequency


data


any


and


means


in Table


shows


that


faculty


less


frequently


perceived


trustees


as making


deci


sion


than


other


groups.


Other


different


ces


, although


significant


level,


can


be found


from


study


Appendix


For


example,


development


officers


perceived


themselves


making


decisions


about


fund


sing


projects


(item


more


frequently


than


incumbents


as a whole


31.6%


18.1%).


three


items


concerned


with


participation


in making
























Wr4O%~


U S S S
rlr'JCNCN


0(~'100


- 9-4 ~4


OOOr4


0000


0000


.-4Lflr-r-


0000


OOOr4


0000


00r40


0000


0000


0000


or-nr4


0000


0Cr-00


0 0r0


0000


v-i 0%
v-I mr~4


.0
4N41fl
4Lflr4.-4


'V
C
U

N
0
Mew
MOM
C
C'.)


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

O 0-4N4J
Cr4


0000


('JWIflN


or-wQ
C4LflflC.I


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

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


0r00


Nor-N


fl.-4C4N
'n-v-I


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


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

AC C)
.4) 0


4.' .
a'


C
01
U
CC
-40
10.4
10

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

'U

410
-4k
0
C-4
0.C


4J5
WI


W I


( I

























0CNr4O~
S S S


n 0o m
4 4 4
3-w ^


~DNN
5 0 S
r~ r~ ri ri


(N 'C it)


U, .H .H


0000


r4iti0~


%Dc'4rna)


0r~40


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


cn.De4rn


r4flC'4r4


Nrfl'O~


CflN~LA


to '0 0%
r4rnc4,-4


'o0~rn


..40%NN


or-we'a
---4-4


cr4tfle4
r4uIneq
-4


('4 0' '0 N


r40QD
r4Ordr4


w-40%r-
I.
a


'a
C
S

U
0
MOM
C
'Co
nfl."


1*4

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

-4'-' 14 U-
*

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


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

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


.44 C

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


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


* in -n


hJ M.


Un I


torn


Qr4^


.4.4'


I '-


r--4.-4


g I


*








function


both


specifically,


within


when


between


Tukey


was


group


applied


differences.


there


More


were


significant


groups.


differences


Furthermore,


level


an examination


between


means


any


in Table


shows


that


means


trustees


was


4.0,


administration


4.2,


the


administration/faculty


4.1,


and


faculty


3.9.


The


to build


item


a new


regarding


building


participating


item


making


produced


decision


second


largest


F of


any


tests


(19.67).


Even


with


analysis


variance


showing


such


a significant


Tukey


test


did


not


show


any


significant


differences


level


between


any


two


groups.


As shown


the


means,


differences


between


groups


was


great


(trustees,


4.4;


administration,


4.4;


administration/faculty,


4.0;


faculty,


4.3),


but


variance


selections


was


highly


mixed


within


groups.


When


Tukey


tests


were


done


an effort


locate


between


group


differences


in regard


to opinions


concerning


participation


the


deci


sion


about


investments


(item


14),


none


were


significant


level.


Inspection


of Table


shows


similar


responses


for


trustees


and


admini


station


similar


responses


administration/faculty


faculty.


Furthermore,








44.4%.


However,


as can


seen


an examination


means


both


making


the decision


parti


cipating


making


the decision


(Tabli


14 and


this


item


related


to making


an investment,


trustee


sections


indicated


perceptions


as being


lower


in the admini


strative


hierarchy


than


the


other


three


groups.


Diff


erences


in Perceptions


About


Admini


station


Decisions


Based


on Position


The


admini


station


decision


area


produced


items


ere


perceptions


among


groups


about


who


makes


decis


ions


were


significant


level.


ese


items


related


to making


a deci


sion


about


changing


the


purpose


(item


and


changing


bylaws


(item


(Table


Again,


application


reveal


any


diff


erences


level


between


any


two


groups


respondents


item


involving


changing


purpose


coll


ege


item


Tabli


16),


the differ


ence


that


was


apparent


was


that


90.9%


trustees


felt


that


they


made


deci


sion


while


the overall


sample


selected


them


making


deci


sion


79.7%


time.


Bylaws


changes


(item


were


sole


perceived


but


responsibility


one


trustees


trustees


while


some


to be


the other


incumbents


ected other


incumbent


positions/units.


Means


for


both


chancai na


niirnnss


n 1 I t1


chanai no


hvlaw


Shnwsd
























nuflnw
. .
-4-4--er'


. .
----


. C
r4r4r"4N


--4-4-4


OflOv-4


0 0 0


0tn0r4


000r.4


0000


0000


O0NS


0000


0000


0C00


0000


0000


0000


0-I0 0


0r0 0


0000


0000


0000


0000


0000


0000


0000


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

>9300
.0I
'U

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







V
C
S

I
0
4)164
1404)
C
a


0r0 0


C Eq ~4 Cl


WW4W
rep.-,


.41fl4r4


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


..40%~4


-000


C C
Wr4r4


WCCrI


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


0C00


ONOC


r.C.wC
,-drbrded


c
0 0>9
$NJJ.4e4

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


0000


Cr4~I.-4


Cdwtflhfl


00 Cl
NIfl eq


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


0000


4J
C
C -4
r4*
C
042


0000


OW tArt


NMnfO0


C
0>9

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

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


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


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


$I


WI
4)3


U 0
-C
iO









faculty,


2.3).


Even


though


was


not


significant


level,


on dealing


with


making


long


range


plans


(item


15),


difference


was


apparent


between


thinking


trustees


and


administration


(Table


16).


trustees


perceived


themselves


as making


deci


sion


a majority


time


while


administrators


pierce


ived


that


they


made


deci


sion


majority


the


time.


perceptions


respondents


about


parti


cipation


in making


admini


station


deci


sions


were


diverse


Table


17).


only


instance


in which


there


was


a significant


F at


level


was


item


to raise


fees.


The significant


differences


were


related


to making


long


range


plans


(item


15),


filling


an administration


vacancy


item


17),


changing


purpose


college


(item


18),


and


changing


bylaws


(item


19).


Again


nature


overall


differences


were


such


that


there


were


no significant


differences


found


between


any


two


groups


any


four


items.


Inspection


data


and


means


Table


shows


no apparent


pattern


in the


diversity


opinions


expressed


in regard


to participation


decisions


relative


issues


dealt


with


four


items.

























0 i-I 40
. a
wnnn


wnr.a%
. S S
en~nn


'-"ow-


wgQlQnI


CN~WM
m


in IN ('4


a~nnr-rt
Nr"4r-4


I-lW '0 40


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


C'JOON
04.4


Efl('400


v.4 LA ('4


r-o(%aw


(4 P1W IA


0.545


,-4fl-4.4


a%%or-0
'fl-I-


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

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







'C
C
S

U
0
4)44
1404)


BflfldW
.4W-I-I


.-4W1('44


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


WOMfl"4
NI-4.4


o'r4or-
r4r4


0004.4
~-404.4.4


nt-un-


-'-'-I


04w nc
N .4


o'W.4an
r41flfl04


iflO~0C
.44.04-4


C
.4 en 04 04


4.0400


-,,-4


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


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


0-In


mAtlr'r4


.-4Sr4.-4


C
U Qr4
C -N


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


CLAM-bc
.4 04 r4 .4


--I


P. 04 N
'-$4.04-


0%r'wN
an Vt CI


NW,'.


1Q00.


40 ('4 0% N
N


0%ro'N
0.4.4


04 0% 04 IA
N Vt Cl
-4


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


Ct 0% 04


4-N


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

04~CC.4
C'0.rdn4 0


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


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

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

mu
>54
00
'-454
6


Uf ,-I









Differences


in Perceptions


Decisions


About
Based


Making


Level


Participation


Respondent


As has


been


previously


stated,


third


question


which


gave


direction


study


was


whether


there


were


significant


differences


between


perceptions


about


role


incumbent


s/units


involved


making


selected


decisions


within


each


four


deci


sion


areas


based


extent


personal


level


of participation


decision


respondent.


An examination


deci


sion


point


analysis


instrument,


Section


(Appendix


shows


that


there


were


four


~05


sible


levels


involvement


* III


make


decision"


"I recommend


the decision"


, "I provide


information"


participation"


These


groupings


were


used


levels


within


factor


analysis


variance.


was


hypothe


sized


that


there


would


significant


difference


level


decision


items


within


four


deci


sion


areas


the


perceptions


role


incumbents


about


who


makes


sion


based


their


level


of participation


in the


deci


sion


(makes


deci


sion,


recommends


decision,


provides


information,


or no


participation).


Again,


where


there


was


significant


F the


Tukey


was


used


as a follow-up


procedure.


Differences


in Perceptions


About


Academic


Decisions


Based


on Level of


Participation


- a S S *


Selected


m


m




















Wr4LAD
. S
*C 40 '0


S 5 4 S
40r-r-r-


wu-,eno
. S
NNNC4


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


S S S S
C4CNCN.-4


r-'nc'J.-4


ufnwo


0000


h.%OUIO


04N..-4r1


cono


0r4of~


00 -t 0


%000r4


e4000


e4000


0000


0000


0000


0000


0Co00


0000


0000


0000


00,-go


0000


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


0000


0000


0000


0000


(4000


'-4-4,


0r~wr-


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


~or~o


0000


rdr-hnw


ner-o~


rdedr)an
IA..4N


WN40O


e I


NNO


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


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

0.>00
* 00*


0o00


a-NE.,
mr4rd.-4


weit-~o
N en


-if)


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

004~00
0' 00*


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


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

4) 04' 0 0
r4 011*


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


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


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


0I


(g I


o I










perceptions


respondents


held


about


which


incumbents/units


made


decisions.


example,


in regard


to adding


a course


curriculum


(item


respondents


perceived


themselves


as having


no participation,


56 as providing


information,


as recommending


deci


sion,


as having


made


deci


sion.


Further,


among


respondents


who


said


they


participation,


1 said


trustees


made


cision,


said


president,


said


academic


dean,


said


department


"other"


chairperson,


e.g.,


said


a committee


faculty,


means


and


contained


said


Table


show


the relative


level


within


the hierarchy


that


each


these


four


groups


perceived


the deci


sion


to have


een


made.


Examination


resulting


stati


stics


contained


Table


shows


that


there


was


one


decision


item


which


there


was


a significant


F at


level--the


deci


sion


item


dealing


with


adding


course


curriculum


(item


This


indicates


that


respondents


from


different


personal


participation


categories


differences


their


perceptions


about


who


made


the


deci


sion


to add


a course


curriculum.


Tukey


test


did


show


any


significant


differences


level


between


any


two


groups.


However,


as evidenced


through


an examination


means,


those


who


felt


that


they


had


no participation


in the









Furthermore,


examination


the


data


shows


that


respondents


who


perceived


themselves


as having


participation


selected


academic


dean


deci


sion


maker


57.4%


time


while


selecting


the


faculty


26.1%


the


time.


other


respond


ent


groups


perceived


approximate


reverse


with


academic


dean


being


selected


the


time,


and


faculty


around


50%.


Even


though


there


were


no other


significant


diff


erences


level


among


participants


based


their


level


of participation,


difference


approached


significance


.38)


item


2--to


change


the grade


student.


this


instance


difference


found


seemed


to be


a refl


section


the


extent


to which


respondents


participation"


category


perceived


academic


dean


as making


the


decision


to change


a grade.


Differences


in Perception


s about


Student


Affairs


Decisions


Based


on Level


Participation


can


seen


study


Tabi


for


items


concerned


with


student


affairs


there


were


no significant


differences


level


perceptions


about


who


makes


decision


based


level


personal


participation


deci


sion.


Also,


there


was


little


difference


between


means,


although


item


had


difference


between


the


perceptions


of respond


ents


who


that


they


provided


information







































**. A *


SOWN
a .


'o...too
. a a


. a


-4 in w
S I S a
lenin


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


UflO %O0


~o.nr-c


amMo


U~0NN


C A


MAnna


%or-rJc


0r400


0000


WU~40


0000


C4..40r-4


An0.40


...4OWIfl
'.4


.4000


mflfl0P'
r.mr4.-4


e4p-40e.a


r-r-wr4


-1000


0~4 Cr4


e40c40


let-'-.-.


I r-e.-4N
-4


0000


(.4000


0000


0000


0000


let-I-C


tnCO.-.


mflr4N0


(.400.4


0ONW
Nr4r4


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


can
le-r4


WW-4-4


(.4wr4


* wo0w
I 0-a


V~aC%0


0000


-**--4


Pie 0U9


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


0-


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

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


CO N
COO -

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

005)04)
0' 00*


mn -


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


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

.405)00
0' 00*
dO WUC
-


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

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


a -
'-I

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

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

w0.~oEJ
-4 OUM


I
I


(.4 An


U i


-x
Cu
Os
-w
S

Os'
- -


* a








a new


sport


2.31)


and


item


10 related


to disciplinary


measures


2.12).


Further


examination


Table


will


show


that


three


SIX


items


(change


regulation,


religious


meetings,


admi


ssions


policy


F value


was


below


0.75.


Differ
Based


ences


on Level


Perceptions


About


Development


Decisions


Participation


the


three


development


items,


one


was


found


to have


responses


based


on level


participation


that


were


significantly


this


diff


was


erent


item


the


level.


concerned


with


shown


beginning


in Table


a new


fund


sing


project


item


previous


stances,


application


Tukey


test


did


not


produce


significance


different


ces


level


between


any


groups.


Inspection


responses


means


suggests


that


the


greatest


differences


were


perceptions


those


persons


who


perceived


they


made


the


ecls


other


participation


groups


, particularly


those


who


perceived


that


they


recommended


decision


= 1.9).


Differences


Percent ions


About


Administration


Deci


sions


Based


on Level


Participation


There


was


one


five


administration


decis


items


where


there


was


a significant


diff


erence


the


level


perceptions


about


who


makes


deci


sion


based


on level






















nLflO~cNJ
S *
eJt'J.-dm


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


. S S
r~ m e~ m


r400r4


.4000


0000


0000


0r400


0000


0000


0000


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


wr-tn0
,-4r4 -4


.-4000


('40i40


U 0


0000


.-4COO


0000


0000


-4000


0000


0000


N~4-4e4


0000


an (N en


1nWC4W


-4--'


'n.c.r-a'


1nr4'n-4
-4


W...4r4


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


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


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


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


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


S
4) WV 00
00
a w


ONI


















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


r40r4N


41 I


m


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


0000





0000






0000






0000





ON4N


0000





00r40






000-4






000r4





0000


----4


S S
.4r4r4.-4


Mfflr40


0~40fl-4


tQ flDO%
i *nB


















0000
* S
























0000





0000





0000
0000< "^*-


0000


0000


0000


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


W'04c


& I


~e4-4


00-40





fl0r4~
r4r4N





wOC'4~J*
UflO%0r4


--4--


wr-re4


0000


Ifl IA
(N


'Q co.N N-


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

SI


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


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


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

C 0db 0 ci
.40U*


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


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

004$ '0
O~0db00


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


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


oo0000


o0o '0


0000





0000






0000





-4000


r)rIwr4









significant


differences


level


between


groups,


there


was


some


difference


between


responses


those


trustees


who


said


that


made


other


the d


category


sion


and


= 1.7;


provide


information,


- *1~7
-


recommend,


= 1.9).


respondents


participation,










CHAPTER


SUMMARY,


CONCLUSIONS,


AND


DISCUSSION


Summary


The


problem


study


was


to determine


perceptions


those


involved


about


locus


formal


deci


sion


making


four


basic


areas


small


church-related


colleges.


Specifically,


answers


following


questions


were


sought:


To what


extent


are


specific


position


incumbents


and


units


perceived


to participate


deci


sion


making


specific


deci


sion


areas


academics,


student


affairs,


development,


and


administration).


Are


four


there


differences


decision


areas


decision


(academics,


items


student


within


affairs,


development,


and


admini


station)


perceptions


the e

units


xtent

are


to which

involved


position


making


incumbents

a decision


and/or

and


participate


in making


a deci


sion


based


position


held


res


pondent


(i.e.,


trustee,


administrator,


faculty/administrator,


faculty


member).


Are


there


differences


decision


items


within


.e.







the e

units

the r


xtent

are


to which

involved


espondent


s perce


position


making

ived i


incumbents

a decision


and/or


based


involvement


deci


sion


(makes


deci


sion,


recommends


deci


sion,


provides


information,


or no participation).


In order


to provide


the data


neces


sary


answer


aforementioned


questions,


a decision


point


analysis


instrument


was


developed


see


Appendix


this


strument


was


provided


the


colleges


which


made


Christian


College


Coalition.


instruments


were


to be


distributed


business


trustee


officer,


president,


dean


students,


academic


dean,


development


offi


cer,


a department


chairperson,


a faculty


member


each


stitution.


ome


usable


responses


were


rece


ived


from


59 of


these


ins


titutions.


total


number


instruments


returned


was


of a possible


552.


Given


number


returns


was


felt


that


there


might


a problem


with


generalization.


To determine


the


extent


this


problem


returns


from


first


mailings


were


compared


means


square


with


returns


from


the


second


no significant


difference


level


was


found


on any


of the


instrument


items.


In order


answer


the


first


question


data


were


analyzed


simple


descriptive


statistics.


answer


second


and


third


questions


two


operational


null


hypotheses









In regard


first


question


relating


to who


made


deci


sions


and


who


participated


in making


deci


sons,


major


findings


emerged:


incumbents


most


frequently


perceived


to make


decision


each


item


were


as follows


Academic


area


decisions


a course


--faculty


40.3%)


Change


grade


--faculty


(74.2%


Hire


new


faculty


--pres


ident


42.3%)


Promote


a faculty


member


--academic


dean


32.9%)


Give


a faculty


raise


--president


36.1%


Student


Affairs


area


deci


sons


Change


financial


policy--president


(35.3%)


Change


pari


etal


regulation


ean


stud


ents


(51.8%)


New


collegiate


sport--president


39.8%)


Seri


(10)


religious


sciplinary


meetings--pres


measure--dean


ident


students


(50.0%)


(70.7%)


(ll)


Change


admi


ssion


policy--president


31.8%)


Development


area


deci


sons


Begin


fund


sing


project


--pre


sident


(44.1%)


Build


a new


building


--trustees


(83.0%)


Place


money


inve


stment


--business


officer









tuition


fees--trustees


(68.5%


Fill


vacancy


in admini


station


--president


(67.9%)


Change


purpose


of coll


--tru


stees


(79.7%


(19)


Change


bylaws--trust


ees


(91.4%)


can


seen


from


above,


trustees


were


most


frequently


seen


deci


sion


makers


in regard


to items


and


19;


pres


idents


were


most


frequently


seen


as d


sion


makers


in regard


items


and


academic


deans


in regard


item


business


officers


relative


item


ean


stud


ents


in regard


to items


faculty


were


most


equently


seen


as making


decision


relative


items


The development


officers


and


department


chairpersons


were


perceived


as major


ecis


makers


any


item.


. The


incumbents


most


frequently


perceived


participate


in making


the d


sions


each


items


were


as follows:


Academic


area


decisions


Add


a course--department


chairper


sons


31.6%)


Change


Hire


the grade


new


--academic


faculty--department


dean


39.3%


chairpersons


28.0)


Promote


a faculty


member--academic


ean


25.1%


Give


a faculty


raise


--academic


dean


, 5,







Change


New


parietal


collegiate


regulation


--president


sport--academic


dean


(21.7%)


(17.1%


Seri


of religious


meetings--dean


students


(24.2%)


sciplinary


measure--president


25.8%


Change


admi


ssion


policy--academic


ean


(21.6%)


Development


area


deci


sons


(12)


Begin


fund


sing


project


--development


officer


(27.2%)


Build


a new


building


--president


(21.2%)


Place


Administration


money


area


investment--president


deci


(33.3%


sions


Make


long


range


plan


--academi


dean


(17.4%)


(16)


Raise


tuition


ees


--business


officer


21.7%)


(17)


Fill


vacancy


admini


stration--academic


dean


18.0%)


(18)

(19)


Change

Change


purpose

bylaws-


college--president


-president


(19.1%)


.9%)


From


above


data


can


seen


that


the


following


were


perceived


most


frequently


to participate


making


deci


slon


: the


president


s--items


, 10,


the


academic


deans


--items


and


F 51


bus


officers


--items


and


the


dean


students--


item


development


officers


--item


and


department


chairpersons--items


, and


SThe


trustees




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EAHT08N54_DVODPP INGEST_TIME 2011-09-13T12:48:58Z PACKAGE AA00002180_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



THE LOCUS OF FORMAL DECISION MAKING IN
CHRISTIAN COLLEGE COALITION INSTITUTIONS
By
WESLEY LEE ROUSE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1983

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer is especially indebted to Dr. Michael Y.
Nunnery, Chairperson of the Doctoral Committee, and to Drs.
John Nickens and Robert Soar, for their guidance throughout
the study.
Sincere gratitude is given to Dr. John R. Dellenback,
President of the Christian College Coalition, for his
support. Acknowledgment is also made to the presidents of the
Coalition who helped provide the required data; without them
there would have been no study.
A final note of thanks is extended to the writer's
wife, Becky, for her continued patience, understanding, and
help, and to Joy and Jay, the children who continually
encouraged their Dad in this endeavor.
11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION .1
Background and Rationale 1
The Problem 11
Definition of Terms 14
Procedures 15
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 22
II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 23
Multiple Governing Unit Literature 24
Single Governing Unit Literature 28
Critique 39
III RESULTS OF THE STUDY 41
Perceptions Relative to Who Makes and
Participates in Selected Decisions 42
Differences in Perceptions About the Extent
of Involvement in Selected Decisions Based
on the Position of the Respondent 62
Differences in Perceptions About the Making
of Selected Decisions Based on the Level
of Participation of the Respondent 81
IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION 90
Summary 9 0
Conclusions 98
Discussion 100
APPENDICES
A CHRISTIAN COLLEGE COALITION 105
B DECISION POINT ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT 107
C NUMBER OF "MAKE DECISION" AND "PARTICIPATES
IN MAKING DECISION" RESPONSES BY ITEM
AND RESPONDENTS 117
iii

REFERENCES 137
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 14Q.
IV

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
THE LOCUS OF FORMAL DECISION MAKING IN
CHRISTIAN COLLEGE COALITION INSTITUTIONS
By
Wesley Lee Rouse
December, 1983
Chairman: Dr. Michael Y. Nunnery
Major Department: Educational Administration and Supervision
The problem was to determine the perceptions of those
involved about the locus of formal decision making relative
to academic, student affairs, development, and
administration decisions for Coalition colleges. Answers
were sought to questions about which specific position
incumbents/units were perceived to be involved in making and
participating in making decisions, and differences in
perceptions based on respondent role (trustees,
administration, administration/faculty, faculty) and on
level of involvement (no involvement, provides information,
recommends, makes decision).
Data were obtained by means of a decision point
analysis instrument from 59 of the 69 institutions with 293
returns. Analysis of variance was utilized to determine
differences in perceptions.
v

Faculty members, academic deans, and presidents were
perceived to be major decision makers in academics; deans of
students and presidents in student affairs; trustees,
presidents, and business officers in development; and
trustees and presidents in administration. Most frequently
perceived to participate were chairpersons and academic
deans in academics; presidents, academic deans, deans of
students, and business officers in student affairs;
presidents and development officers in development; and
presidents, academic deans, and business officers in
administration.
Based on position, there were significant differences
about who makes the decision for 6 of the 19 items and about
who participates for 15. The significant differences in who
makes the decision were for adding a course, changing a
grade, changing an admission policy, building a building,
changing the purpose of the college, and changing bylaws.
Based on level of involvement, there were significant
differences about who makes the decision for 3 of the 19
items. These were for adding a course, beginning a fund
raising project, and filling an administrative vacancy.
It was concluded that there was considerable unanimity
of opinion about who makes decisions, but little about who
participates. The most frequent decision makers were those
at the top of the hierarchy (trustees and presidents), and
those who least frequently made the decisions were those at
the lower levels (chairpersons and faculty).
VI

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background and Rationale
Decision-making authority in educational institutions
is basic to the educational process, but the specific loci
of the formal decision-making authority, especially in small
private church-related colleges had not been adequately
studied. Because of this lack of study, research needed to
be conducted in order to know how such small colleges
functioned; furthermore, results of research on the locus of
decision making, conducted primarily in large public and
private universities, were conflicting. Thus, there was a
need for further research in this area.
Cowley (1980) traced the types of formal decision
making that were emerging concurrently with the development
of higher education in the United States and showed that
decision making has evolved from a rather chaotic state into
the basic governing units found in virtually all higher
educational institutions in the United States—a board of
trustees, a president with supporting administrators, and a
faculty. He also indicated that there were other influences
on college decision making (students, alumni, government,
philanthropists, the general public) but indicated that the
amount controlled by the various governing positions and
units was still in controversy.
1

2
Rosenzweig's (1970) description of the control of
educational institutions, although written several years
ago, is still pertinent.
To describe it is to begin to appreciate its
singular nature. It is held in trust by a small
group of men who hold their office for a long
period of time and who are in some instances
responsible for appointing their successors—who
may be themselves. Responsibility for the
university's conduct is conferred by its trustees
upon a man hired by them and in principle
answerable only to them. Given that
responsibility and that line of accountability,
however, this individual finds that his most
important allies, adversaries, and judges are not
those who hired him but two other large, quite
amorphous groups. One of those groups, the one
that does the chief work of the institution,
consists of individuals each of whom has the
security and independence of a justice of the
United States Supreme Court. The other group
consists of individuals most of whom are legally
children but who have a capacity for trouble which
is wholly adult, (p. 267)
The faculty, the group "that does the chief work of the
institution," has been involved in many control battles
within higher education. Cowley (1980) stated that "one of
the most persistent myths prevailing in American higher
education insists that a golden age once existed wherein
professors operated their own institutions in some sort of
'free republic of scholars'" (p. 9). That this was a myth
is borne out by studies of early American college leaders
who adopted the system of their German, French, and English
counterparts, none of which operated in such a manner.
Harvard University, College of William and Mary, Brown
University, Yale University, and Princeton University all
participated in developing governing systems that were in

3
use at the time of the study reported herein. Even in 1983
many small church-related colleges had a board of trustees
much like that established at Princeton in 1784 by Jonathan
Belcher—a strong control board composed of ministers and
laymen in equal proportions (Cowley, 1980, p. 47).
While a few institutions (such as Harvard) have had a
bicameral structure of top control which includes the
faculty in major decision making, most colleges have had a
unicameral system designating much of the major formal
decision making to the trustees (Herbst, 1974). This
unicameral system, largely bypassing the faculty, became a
major feature of the college governance structure in the
United States. Herron (1969) contended that "the board of
trustees is the single most important agency of an
institution." (p. 42). He further stated that the trustee
needed to understand his/her role because "of all
organizations in the world, institutions of higher learning
are in ferment, intellectually dynamic because they are
rightfully committed to social improvement, and dynamic
because they challenge hierarchies of thought and structure"
(p. xv).
How trustees of small church-related colleges adapt to
the role was not clear from the literature. Background of
trustees from larger institutions investigated by Hartnett
(1969) showed them to be quite conservative and that their
decisions as board members probably carried the same
conservatism.

4
It has long been thought that the board of trustees
wielded the major decision-making power in colleges though
these decisions may be made with little of the proper
background information (Harnett, 1969, p. 135). Rosenzweig
(1970) made an analysis of universities and concluded that
"it is unreasonable to expect a group of men, all with full¬
time responsibilities elsewhere, to adequately govern the
university" (p. 270). While the decision-making
responsibilities of trustees have been listed by numerous
authors, Franzreb (1978) and Rosenzweig (1970) intimated
that board members are generally unaware of educational
administration, that most are even unaware of the purposes
of the institution they represent, and that many would be
surprised at the legal responsibilities they have assumed.
Legal decision-making authority vested in a board of
trustees is quite encompassing with the definitions and
limitations of that authority contained in the corporate
charter of the institution and in the laws of the state of
incorporation. In general, the board member is charged with
acting "fairly and responsibly in protecting the
institution's resources and interests" (Kaplin, 1978, p. 48).
Unlike public institutions whose authority may be
vested in a state constitution that cannot be easily
changed, somewhat less stringent limits are imposed by the
state on private college through their articles of
incorporation. The courts in Burnett v. Barnes (1977) and
Stern v. Lucy Hayes National Training School for Deconnesses
and Missionaries (1974) provided considerable leeway for

5
private colleges: trustees could change the college bylaws
so long as the change was not inconsistent with the college
articles of incorporation and/or the laws of the state
(Kaplin, 1978, p. 46).
These articles of incorporation, including any
decision-making authorities associated with them, constitute
a binding contract between the state and the college. This
compatible separation is consistent with the landmark
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) case in
which it was ruled that a private college operating with a
state-granted charter had the right to exist without being
taken over by the state. Other court cases relative to the
decision-making authority of trustees have been few. Only
one was noted by Kaplin (1978)--financial responsibility.
This responsibility was discussed in Stern and it was held
that boards of trustees and corporate directors can be held
accountable for mismanagement, nonmanagement, and self-
dealing. It also extended the responsibility of boards
(which could not be delegated) to maximize the trust income
by prudent investments (Kaplin, 1978, p. 48).
Kaplin (1978, p. 50) further stated that some confusion
existed over trustee delegation of decision-making
authority. In several cases boards have been held
responsible for a decision even when it was delegated to
administrators (e.g., the president, deans), faculty, and/or
campus agents (e.g., police, student organizations, campus
newspaper).

6
While legal decision-making responsibilities and duties
are largely a part of the bylaws, liability for tort, even
by those to whom the board has delegated authority, falls on
the board of trustees. Without the sovereign immunity of
some public institutions, liability for contracts made by
subordinates at private colleges, whether delegated or not,
often becomes the responsibility of the board or even the
individual members of the corporation (usually the officers
of the board) (Kaplin, 1978, pp. 61-67). Therefore, boards of
trustees of private institutions are often in a dilemma--
they must make decisions for which they may not be properly
prepared and they must accept the responsibility for
decisions made by subordinates over whom they may have
little effective control.
While legal decision making of private colleges and
universities has been adjudicated to some extent, during the
1960s and 1970s policy and operational control was still in
turmoil. George Pake (1971) writing in Science noted the
following:
How does it happen that universities which once
could manage, now cannot? There is not a simple
answer, but I keep coming back to the faculty.
The faculty holds the power in a practical sense;
the trustee holds it in a legal sense. If the
faculty were to responsibly delegate power to the
administration as effectively as the trustees have
in recent decades, I believe that able university
administrators could, in fact, cope with today's
crisis. But the faculty has been unwilling to do
so. As the faculty has become larger, more
unwieldy, and more concerned with individual
professional pursuits, it has become less able to
exercise its powers. Where small student or
nonstudent elements have brought whole
institutions to a halt, they have thrived on this
vacuum of power, (pp. 915-916)

7
Rosenzweig (1970) gave the faculty a similarly high
responsibilty:
In the end the faculty constitutes the only hope
for genuine self-government of the campus. This
is not because they can, themselves govern; they
cannot. It is because they are the only group on
campus with the authority and the prestige to
establish the rules of the game, the ways in which
things can and cannot be done—not so much the
substance of policy as the process from which
substance emerges. Equally important, they are
the only group that can confer on the president
and his administration sufficient legitimacy to
enable him to enforce those rules. Trustees can
take similar action by brute force, but only for a
short time and at exorbitant cost to the
institution. Only the faculty can act in a way
that strengthens rather than weakens the
institution, (p. 272)
Laird Bell, a member of the trustee boards of the University
of Chicago, Carleton College, and Harvard University felt
that
trustees had best bear in mind that they could not
be College faculty and that they should keep their
hands off education. . . . Once overall policy is
decided it ought to be true that the educational
experts should determine how the policy is to be
implemented. (Special Trustee Committee, 1957, p.
24)
Few educational institutions openly concede operational
decision making to the faculty, especially if that means a
weak presidency. However, Yale instituted such a policy in
the early 1800s (Pierson, 1952, p. 129) and to a great
extent it was still the same at the time of this writing.
Cowley (1980, pp. 91-94) discussed four areas where
decision-making authority is often the purview of the
faculty: discipline, admissions and degree requirements,
teaching effectiveness, and curricula along with the

8
associated instructional materials and methods. In this
connection it should be noted that colleges controlled by
churches often have heavy outside influence on curricula and
accreditation associations dominate some segments of all
education programs.
Although some early writers went so far as to suggest
that faculty take over all decision making by doing away
with administration and the board of trustees (Veblen,
1918/1965), most authorities, including the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP), have taken a
different approach. In 1960 the AAUP endorsed a
multicameral concept of academic government making the
faculty and trustees mutually, even though differentially,
involved in decision making (American Association of
University Professors, 1960).
Most boards of trustees delegate much of the
operational decision making, not to the faculty, but to the
president. In fact, some trustees have advocated a rather
complete delegation of such authority; consider the
following by Charles Coolridge while a member of the Harvard
board:
I can sum up the rules of conduct for trustees by
a big don't--DON'T MEDDLE. . . . You must realize
that you are not an expert in education. . . . As I
see it, the job of a lay member of a governing
board...boils down to this: Do your best to see
that the organization is good, that it is well
manned, and that it runs smoothly—but don't try
to run it. Make your decisions on evidence
furnished by experts, and not on your own
imperfect knowledge of academic affairs. If you
do that, I think you will be of real help to the
President, and that is my view of what you are

9
there for. (Special Trustee Committee, 1957, pp.
23-24)
While control over operations and execution of policy
in most educational institutions is vested in a president
(Balderston, 1974, p. 88), early experiments in college
management resulted in some institutions being controlled by
committees, either from the board of trustees or from the
faculty. A few, such as the University of Virginia in the
1900s, operated without a president. However, such
experiments were short-lived and, in the last few decades
the president has had the strongest influence in educational
decision making (Cowley, 1980, p. 45).
It is generally thought that the trend leading to the
position of strong influence of the president had its
genesis in the works of Frederick W. Taylor, the
industrialist who conducted time and motion studies in the
late 1800s (Cowley, 1980 , pp. 63-64 ). One of his disciples,
Morris L. Cooke, carried Taylor's scientific principles to
education when in 1910 the Carnegie Foundation published his
work under the title of Academic and Industrial Efficiency.
Three of Cooke's 1910 concepts may have led to major
changes in the decision-making power of the president—
functional organization, efficiency, and operations
research. The first, functional organization, found wide
acceptance in educational circles. Present day governing
positions such as vice president and dean received their
impetus from this concept, and the line and staff system has
become widespread in educational institutions. Since the

10
structure in educational institutions, much decision-making
power has gravitated in that direction.
The second concept, efficiency, was heavily advocated
as a decision-making guide by Taylor for industry and by
Cooke for education. Although it gained credence in
industry, education has been able to implement it only to a
small extent. Although presidents offer numerous decision
alternatives intended to produce efficiency, waste is still
a major part of modern education institutions (Cowley, 1980,
p. 63). Regardless of whether such efficiency or lack of it
is useful to education, it has been used by presidents to
charge that rival bodies should or should not have decision¬
making authority.
The third concept, operations research, has not
generally gained wide acceptance in educational institutions
(Balderston, 1974, pp. 69-72). However, in some places such
research has become a major influence on institutional
decision making (Van Dusseldorp, Richardson, & Foley, 1971).
Since such research is often ordered by or prepared for the
president, its use is usually the prerogative of the
president and results in increased presidential power.
Despite the evolutionary process that has permitted
survival and led to a workable situation at most higher
education institutions, "the steadiest fires of controversy
involve the proper relationship of professors, presidents,
and trustees" (Cowley, 1980, p. 199). As is detailed in the
next chapter, the decision-making relationships among these

11
groups had been studied in some detail for universities;
however, there had been little study of decision making in
private church-related colleges. Therefore, the focus of
the research herein was the locus of formal decision making
within the various governing positions and units in such
colleges.
The Problem
Statement of the Problem
The problem of the study was to determine perceptions
of those involved about the locus of formal decision making
in four basic areas for small church-related colleges. More
specifically, answers to the following questions were
sought:
1. To what extent are specific position incumbents
and units perceived to participate in decision
making in specific decision areas (i.e.,
academics, student affairs, development, and
administration)?
2. Are there differences by decision items within the
four decision areas (academics, student affairs,
development, and administration) in perceptions of
the extent to which position incumbents and/or
units are involved in making a decision and
participate in making a decision based on the
position held by the respondent (i.e., trustee,
administrator, faculty/administrator, and faculty
member)?

12
3. Are there differences by decision items within the
four decision areas (academics, student affairs,
development, and administration) in perceptions of
the extent to which position incumbents and/or
units are involved in making a decision based on
the respondent's perceived involvement in the
decision (makes decision, recommends decision,
provides information, or no participation)?
Limitations and Delimitations
While conducting the investigation several restrictions
were observed. The population for the investigation was
confined to representatives from each of the 69 church-
related colleges that made up the Christian College
Coalition as of August, 1982 (see Appendix A). Further, the
population was confined to the role incumbent from each
college for the following administrative positions:
president, chief administrator for academic affairs, chief
of business affairs, chief student affairs officer, and
chief development officer; and the following selected by the
president: one trustee, one department chairperson, and one
faculty member.
The total number of role incumbents who could possibly
be involved from the 69 institutions was 552, and the total
number of responses received was 293. Of the 69
institutions involved 59 provided some usable data, 3
institutions refused to participate, 2 institutions simply
sent summary information which could not be utilized in the

13
format provided, and 5 institutions did not respond. The
293 respondents included 23 trustees, 34 presidents, 41
academic deans, 38 chief business officers, 41 chief student
affairs personnel, 38 development officers, 43 department
chairpersons, 33 faculty members, and 2 others.
It was recognized that the lack of a 100% return from
the sample could limit the extent to which the results could
be generalized. In an effort to deal with this basic
weakness in survey research, an analysis was made of those
role incumbents who responded to the first request in
comparison to the responses of those responding to the
second request (257 versus 36). This comparison was done
using a chi square analysis for each of the items on the
decision point analysis instrument which was used to gather
the data. It was found the there were no significant
differences at the .05 level between the two samples.
Therefore, it was felt that the less than 100% sample return
rate didn't create a major bias because the differences
between those responding the first time and those who
followed was not significant. (Also, the data from the two
summaries received were similar to that provided by the
usable samples.)
Given the nature of the problem, a descriptive survey
design was used (Fox 1969, Chap. 15). This design, included
as an ex post facto quasi experimental design in Campbell
and Stanley (1963), dictates that two conditions must be
met:

14
1. There is an absence of information about a problem
that has educational significance.
2. The situation from which the information may be
obtained exists and the data can be gathered by
the researcher (Fox, 1969, p. 24).
Campbell and Stanley (1963, p. 64) discussed the
correlational cause and effect aspects of the ex post facto
design. However, in the present study no claims are made as
to the relation between the success of one college over
another and certain decision-making methods, or between a
specific decision and a change in subsequent success of the
college. At best the external validity extends to the
sampled population, the private church-related colleges of
the Christian College Coalition. Generalization to all
Christian colleges was not possible although the sampled
population represented a sizable proportion of all Christian
colleges.
It was recognized that the validity of the decision
point analysis instrument could be questioned. The
mechanics of the design of such an instrument had been used
previously (Holcombe, 1974), but modifications were made for
use in the present study. Therefore, only face value could
be claimed.
Definition of Terms
Decision areas. Divisions generally delineated in
small colleges--academics, student affairs, development, and
administration.

15
Decision point analysis instrument. An opinionnaire
instrument presenting statements of individual decisions
that must be made at educational institutions and the area
in which these decisions may be made.
Governing units. The board of trustees,
administration, administration/faculty, and faculty.
Governing positions. The board of trustee members,
president, chief of academic affairs, chief of business
affairs, chief student affairs officer, chief development
officer, departmental chairpersons, and faculty members.
Locus. The role position/unit that has the effective
responsibility for decision making in specific task units of
the institution. This may include the actual making of the
decision and/or participation in the making of a decision.
Position incumbent. The individual involved in key
decisions identified in this study.
Private church-related colleges. A nonpublic
institution controlled by a religious denomination.
Procedures
Introduction.
In order to conduct this study of the locus of formal
decision making in private church-related institutions, it
was necessary (a) to determine the colleges to participate
in the study and the governing positions/units within the
colleges that could contribute to decision making; (b) to
select the position incumbents who would be the actual
participants; (c) to select a means of determining

16
perceptions of these persons; (d) to determine procedures
for the collection of the data; and (e) to analyze the data
in terms of the questions. In the paragraphs following
attention is given to each of these topics.
Selection of the Colleges
As was discussed previously most of the research in
decision making within higher education has been done in
large colleges and universities. The target population for
this study was a group of small private Christian colleges,
in particular, those 69 colleges that had membership in the
Christian College Coalition (Appendix A).
The Christian College Coalition was formed in 1976 when
a group of Christian liberal arts colleges combined forces
to help preserve and strengthen their Christian convictions.
The Coalition, a Washington, D.C. based organization, had
the following objectives:
1. The monitoring of public opinion, legislation,
judicial activity, and governmental regulations on
matters which affect the freedom of Christian
colleges to function educationally and
religiously.
2. The development of unified positions on critical
issues for presentation to governmental agencies,
other organizations, and those influential in the
formation of public policy.
The development of well-researched positions on
potential erosions of religious and educational
3.

17
freedom in the Christian college movement.
(Christian College Coalition, 1979)
The Coalition was governed by a board of directors of
nine members, each being the president of a Coalition
college. An executive staff was elected by the board of
directors and was made up of a chairman of the board,
president of the Coalition, and a secretary.
Participants Within Each Institution
To determine decision-making perceptions by individuals
in the colleges it was necessary to identify persons who
were incumbents in several comparable positions. Therefore,
determination was made to seek persons representing each of
the generally recognized major governing positions and units
in small private colleges. Specifically, it was decided
participation was needed from the governing board of
trustees, administrators in the chief areas of operation
(i.e., administration, academics, student affairs, and
development), persons who were full-time faculty members,
and part time academic administrators who also teach (i.e.,
division/department chairpersons). Therefore, participants
in this study included members of the board of trustees,
presidents, academic deans, business officers, chief student
affairs officers, chief development officers,
division/department chairpersons, and faculty members.
Of the 552 possible respondents in the population (69
colleges and 8 positions) opinionnaires were returned by 293
role incumbents (23 trustees, 34 presidents, 41 academic

18
deans, 38 business officers, 41 deans of students, 38
development officers, 43 department chairpersons, 33 faculty
members and 2 others [i.e. an athletic director and a
director of marketing]). This represented a sample of 53%
of the population. As has been noted, in an effort to
support the case for generalization to the Christian College
Coalition, an analysis of the responses from the initial
mailing was compared with the responses after a repeated
appeal and no significant differences between the two sets
were found.
Instrumentation
Even though there has been considerable diversity in
methodology used to study the locus of decision making, most
frequently such studies have been based on the social-
research questionnaire style as delineated by Oppenheim
(1966). Such an approach was used by Baldridge (1971a) in
his study of the political model of the New York University
system, and by Gross and Grambsch (1974).
A research technique to help "translate the theoretical
concern into applied research" (Holcombe, 1974, p. 16) was
realized with the development of a decision point analysis
instrument. The instrument was first developed by Eye,
Gregg, Francke, Lipham, and Netzer (1966) as part of a
project for the United States Office of Education related to
the decision-making responsibilities of school
administrators and teachers.
The instrument was subsequently used by Fogarty and
Gregg (1966) to test relationships between personal

19
characteristics of public secondary school superintendents
and the centralization of decision making. Two studies that
used the instrument in community colleges were McCluskey
(1972) who used a modification of the instrument in research
of student personnel decision making and Scaggs (1980) who
studied decision making for curriculum change. The basic
instrument structure for the present research came from
these studies, although the items of each of the task units
and the governing positions/units in the instrument were
altered to fit peculiarities of the present study.
Data Collection.
Data were collected using the 19-item decision point
analysis instrument with decision statements unique to this
research (Appendix B). The statements were divided into four
decision areas—academics, student affairs, development, and
administration—with decision statements/items for each
area.
Endorsement from the Christian College Coalition was
sought, and a letter was sent by the president of the
organization to each president of a Coalition college
encouraging them to participate in the study. A cover
letter to the presidents, an introductory letter to the role
incumbent, and the decision point analysis instruments were
sent to presidents of the Coalition colleges. The
presidents were asked to select the persons to complete the
opinionnaire and have them returned to the researcher. Two

20
hundred ninty three opinionnaires had some usable item
responses.
As has been noted, opinionnaires from 52 of the 69
colleges were received from the first mailing. A second
mailing was made to those colleges not responding to the
first mailing, and opinionnaires were received from seven
additional institutions. This represented some usable
responses from 85% of the colleges. Three additional
colleges wrote letters choosing not to participate, two sent
summarized opinions from the president (neither of which
were used in the analysis), and no response was received
from five institutions.
Data analysis
To answer the first question, tabular distributions of
responses for the total group of respondents by decision¬
making areas and items were made.
To provide answers to the second and third questions, a
single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
compare the perceptions of the incumbents of the various
governing units and positions. The statistical null
hypotheses tested were as follows:
1. There is no significant difference at the .05
level by decision items within the four decision
areas in the perceptions of the role incumbents
from the various governing positions (board of
trustees, administrators, administrator/faculty
members, and faculty members) about who makes the

21
decision and who participates in making the
decision.
2. There is no significant difference at the .05
level by decision items within the four decision
areas in the perceptions of the role incumbents
about who makes the decision based on their level
of participation in the decision (makes decision,
recommends decision, provides information, or no
participation).
In applying the analysis of variance in relation to the
first hypothesis, for each decision item the four governing
groups (trustees, administrators, administrator/faculty, and
faculty) were treated as levels within the factor and the
positions were treated as an ordered series and assigned a
number based on level in the administrative hierarchy as
suggested by the literature (i.e., trustees, president,
academic dean, chairperson, faculty, and "other"). The
trustees, being at the top level of the hierarchy were
assigned a 1, the president a 2, and so on. In instances
where there was a significant F, the Tukey multiple
comparisons test based on the studentized range was used as
a follow up procedure in an effort to determine the
location(s) of the difference(s). This was done for both
"makes decision" responses and "participates in making
decision" responses. The same procedure was followed for
the second hypothesis except the levels within the factor
were the levels of perceived participation (no

22
participation, provide information, recommend, and make
decision) and the analysis was done for the "makes decision"
responses only.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Contained in Chapter II which follows immediately is a
review of the relevant literature. Chapter III is devoted
to presentation of the data relative to the three basic
questions which gave direction to the study. Chapter IV contains
the summary, conclusions, and discussion.

23
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Included in the present literature review of the locus
of decision making is research and authoritative opinion.
The review is divided into studies and authoritative opinion
that deal with more than one governing unit and those that
deal with a single governing position and/or unit. In all
of the major studies the researchers have concerned
themselves with universities, mostly public. There are some
limited data available about large private colleges and
universities and some authoritative opinion about small
colleges. The review is concluded with a critique.
The authoritative opinion approach was taken by
Sammartino (1954) when he was^president of Fairleigh
Dickinson College. He pointed out that the small college
president makes decisions that have to do with departmental
organization, public relations, evaluation of instructors,
guidance of students, fund raising, alumni, parents, food
service, office management, custodial service, and the
library. This constrasts sharply with the statement by
Daniel Griffith (1959) concerning universities that "it is
not the function of the chief executive to make decisions;
it is his function to monitor the decision-making process to
make certain that it performs at the optimum level" (p. 89).

24
Between these two ideas is a wide diversity of thought as to
what happens and what should happen in decision making in
educational institutions.
Although this review could extend back several years,
it is limited to literature since the 1960s primarily
because authorities such as Griffiths (1969, p. 19) have
suggested that only in the 1960s were educational
institutions becoming serious about the study of decision
making.
Multiple Governing Unit Literature
On the university level, three major research studies
that included decision making of the various governing
positions have been made since the 1960s: Gross and Grambsch
(1968, 1974); Baldridge (1971a); and Cohen and March (1974).
Although the data from these researches lend themselves more
to the study of goals related to perceived decision making,
the relationships to perceptions of individuals involved in
decision making is obvious.
The Gross and Grambsch Studies
Gross and Grambsch (1968, 1974) using an opinion-
naire/questionnaire developed by the authors as their data
collection instrument, conducted two surveys involving 68
universities (public and private), one in 1964 and one in
1971. Comparisons between the 1964 and 1971 data showed
that the perceived decision-making power structure differed
little between the two surveys.

25
In almost all the universities in the samples the
president was perceived as having the most decision-making
power with trustees perceived only slightly less powerful.
Participants were asked (a) to rank the goals of the
university from absolutely top importance to little or no
importance, (b) to indicate which governing position had the
least say in making decisions, (c) to decide whether the
influence of these positions had increased in the last seven
or eight years (in the 1971 survey), and (d) to indicate the
perceived power thought to be held by him/herself. The two
surveys showed that students, faculty, and the federal
government gained in influence in private universities,
while students, legislators, trustees, and state government
gained some influence in public universities.
Several conclusions concerning these data were drawn by
Richman and Farmer (1974). One, power may be different in
state universities than in private institutions. Two,
external groups probably have much more power in the public
sector. Three, there may be an expansable supply of power
judging from the total scores in the public sector being
substantially higher than in the private sector.
Richman and Farmer (1974) pointed out that one of the
major results of the studies was that "a more important role
in decision making has now become available to a wider
spectrum of participants who are now able to influence each
other to a greater extent than previously" (p. 162). They

26
went on to state that "the power structure at many
institutions has probably been shifting substantially to
outsiders and perhaps also to a lesser extent to potential
students as compared with the faculty and administrators"
(p. 163).
The Baldridge Study
Baldridge (1971a, 1971b) studied the New York
University system during the 1960s, and through this study
he developed a description of a new method of governance—
the political model. He concluded that conflict is a
natural part of the goal-setting and decision-making
process, that small groups of political elites act as the
major decision makers, and that decisions are influenced
greatly by external interest groups with internal groups
left with little power. According to Cleary (1978), who
commented on the Baldridge study, the political model is
established through debate and governance is
administratively assigned through the president. Roles of
perceived responsibility were delineated in the Baldridge
study for the various governing areas of the university
system. He further pointed out that the central
administration (used interchangeably with presidents) had
been successful in gaining decision-making power as the
degree of confidence of faculty members in administration
had risen since similar data were taken in 1959.
The study also dealt with the amount and degree of
influence in 10 major decision areas. The central

27
administration was shown to have had the greatest influence
overall, and to have clearly the dominant role in influence
over college budget, university budget, physical plant,
master plan, and public relations.
Richman and Farmer (1974) pointed out that this study
also showed that power may not be finite:
Baldridge's studies suggest that power and
influence do not necessarily come in fixed cans,
and that by filling power vacuums and initiating
actions and decisions, one can often gain power
and influence without others losing any of theirs,
in the net sense at least, (p. 167)
The Cohen and March Study
This 1974 study included interviews with 41 university
presidents, 36 chief academic officers, 36 chief financial
officers, 28 other officials close to the president, and
student leaders and editors at 31 public and private
university campuses across the country. The authors
concluded from their results that power was rather ambiguous
and diffused at institutions of higher learning even though
the president usually exerted the most influence over
individual decisions.
Cohen and March (1974) called the model that they found
organized anarchy. Richman and Farmer (1974) summarized its
basic properties:
Organized anarchies include ambiguity of purpose
and problematic goals; unclear technology; fluid
participation; ambiguity of power; ambiguity of
services; in particular presidential success.
Cohen and March believe that organized anarchies
should not be viewed as vehicles for solving well
defined problems, but more as a collection of
choices looking for problems, issues and feelings

28
looking for decision situations in which they
might be aired, solutions looking for issues to
which they might be answers, and decision makers
looking for work. (p. 31)
Balderston (1974) also commented on the model.
The presidency has to tend, and periodically
engineer, changes in the complex structure of
organization. In each major area, large numbers
of decisions have to be made. Thus, it is
necessary to develop adequate general policies
and accompanying procedures, so that most of these
decisions can be made quickly, near the point
where they need to be made. Only those large,
exceptional, or ad hoc cases that can not be
settled in a decentralized way should have to be
passed on to higher levels. As Cohen and March
point out, problems may not actually be resolved
at all but may instead be held in "garbage cans",
(p. 89)
Single Governing Unit Literature
There was much literature that placed emphasis on the
board of trustees. A diverse view of the trustee's
decision-making role was presented. This diversity and
multifaceted makeup of boards, especially in small colleges,
make it difficult to see just what role boards of trustees
do play in decision making.
The literature abounds with statements concerning the
phenomenological nature of boards of trustees in American
institutions. Although boards can be found in many kinds of
institutions, educational institutions are almost always
seen as "controlled" by a board of trustees. Heilbron
(1973) offered the following description of the trustees
around the campus:
From the viewpoint of the administration—the
president and deans—the trustee is a personnel

29
problem who requires special handling according to
his humor and temperament. But he is also a
sounding board, a buffer against pressures from
faculty, students, and outside agencies. He is a
perpetual student who must be educated by the
administration in time to meet a crisis, a
fabricator of prefabricated policies. From the
viewpoint of faculty he is a meddler in
educational affairs, a possible vehicle for
overturning the administration and transferring
its authority to the faculty; an agent to procure
the appropriations the faculty wants; a man with
corporate bias who seeks to run the college like a
business; sometimes a kind and friendly soul who
might be brought to the door of the temple but
should never be allowed to enter or share the
secrets of the brotherhood. From the viewpoint of
students, he is a member of the older generation
who usually cannot understand, often immobilized
by tradition, occasionally preoccupied with hair
and hangups, a symbol of the establishment;
actually, no more harmful than Dad, and
surprisingly, one who can be talked to when
protesting requirements and asking for change.
From the viewpoint of other trustees, he is a
pretty good fellow (though he may be a little too
talkative or too taciturn or too liberal or too
conservative); interested only in a better
educational program; wanting to do a fair, honest,
constructive job; unhappy when there is friction
in the college community; willing to cooperate
with all parties; expecting no public thanks and,
in this respect, not being disappointed. (p. 2-3)
Armour (1965) had his own description:
He seldom makes the meeting in the fall;
An afternoon in spring, at best, is all
The time he has to give to education,
So busy is he with his corporation.
And if his watch is often in his hand,
The other gentlemen will understand
That though it is, admittedly, a pity,
He has important business in the city,
So, having been assured there are no Reds
And shaken hands with all department heads
And heard the Prexy's hopeful parting bit
About a way to end the deficit.
He leaves the academic scene behind
And shortly puts it safely out of mind.
His name, they say, is one that carries weight
When listed in the catalogue, and fate
And taxes willing, doubtless will appear
Upon a building almost any year. (p. 105)

30
Most scholars writing on the subject have a list of
decisions that should be assigned to the board of trustees.
Some of them are more detailed than others, but all are
supposedly what the responsibilities should be. One of the
most concise lists was offered by Rauh (1969):
1. They hold the basic legal document of origin.
2. They evolve the purpose of the institution
consonant with the terms of this document.
3. They seek a planned development.
4. They select and determine the tenure of the
chief executive.
5. They hold the assets in trust.
6. They act as a court of last resort, (p. 9)
The tenor of Rauh's (1969) writing indicated that he
felt most trustees might not be aware of the purpose or the
bylaws of the institution. He proposed that the faculty and
president usually have more influence on the institution
than all of the trustees combined. He further commented
that wherever the influence is held or whatever the locus
of influence, by position or unit, it is probably a function
of pure chance forced by fiscal contingencies.
Potter (1976) suggested that the trustees were more
involved in the day-to-day decision-making responsibilities
of the college. He identified the following specific areas
in which trustees were involved: (a) selecting, evaluating,
and terminating the president; (b) ensuring professional
management of the institution; (c) purchasing, constructing,

31
and maintaining facilities; (d) defining the role and
mission of the college; (e) engaging in public relations;
(f) evaluating institutional performance; (g) preserving
institutional independence; (h) creating a climate for
change; (i) insisting on being informed; (j) engaging in
planning; and (k) assessing board performance (pp. 11-12).
Included in the above responsibilities is a decision
responsibility that was found in only one other list
(Carnegie Commission, 1973)--the trustee as a change agent.
Most authors felt that few boards functioned in the role of
change agent.
Clark Kerr (Conversations, 1973) presented a series of
decision-making responsibilities that if followed would make
the board much more the locus of the control center of the
institution:
1. Study their own membership to develop a board of
fully independent and devoted members who are
sensitive to but not committed to the views of
several constituencies that relate to the
institution.
2. Protect the essential independences of their
institutions from external control.
3. Review periodically the purposes of their
institution.
4. Assume the forward motion of their institutions as
against the current "survivalist" mentality of so

32
many in the academic community. This includes the
selection of active presidents.
5. Manage their resources effectively.
6. Contemplate levels and nature of future
enrollments and plan adjustments in advance. This
includes potential adjustments in faculty
cooperation, tenure and non-tenure, and
participation of women and members of minority
groups.
7. Be cognizant of the new mentalities developing
among faculty members and students, new attitudes,
new motivations and interests, and new styles of
life. To be in touch.
8. Assure a voice for trustees at the state and
federal levels when matters of common concern are
under discussion such as tax policy on gifts and
policies on control over higher education, (p. 53)
Kerr would have the trustee be the "brain" to recognize
and/or overrule the various "mentalities" of the
institution. How this was to be done in the modern college
or university was not explained.
Of a more pertinent nature to the present study was the
discussion of decision-making responsibilities of church-
related college boards by Messersmith (1964). These
decision responsibilities were supposed to be "actual"
decision-making duties rather than "should be"
responsibilities, although Messersmith qualified his

33
position by pointing out that he was being optimistic. His
decision-making list included policy matters, budget
approval and control, current operations, planning and
financing physical facilities, administrative services,
faculty and student services, and curricular and
extracurricular activities.
The Messersmith (1964) decision-making list was the
only one that gave the trustees the duty of financing
current operations. Also, Messersmith provided the only
definitive statement found about decision-making
responsibilities in small private colleges.
Rauh (1969) researched small colleges and included 20
topics commonly considered by boards, but whether decisions
concerning these topics were ratified or actually made by
the board of trustees was unclear. The following categories
were delineated: personnel (faculty appointments, wage
scales of nonfaculty personnel, retirement plans); student
life (dormitory rules, athletic programs, policies on
student-invited speakers); finance (investment, budget
analysis, long-range planning); plant (development of a
campus master plan, selection of an architect, architectural
drawings for a particular building); educational program
(decision about a research contract, changes in the
undergraduate program, instructional methods, library
services, admissions policies); and external affairs (fund¬
raising plans, alumni affairs, selection of a new trustee).
Rauh further pointed out that even though in private

34
colleges trustees are considered the college legally (also
see Chambers, 1976) they are not as involved in college
programs as those trustees in other public colleges. "At
the highest level of involvement . . . [trustees in] private
institutions are consistently less involved than all
trustees combined. This suggests a stronger commitment of
these trustees to delegation of management functions to the
college staff" (p.190).
Orley Herron (1969) felt that proper delegation of
decision making duties was only possible with proper
communication (also discussed by Balderston, 1974, pp. 82-
85). He prepared a checklist questionnaire to study the
communication between boards and other areas of the college
(president, faculty, students). Most of the returns were
from large colleges and universities although a few were
from private colleges.
Herron (1969) concluded that the use of trustee
committees was the most effective decision-making method
between the board and administration, faculty, and students.
He further concluded that each committee should have
decision-making responsibility for one of the major
divisions of the college—academic, student, finance,
development, buildings, and personnel.
About half of the boards had no response to the
questions on the regularity of committee meetings with the
president. The regularity of individual board members
contacting faculty members directly in the Herron (1969)

35
study was answered as "infrequently" by 40%. For contacting
administration members directly, the results were virtually
the same (43%). Herron did not report on some aspects of
his questionnaire results; particularly lacking were results
on board interaction with students and whether presidents
encouraged board members to contact individuals unilaterally
before making decision.
Other decision-making literature pertaining directly to
presidents and/or faculty from small colleges are virtually
nonexistent. Most additional research is from universities
and much of it is tied to the collective bargaining process
and the resultant gain in power by faculty rather than
decision making per se (e.g., Garbarino, 1974; Tice, 1972).
A study by Hudson in 1973 showed that the loci of decision
making had shifted some toward faculty after the advent of
collective bargaining, but that most major decision-making
duties were within the role of the administration. He
further stated that "actually making a decision may not be
nearly so important to a faculty ... as being consulted in
a meaningful way in the deliberation which preceded the
decision" (p. 34).
Of more pertinence to the present study (although the
research was done on the university level) was the study by
Dykes (1968) who studied the perceptions of faculty members
on their degree of influence in academic affairs, personnel
matters, financial affairs, capital improvements, student
affairs, and alumni relations. The results showed that a

36
high majority of the faculty felt that they should always or
usually determine decisions in academic affairs (86%) and
personnel affairs (69%), but fewer felt the same about
financial affairs (11%), capital improvements (21%) student
affairs (24%), and public and alumni relations (0%). Most
of the others felt that the faculty should recommend to
administration in all matters.
Richardson (1980) felt that during the 1980s most
presidents would be trying to seek more faculty and other
outside involvement in order to share the responsibility for
unpopular decisions. Goldschmidt (1978), however, in a
study of the structures of power and decision making in
higher education systems of seven countries, reported that
professors in the United States were being consulted less,
while junior academic staff, students, and nonacademic
personnel were gaining in decision-making power.
In 1967 the American Association for Higher Education
published a report which was to be a forecast of subsequent
faculty involvement in academic governance. The following
statements comprise a summary of those findings:
1. There is faculty discontent in institutions of
higher learning in the United States.
2. Campus governance should be built on shared
authority between faculty and administration.
3. Such shared authority should include educational
and administrative policies, personnel
administration, economic matters ranging from the

37
total resources of the institution to compensation
for particular individuals, public questions that
affect the role and functions of the institutions,
and procedures for faculty representation in
campus governance.
4. Faculty representation must be related to the
locus of decision making in the institution.
5. Faculty should have the right to select the type
of representation desired (e.g., academic senate,
bargaining agent).
6. Three alternate approaches to faculty-
administration decision making should be available
to faculty—information sharing and appeals to
reason; use of neutral third parties including
arbitration; and application of political,
educational, or economic sanctions including
strikes.
7. The shared authority concept could best be
implemented through an internal organization,
preferably an academic senate including both
faculty and administrators, with a majority of the
senate being faculty members. Issues which
directly affect the faculty, such as general
allocations of budget, should be decided by the
senate; however, some issues, such as business
management, should be primarily the responsibility
of the administrators.

38
8. An appeals procedure for unfair decisions, the
scope of which would be determined by the senate,
should be established including third-party
intermediators and arbitration.
9. External professional associations should be used
to act as a constructive complement to the senate
by providing information and technical services
and/or by supporting educational sanctions.
10.The faculty should have the right to choose a
bargaining representative especially in
institutions that have not established internal
organizations for faculty representation.
Kerlinger (1968) writing about the same time during the
student power struggle of the late 1960s, felt that the
faculty had the legitimacy, competence, and responsibility
to make policy-making decisions concerning educational
program, curriculum, course structure and content, and
admissions requirements. If the faculty did not undertake
these responsibilities, thus forcing the administration to
make these decisions, it would lead to academic mediocrity
and result in student disrespect.
He further thought that students should be involved in
the study of educational policies and practices even to the
point of criticizing such policies by making their opinions
known at decision-making meetings, but he felt that giving
students debating and voting privileges would not be
healthy.

39
The struggle for decision-making power in the late
1960s and early 1970s seemed to be summarized in a 1971
seminar sponsored by the American Association for Higher
Education. They discussed six major problem areas relative
to the organization and governance of American higher
education resulting from changes occurring in the locus of
decision making—the decline in autonomy, procedural
regularization (standardization), conflict recognition and
management, decentralization, the challenge to
professionalism, and the demise of academic mystique.
Ikenberry (1971), reporting on this meeting, stated that
the dilemma confronting higher education is that
of restoration of purpose, of achieving an
acceptable and manageable level of campus
conflict, and of strengthening the accountability
of college and university, while at the same time
preserving the essential essence of the academic
organization, (p. 428)
Critique
As one reviews the decision-making literature related
to higher education, it is quickly apparent that only a few
apply to a study of the loci of decision making in small
colleges and even fewer to small Christian colleges. There
is a large body of literature concerned with leadership
styles and the decisions made by the different styles.
(Blake, Mouton, and Williams [1981] synthesized the
literature.) However, this is little help in understanding
the locus of decision making in educational institutions
such as small Christian colleges.

40
Of the work that has been done, that dealing with the
board of trustees seems most relevant to the present study.
The literature consisted mainly of authoritative opinion and
commentary reflecting experience at one or perhaps a limited
number of institutions. Also, a comment offered by several
writers to the effect that the opinions expressed were
concerned more with the decisions that should be made by
certain governing units rather than the decisions that were
actually made by the unit or position, is most appropriate.
This led to a rather wide variation of opinion about what
was actually done with little evidence to support the
several opinions.

CHAPTER III
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
In this chapter an analysis of the formal decision¬
making procedures for Christian College Coalition
institutions is presented. The focus of the study was on
the decision-making procedures used in the colleges which
ranged from 150 to 2700 students in enrollment. There
were 69 members of this coalition in 1982, and some usable
data were received from 59 of these institutions. The total
number of responses received was 293 out of a possible of
552. As was reported in Chapter I, a chi square analysis by
opinionnaire items was made between a first set of returns
and those subsequently received and no significant
differences at the £< .05 level were found. Therefore, it
was felt that although there may be certain effects on
external validity, there was some reason to expect that the
remaining sample from which no returns were received might
not differ significantly.
The chapter is divided into three sections. First, a
tabular distribution of responses to the items within the
decision areas is presented both as to who makes decisions
and who participates in making the decisions. Major
decision-making areas of small private colleges were
identified as academics, student affairs, development, and
administration. The governing structures of most Christian
41

42
colleges are organized to give attention to each of these
areas.
Second, the results of the analysis of variance to
determine differences among the perceptions of the governing
positions/units (trustees, administration,
administration/faculty, and faculty) are reported. This
includes both perceptions of the position/unit actually
making the decision and whether or not the position
incumbent was perceived as having participated in making the
decision.
Third, findings are presented relative to the analysis
of variance for the differences in perceptions of role
incumbents about the positions/units making decisions based
on their personal level of participation. The categories of
personal participation were as follows: "I made the
decision", "I recommend the decision", "I provide
information", and "No participation".
Perceptions Relative to Who Makes and Participates
in Selected Decisions
Within this section data relative to who makes and
participates in the selected decisions are presented. The
data are organized by the four decision areas common to
small private colleges: academics, student affairs,
development, and administration. Contained in Appendix C is
a numerical distribution by respondent groups from the 293
persons in regard to who is the primary decision maker and
who participates in making decisions for each item within

43
each of the four decision areas under consideration.
Reference to this appendix may assist the reader in having a
better understanding of the data presented herein. The
governing positions from and about which responses were
obtained were trustees, presidents, academic deans (vice
president for academic affairs, dean of faculty), business
officers (manager, vice president for finance, treasurer,
comtroller), deans of students (vice president for student
affairs/student services/student development/student life),
development officers (vice president for public affairs,
director of college relations, vice president for
institutional advancement/church relations), academic
department chairpersons, faculty members, and others (one
athletic director and one director of marketing).
Academic Area
Presented in Table 1 are the perceptions of the
respondents in regard to who actually makes decisions
relative to five selected academic items. Four role
incumbents were most often perceived as making academic
decisions—trustees, the president, the academic dean, and
the faculty. The trustees were most often mentioned as the
decision makers for giving faculty raises, giving
promotions, and hiring new faculty. The president was also
frequently mentioned as a major decision maker for these
items. The academic dean and the faculty were most
frequently perceived to make decisions about adding new
courses and changing grades with the faculty receiving the

Table 1
Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Makes
Selected Decisions Concerning Academics
Decision Item
1
2
3
4
5
Hire
Give
Governing
Add a
Change
New
Faculty
Faculty
Positions/Units
Course
a
Grade
Faculty
Promotion
Raise
Totals
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Trustee
6
3 2.1
0
0.0
53
18.5
71
25.4
91
31 . 3
221
15.5
President
14
5.2
0
0.0
121
42.3
75
26.1
101
36.1
311
21.9
Academic Dean
111
38.2
57
20.4
105
36.7
90
32.9
78
28.6
441
31.3
Business Officer
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
2
0.7
2
0.1
Dean Students
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
2
0.4
0
0.0
2
0.1
Development Officer 0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
Chairperson
18
6.3
7
2.5
4
1.4
2
0.7
2
0.7
33
2.3
Faculty
116
40.3
207
74.2
3
1.0
23
8.6
1
0.4
350
24.8
Other
23
8.0
8
2.9
0
0.0
17
6.1
9
3.2
57
4.0
Totals
288
100.lb
279
100.1
286
99.9
280
100.2
284
101.0
1417
100.0
a
Six respondents
perceived the
trustees to
have
made the
decision.
b
Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding.
4*

45
highest percentage of mentions (74.2%) of all the academic
items for making the decision to change a grade. Overall
totals showed the academic dean as most frequently making
academic decisions (31.3% of the time) with the faculty
second (24.8%) and the president third (21.9%). Respondents
perceived business officers, deans of students, and
development officers as rarely making decisions relative to
the academic items; they were mentioned 4 times out of a
possible 1,417.
Perceptions of those participating in making decisions
(Table 2) show that the department chairpersons and the
academic deans were the major participants in helping to
make the decisions relative to the academic items. The
business officer was perceived frequently as participating
in decision making related to faculty raises.
A more complete picture of total involvement can be
seen by a combined examination of the "makes decision" table
(Table 1), the "participates in making the decision" table
(Table 2), and Appendix C for each item.
For making the decision to change the grade of a
student (item 2) virtually all respondents perceived the
faculty (74.2% of the mentions) and the academic dean
(20.4%) as the decision makers. A few respondents indicated
"other" and remarked that a committee was responsible either
for making the decision or participating in making such
decisions. The department chairperson was indicated as
having a relative high rate of participation relative to

Table 2
Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Participates
in Making Selected Decisions Concerning Academics
Decision Item
1 2 3 4 5
Hire Give
Governing Add a Change New Faculty Faculty
Positions/Units
Course
n %
a
n
Grade
%
Faculty
n %
Promotion
n %
Raise
n %
Totals
n %
Trustee
15 a
2.5
0
0.0
57
7.0
49
6.9
59
8.7
180
5.9
President
67
11.1
5
1.9
138
16.9
138
19.4
140
20.7
488
15.9
Academic Dean
144
23.9
103
39.3
173
21.1
179
25.1
165
24.4
764
24.9
Business Officer
11
1.8
0
0.0
22
2.7
13
1.8
102
15.1
148
4.8
Dean Students
14
2.3
9
3.4
25
3.1
12
1.7
32
4.7
92
3.0
Development Officer
8
1.3
0
0.0
12
1.5
7
1.0
29
4.3
56
1.8
Chairperson
190
31.6
77
29.4
229
28.0
179
25.1
86
12.7
761
24.8
Faculty
119
19.8
44
16.8
141
17.2
95
13.3
39
5.8
438
14.3
Other
34
5.6
24
9.2
21
2.6
40
5.6
23
3.4
142
4.6
Totals
602
99.9b
262
100.0
818
100.1
712
99.9
675
99.8
3,069
100.0
a
Fifteen respondents perceived the trustees to have participated in making the decision,
b
Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding.
4*
at

47
changing grades, but almost no involvement in actually
making the decision. This item was the only item that
showed both the trustees and the president as having no
involvement in making a decision. Except for Item 10,
concerning disciplining a student, no other item had 0 for
trustees making the decision (also 0 for participation), and
no other item had 0 for the president making the decision
(only 53 indicated participation) (Tables 1 and 2). It was
the highest total involvement (making the decision plus
participation) of the faculty for all the items.
The results relative to the decision item to hire a new
faculty member (item 3) were concentrated among the
president, academic dean, and trustees who had 97.5% of the
"makes decision" perceptions. The department chairperson,
however, had a frequent mention of participation (highest of
all items for chairpersons).
â–  X
For the decision to promote a faculty member (item 4),
the highest total involvement was perceived to be for the
academic dean. Thirty-two and nine-tenths percent of the
"makes decision" responses were for the academic dean as
were 25.1% of the "participates in making the decision"
responses.
Perceptions of position incumbents concerning the
decision to give a faculty raise (item 5) were concentrated
with the higher administration and trustees (Table 1).
Chairpersons and faculty members had virtually no mention as

48
makers of this decision, but some participation in making
the decision was perceived.
Student Affairs Area
Most decisions concerning student affairs were
perceived to be made by the president and the dean of
students with several respondents selecting the "other"
category (Table 3). Trustees were perceived to have the
lowest involvement in student affairs of all the decision
areas for both "makes the decision" and "participates in
making the decision" (Tables 3 and 4). The student affairs
area had by far the highest number of responses in the
"other" category. Remarks accompanying the responses
indicated that the respondents perceived frequent committee
decision making in this decision area.
The decision to change a financial aid policy (item 6)
had the second highest "other" perceptions of the 19 items
(Table 3). Many of the attached remarks (88%) indicated
that a committee was responsible for making this decision.
The other "makes decision" choices in regard to this item
were concentrated among the president, trustees, business
officer, and dean of students. The business officer was
perceived as making the decision or participating in making
the decision about financial aid policy by 199 of the 278
respondents (71.6%) while the dean of students was
identified by 149 of the respondents (53.6%).
The dean of students was seen as heavily involved in
decision item 7 (changing parietal regulations). Of the 281

Table 3
Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Makes
Selected Decisions Concerning Student Affairs
Decision
Item
6
7
8
9
10
11
Governing
Positions/Units
Fin Aid
Policy
n %
Change
Regulation
n %
New
Sport
n %
Religious
Meetings
n %
Disciplinary
Measure
n %
Admission
Policy
n %
Tota 1s
n %
Trustee
37
3 12.9
22
7.8
51
17.9
2
0.7
0
0.0
36
12.9
148
8.6
President
99
35.3
87
30.9
108
39.8
142
50.0
61
21 .2
90
31.8
587
34.8
Academic Dean
S
2.9
4
1.4
29
10.9
8
2.9
3
1.1
56
20.0
108
6.5
Business Officer
39
13.7
0
0.0
2
0.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
41
2.4
Dean Students
27
10.1
145
51.8
19
7.3
44
16.1
200
70.7
9
3.2
444
26.7
Development Officer
4
1.4
1
0.4
4
1.5
5
1.8
1
0.4
4
1.4
19
1.1
Chairperson
1
0.4
0
0.0
12
4 . 4
5
1.8
0
0.0
4
1.4
22
1 . 3
Faculty
8
2.9
5
1.8
15
5.5
9
3.2
1
0.4
34
12.1
72
4.3
Other
55
20.5
17
6.0
34
12.0
65
23.6
17
6.7
47
17.1
235
14.3
Totals
278
100.lb
281
100.1
274
100.0
280
100.1
283
100.1
280
99.9
1,676
100.0
Thirty-seven respondents perceived the trustees to have made the decision,
b
Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding.
V£>

Table 4
Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Participates
in Making Selected Decisions Concerning Student Affairs
Decision Item
6 7 8 9 10 11
Governing Fin Aid Change New Religious Disciplinary Admission
Positions/Units Policy Regulation Sport Meetings Measure Policy Totals
n
»
n
%
n
«
n
%
n
«
n
«
n
%
Trustee
28a
3.7
45
7.4
31
4.1
12
2.1
3
0.7
30
3.7
149
3.
President
113
15.2
132
21.7
106
13.9
84
14.5
118
25.8
120
14.9
673
17.
Academic Dean
143
19.0
90
14.8
131
17.1
103
17.8
70
15.3
174
21.6
711
17.
Business Officer
160
21.4
51
8.4
107
14.0
46
7.9
19
4 . 1
67
8.3
450
11 .
Dean Students
122
16.2
125
20.6
118
15.4
140
24.2
78
17.0
126
15.7
709
17.
Development Officer
82
10.9
44
7.2
69
9.0
44
7.6
16
3.5
73
9.1
328
8 .
Chairperson
12
1.6
9
1.5
54
7.1
22
3.8
9
2.0
37
4.6
143
3.
Faculty
20
2.7
39
6.4
76
9.9
56
9.7
54
11.8
98
12.2
343
8.
Other
69
9.3
73
12.0
73
9.5
72
12.4
91
19.9
80
9.9
458
11 .
Totals
749
100.0
608
100.0
765
100.0
579
100.0
458
100.lb
805
100.0
3,964
100.
a
Twenty-eight respondents perceived the trustees to have participated in making the decision.
Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding.
8
0
9
4
9
3
6
6
6
1

51
respondents, 145 saw the dean of students as making the
decision and 125 saw him/her as participating (Tables 3
and 4) .
Making decisions involved with beginning a new sport
(item 8) were perceived to be the responsibility of the
president by almost 40% of the sample. The academic dean
was perceived to have a higher total involvement than the
dean of students.
As can be seen from Table 3, item 9, the decision to
have a series of religious meetings on campus, had the
highest incidence of "other" responses of all of the 19
items (65 out of 280 cases). As in the other student affairs
items, committees were mentioned in a high percentage of the
cases where remarks were made. The president was most
frequently seen as the decision maker (50.0% of the
responses) with the dean of students and the academic dean
seen as frequently participating (24.2% and 17.8% of the
responses).
Perceptions about acting on a disciplinary measure
(item 10) were heavily concentrated in the dean of student
position with 200 out of 283 responses (70.7%) being that
he/she makes the decision. Total involvement was highest
for the dean of student position of all the items (278 out
of 283) (Tables 3 and 4). This item had one of the lowest
levels of trustee involvement (0 for "made the decision" and
3 for "participates in making the decision").

52
Perceptions about decision-making responsibility for
admission policies (item 11) were diverse. The distribution
was as follows: the president, 31.8%; the academic dean,
20.0%; others, 17.1%; the trustees, 12.9%; and the faculty,
12.1%; with all other positions/units less than 4.0% each.
Development Area
Development decisions were perceived to be made by
trustees almost one half of the time with presidents,
business officers, and development officers perceived as the
other frequent decision makers in this area (Table 5). The
same positions/units were perceived as most frequently
participating in development divisions (Table 6).
Item 12, the decision to begin a new fund raising
project, had the highest perceived total involvement ("makes
decision" plus "participates in making the decision") for
development personnel (241 out of 281 responses) (Tables 5
and 6). The overall totals indicated that 44.1% of the
respondents perceived the president to be making this
decision at their institutions.
Except for changing the bylaws (item 19), the trustees
were perceived to have the most decision-making involvement
concerning the question of constructing a new building (item
13). They were selected on 235 of 283 opinionnaires as the
decision makers. The president was perceived by 273 persons
to have involvement, but only 44 persons said he/she
actually made the decision. Of the three development items,

Table 5
Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Makes
Selected Decisions Concerning Development
Decision Item
Governing
Positions/Units
12 13
Fund Raising Build New
Project Building
n % n %
Inve
n
14
stment
%
Totals
n %
Trustee
10 4 a
37.0
235
83.0
80
29.1
419
49.9
President
123
44.1
44
15.5
46
16.8
213
25.5
Academic Dean
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.0
1
0.0
Business Officer
1
0.4
1
0.4
122
44.7
124
14.9
Dean Students
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
Development Officer
51
17.8
1
0.4
13
4.7
65
7.6
Chairperson
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
Faculty
0
0.0
1
0.4
0
0.0
1
0.1
Other
2
0.7
1
0.4
13
4.7
16
1.9
Totals
281
100.0
283
100. lb
275
100.0
839
99.9
a
One hundred and four respondents perceived the trustees to have
made the decision,
b
Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding.
<_n
gji

Table 6
Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Participates
in Making Selected Decisions Concerning Development
Decision Item
Governing
Positions/Units
12 13
Fund Raising Build New
Project Building
n % n %
14
Investment
n %
Totals
n %
Trustee
65a
9.3
39
3.6
66
14.5
170
7.6
President
152
21.7
229
21.2
152
33.3
533
23.8
Academic Dean
67
9.6
158
14.6
19
4.2
244
10.9
Business Officer
128
18.3
197
18.2
113
24.8
438
19.6
Dean Students
44
6.3
115
10.6
11
2.4
170
7.6
Development Officer
190
27.2
192
17.8
65
14.3
447
20.0
Chairperson
7
1.0
37
3.4
2
0.4
46
2.1
Faculty
13
1.9
65
6.0
0
0.0
78
3.5
Other
33
4.7
48
4.4
28
6.1
109
4.9
Totals
699
100.0 1,080
99.8b
456
100.0
2,235
100.0
a
Sixty-five respondents perceived the trustees to have participated
in making the decision,
b
Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding.

55
chairpersons and faculty reportedly had the most
participation on this item.
The business officer had the highest involvement of any
of the incumbents on the decision to make new investments
(item 14), and except for raising tuition/fees, investing
money was indicated as the highest business officer
involvement (Tables 5 and 6). This item had the lowest
perceived involvement by chairpersons and faculty.
Administration Area
The decisions in the area of administration were almost
exclusively thought to be made by trustees and presidents.
As can be seen in Table 7, the trustees were seen as the
a
decision makers 60.8% of the time and the president 33.5%.
Table 8 shows that the administrators as a group were seen
as having a high level of participation.
Decisions about long-range plans (item 15) were
indicated as being the purview of the trustees and
presidents by almost 93% of the respondents. The numerical
distribution for total involvement (Tables 7 and 8) in
regard to long-range plans was as follows: trustees, 202;
president, 287; academic dean, 226; business officer 193;
dean of students, 174; development officer, 200;
chairpersons, 86; and faculty, 116. The "other" category
was also the highest outside the student affairs decision
area (71).
Decision making relative to the raising of fees (item
16) was perceived to be made by the trustees by 68.5% of the

Table 7
Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Makes
Selected Decisions Concerning Administration
Decision Item
15 16 17 18 19
Governing Long Range Raise Administrative Change Change
Positions/Units Plan Fees Vacancy Purpose Bylaws Totals
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Trustee
99 3
35.1
196
68.5
81
28.9
226
79.7
255
91.4
857
60.8
President
163
57.8
70
24.5
191
67.9
38
13.4
12
4.3
474
33.5
Academic Dean
6
2.1
1
0.4
3
1.1
4
1.4
0
0.0
14
1.0
Business Officer
1
0.4
15
5.2
1
0.4
0
0.0
0
0.0
17
1.2
Dean Students
1
0.4
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.0
Development Officer
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.4
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.0
Chairperson
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.4
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.0
Faculty
1
0.4
0
0.0
0
0.0
11
3.9
5
1.8
17
1.2
Other
11
3.9
4
1.4
3
1.1
4
1.4
7
2.5
29
2.1
Totals
282
100.lb
286
100.0
281
100.2
283
100.0
279
100.0
1,411
99.9
a
Ninety-nine respondents perceived
K
1 the
trustees to
have
made
the decision.
Percentages do not
always
add to
100%
because
of
rounding.

Table 8
Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Participates
in Making Selected Decisions Concerning Administration
Decision Item
15 16 17 18 19
Governing Long Range Raise Administrative Change Change
Positions/Units Plan Fees Vacancy Purpose Bylaws Totals
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Trustee
103a
8.2
56
5.3
94
13.9
38
3.2
21
2.8
312
6.3
President
114
9.0
204
19.2
85
12.6
230
19.1
249
32.9
882
17.8
Academic Dean
220
17.4
200
18.8
122
18.0
203
16.9
129
17.1
874
17.6
Business Officer
192
15.2
231
21.7
106
15.7
142
11.8
95
12.6
766
15.4
Dean Students
173
13.7
154
14.5
90
13.3
161
13.4
83
11.0
661
13.3
Development Officer
200
15.8
139
13.1
82
12.1
146
12.1
80
10.6
647
13.0
Chairperson
86
6.8
15
1.4
23
3.4
88
7.3
24
3.2
236
4.8
Faculty
115
9.1
21
2.0
31
4.6
136
11.3
45
6.0
348
7.0
Other
60
4.8
43
4.0
43
6.4
60
5.0
30
4.0
236
4.8
Totals
1,263
100.0
1,063
100.0
676
100.0
1,204
100.lb
756
100.2
4,962
100.0
a
One hundred and three respondents perceived the trustees to have participated in making the
decision.
b
Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding.

58
responses (Table 7). It had one of the highest total
involvements of the presidents (274 out of 286 opinionnaires
responses).
The decision to fill administration vacancies (item 17)
was marked by 67.9% of the respondents as being made by the
president who also had the highest total involvement on this
item of all the items with perceived involvement on 276 of
the 281 returns (Tables 7 and 8).
Total involvement relative to the decision to change
the purpose of the college (item 18) was high for the
president, second only to making long range plans (Tables 7
and 8). Trustees, however, were perceived to actually make
the decision in almost 80% of the cases.
The trustees were seen as making the decision in regard
to item 19, changing the bylaws, by 91.4% of the
respondents. This represents the greatest unanimity
* N
expressed by the respondents. It also had the highest total
involvement for trustees (276 out of 279 returns) (Tables 7
and 8).
Involvement by Decision Areas for the
Governing Position/Units
Table 9, which represents a synthesis of Tables 1-8,
shows the frequency of perceived involvement for the four
decision areas and overall for each of the governing
positions/units. Involvement is shown in terms of "makes
the decision" and "participates in making the decision." In
the paragraphs that follow, attention is given to each
position/unit in regard to the decision areas.

Table 9
Perceived Involvement by Decision Areas
for Each Governing Position/Unit
Governing Position/Unit
Decision Area and
Trustees
Pr esident
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Totals
Type of Involvement
n
t
n
%
n %
n %
n
t
n
1
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Academics
Makes Decision
2 21a
*15.5
311
21 .9
441 31.3
2 0.1
2
0.1
0
0.0
33
2.3
350
24 . 8
57
4.0
1,417
100.0
Participates
100
5.9
488
15.9
764 24.9
148 4.8
92
3.2
56
1.8
761
24.8
438
14.3
142
4.6
3,069
100.0
Student Affairs
Makes Decision
148
8.6
587
34.8
108 6.5
41 2.4
444
26.7
19
1.1
22
1 . 3
72
4 . 3
235
14.3
1,676
100.0
Participates
149
3.8
673
17.0
711 17.9
450 11.4
709
17.9
328
8.3
143
3.6
343
8.6
458
11.6
3,964
100.lb
Development
Makes Decision
419
49.9
213
25.5
1 0.0
124 14.9
0
0.0
65
7.6
0
0.0
1
0.1
16
1.9
839
99.9
Participates
170
7.6
533
23.8
244 10.9
438 19.6
170
7.6
447
20.0
46
2.1
78
3.5
109
4.9
2,235
100.0
Administration
Makes Decision
857
60.8
474
33.5
14 1.0
17 1.2
1
0.0
1
0.0
1
0.0
17
1.2
29
2.1
1,411
99.9
Participates
312
6.3
882
17.8
874 17.6
766 15.4
661
13.3
647
13.0
236
4.8
348
7.0
236
4.8
4,962
100.0
All Areas Combined
Makes Decision 1
,645
30.8
1,585
29.7
564 10.6
184 3.4
447
8.4
85
1.6
56
1.0
440
8.2
337
6.3
5,343
100.0
Participates
811
5.7
2,576
18.1
2,593 18.2 1
,802 12.7 1
,623
11.5 1
,478
10.4
1,186
8.3
1,207
8.5
945
6.6
14,230
100.0
a
When the responses for the items within
to have made the decision.
the decision
area were
summed, the
trustees
were
perceived by
221
respondents
b
Percentages do not always add to 1001 because of rounding.

60
Trustees. As can be seen in Table 9, this governing
unit was most frequently perceived as actually making a
decision (1,645 of 5,343 responses). However, they were
perceived the least frequently as participating in making a
decision (even lower than the "other" category). Their most
frequent total involvement ("makes decision" plus
"participates in making the decision") was for
administration decisions, followed by development,
academics, and student affairs.
President. The president was perceived to have the
most frequent decision-making involvement in the
administrative area and the least frequent in the
development area. As can be determined from Table 9, this
position had the highest level of total involvement of all
positions/units with 4,161 selections out of 19,573.
Academic Dean. The total involvement of the academic
dean was highest for the academic area and lowest for the
development area. Overall, the position was selected 3,157
times out of a possible 19,573.
Business Officer. Involvement of the business
officer/manager was most evident in the administration and
development areas. Involvement of the business manager in
the academic area was limited (Table 9).
Dean of Students. This position had the third highest
perceived total involvement (2,079 of 19,573 responses). As
can be seen in Table 9, by areas the dean of students was

61
most frequently involved in student affairs and least
frequently in in academics.
Development Officer. This position was next to the
lowest in actually making the decision (85 of 5,343
responses). By areas, the highest involvement was in
development and the lowest was in academics.
Department Chairperson. Chairpersons had high
perceived involvement in academics, but were low in all
other decision areas (Table 9). Chairpersons had the lowest
total of all position incumbents/units in the "makes
decision" category (56 of 5,343).
Faculty. The faculty was perceived to have its most
frequent total involvement in the academic area followed by
student affairs, administration, and development. Review of
Table 1 shows that the frequency of "makes decision"
responses in the academic area can be attributed to two
items—to add a course to the curriculum and to change a
grade. Of their 440 times they were selected as making the
decision, 116 were for adding a course and 207 were for
changing a grade.
Other. According to remarks provided by the
respondents, the "other" category represented a large number
of responses considered to be committee decisions. As shown
in Table 9, this category was seen as having more total
involvement than department chairpersons (1,282 to 1,242).
By areas, the "other" choices were most frequently in
student affairs and rather limited in the other decision
areas.

62
Differences in Perceptions About the Extent of
Involvement in Selected Decisions Based on the
Position of the Respondent
As indicated, the second question that gave direction
to the study related to differences in responses about
making and participating in decisions based on the position
of the respondent. To determine if there were differences,
a single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized.
The groups used as levels within the factor were trustees,
administrators (including presidents, academic deans,
business officers, deans of students, and development
officers), faculty/administrators (faculty members serving
in part-time administrator roles such as department
chairpersons), and faculty. Dropped from this analysis were
the responses from two persons who were classified as
"other" because they made up such a small percentage of the
total.
To provide direction to the analysis, it was
hypothesized that there would be no significant difference
at the .05 level by decision items within the four decision
areas in the perceptions of role incumbents from the various
governing groups (board of trustees, administrators,
administrator/faculty members, and faculty members) about
who makes the decision and who participates in making the
decision.
Differences in Perceptions about Academic Decisions
Based on Position
Table 10 shows the five decision items in the academic
area and the number of times that each of the role

Table 10
Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Making
a Decision for Academic Area Items Based on the Position
of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test
Decision Item and
Position of
Respondent
Selected
by Respondents as
the Decision Maker
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Of ficer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Mean
Computed
F
1. Add a course * . _
Trustee (23)
7
14
0
0
0
0
1
0
2.8
Administration (188)
4
6
78
0
0
0
10
77
13
5.6
Admin/Faculty (42)
0
i
11
0
0
0
6
18
6
6.5
Faculty (33)
1
0
7
0
0
0
2
20
3
6.8
13.98*
2. Change a grade
Trustee (23)
0
0
7
0
0
0
2
14
0
6.4
Administration (179)
0
0
41
0
0
0
4
128
6
6.9
Admin/Faculty (42)
0
0
7
0
0
0
i
33
1
7.2
Faculty (33)
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
30
1
7.7
4.21*
3. Hire new faculty
Trustee (23)
5
7
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.3
Administration (187)
35
80
68
0
0
0
4
0
0
2.3
Admin/Faculty (41)
7
17
15
0
0
0
0
2
0
2.5
Faculty (33)
6
15
11
0
0
0
0
1
0
2.3
0.30
4. Faculty promotion
Trustee (23)
7
4
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.2
Administration (184)
48
49
59
0
1
0
2
14
11
3.0
Admin/Faculty (40)
8
11
13
0
1
0
0
5
2
3.3
Faculty (31)
8
10
6
0
0
0
0
4
3
3.4
0.97
5. Give faculty raise
Trustee (22)
9
10
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.7
Administration (187)
56
68
55
1
0
0
1
0
6
2.3
Admin/Faculty (42)
17
ii
12
1
0
0
0
0
1
2.1
Faculty (31)
8
11
8
0
0
0
1
1
2
2.8
1 . 36
a
Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there was one response per person, the number
is equal to number of respondents from the group in the sample.
b
The trustees were perceived by 1 trustee as making the decision to add a course to the curriculum,
c
Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher
in the hierarchy the perceived decision making.
p< .05
CT\
OJ

64
incumbents/units were mentioned by the four respondent
groups as making the decision for that item. (The reader is
reminded that administration included presidents, academic
deans, business officers, deans of students, and development
officers and that the "others" category responses were
dropped.) Also shown is a respondent group mean for each
item and the F value resulting from application of the
analysis of variance. (The reader is further reminded that
the governing positions/units were assigned a number based
on level in the hierarchy with 1 being assigned to trustees
and so on. Thus, the means shown are based on the numbers
assigned to the levels and the lower the mean, the higher in
the hierarchy the respondent group perceived the decision
making or participation.)
As can be seen by an examination of Table 10, there
were two instances in which there were significant
differences in perceptions based on the position of the
respondent—in regard to the items for adding a new course
and changing a grade. Using the Tukey as a follow-up study
procedure, it was found that the difference in the first
instance was caused by significant differences at the .05
level in perceptions of the trustees compared to those of
the other groups. More specifically, the mean response for
the trustees was 2.8 for this item, whereas the mean for the
administration was 5.6, the administration/faculty 6.5, and
the faculty 6.8. This meant that the trustees saw the
decision to add a course being made significantly higher in

65
the administrative hierarchy than did the other groups.
In the second instance, The Tukey test revealed no
significant differences at the .05 level between any two of
the groups even though the overall difference was
significant at that level. Some of the overall significance
may have been in that virtually no faculty members perceived
other incumbent positions/units as making the decision to
change a grade (item 2) (Table 10); however, for the total
group of respondents, 20.4% (57 out of 279) thought that the
academic dean made the decision (Appendix C). Even 20.5% of
the academic deans perceived their office as making the
decision.
Even though the item for making the decision to give a
raise (item 5) did not produce a significant difference at
the specified level, the trustees felt that their own
position had a more frequent decision-making role than the
overall statistics showed (40.9% perceived themselves making
the decision while 32.0% of the total sample perceived the
same). As can be determined from Appendix C, the academic
deans perceived that position to be less involved than the
overall total (7.5% indicated their own position makes the
decision while 27.5% of entire sample perceived the same).
However, each of the groups perceived the decision about
giving faculty a raise to be made at the upper levels of the
hierarchy as evidenced by the means ranging from 1.7 for the
trustees to 2.8 for the faculty. As indicated by the means
for the items within the academic area, this item was the
one which the respondents saw as being made at the highest

66
echelons of the administrative hierarchy.
Table 11 shows similar information for incumbents who
were perceived to have participated in making the decision.
(This involvement must be viewed in relation to the data
about who makes the decision; it may appear that a role
incumbent/unit had little involvement when examining only
the participation data when, in fact, the incumbent may have
been selected frequently as making the decision.)
As indicated in Table 11, for four out of the five
decision items there were significant differences at the .05
level. There was a significant difference about
participation in decisions for adding a course, changing a
grade, faculty promotion, and giving the faculty member a
raise. When the Tukey test was used as a follow-up for the
item concerned with adding a course to the curriculum (item
1), no significant difference between groups at the .05
level was found. Further examination of the means shows
that the trustees perceived the participation to be at
higher levels in the hierarchy than did the
administration/faculty. (As can be seen from the table the
mean for the trustees was 5.1 and the administration/faculty
6.2). In regard to the item about participating in the
decision to change a grade (item 2), the application of the
Tukey did not reveal any significant difference at the .05
level between any two of the groups. However, inspection
shows the greatest degree of difference, even though it was
not significant, was between the faculty (X = 4.7) and the

Table 11
Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as
Participating in Making Decisions for Academic Area Items
Based on the Position of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test
Decision Item and
Position of
Respondent
Selected
by Respondents as
Participating in
Making the Decision
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Of ficer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Mean
Computed
F
1. Add a course
Trustee (51)d
5d
8
8
2
1
1
1 3
10
3
5.1C
Administration (405)
8
51
95
9
13
7
125
82
15
5.4
Admin/Faculty (73)
1
2
20
0
0
0
25
14
11
6.2
Faculty (65)
0
5
20
0
0
0
24
11
5
5.7
22.50*
2. Change a grade
Trustee (21)
0
0
4
0
0
0
10
7
0
6.6
Administration (178)
0
3
71
0
8
0
51
28
17
5.6
Admin/Faculty (39)
0
1
13
0
1
0
11
9
4
5.9
Faculty (20)
0
1
12
0
0
0
4
0
3
4.7
2.92*
3. Hire new faculty
Trustee (63)
10
13
12
2
3
1
15
7
0
4 . 2
Administration (543)
31
96
117
17
17
8
154
90
13
5.0
Admin/Faculty (110)
7
16
24
1
1
0
35
22
4
6.1
Faculty (95)
4. Faculty promotion
9
13
18
1
3
2
24
21
4
5.1
1.35
Trustee (62)
6
17
11
2
1
1
16
6
2
4 . 4
Administration (471)
29
93
119
8
9
5
119
65
24
4 . 8
Admin/Faculty (92)
5
16
25
2
1
0
23
10
10
5.0
Faculty (82)
9
12
22
1
1
1
20
13
3
4.7
3.61*
5. Give faculty raise
Trustee (62)
9
11
17
13
1
1
8
2
0
3.5
Administration (465)
35
94
107
72
28
23
61
27
18
4 . 1
Admin/Faculty (86)
7
23
24
9
2
3
8
6
4
3.8
Faculty (61)
8
12
16
8
1
2
9
4
1
3.7
4.80*
a
Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there were multiple responses the number is greater
than the number of respondents from the group in the sample.
The trustees were perceived by 5 trustees to have participated in making the decision to add
a course to the curriculum,
c
Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher
in the hierarchy the perceived decision participation.
2< .05

68
trustees (X = 6.6) (Table 11). The trustees perceived the
chairpersons participating at more than twice the frequency
of the faculty and perceived the academic dean at about a
third the frequency.
The third item that had a significant difference was
for promoting a faculty member in rank (item 4). Although
the Tukey test did not show any significant differences at
the .05 level between any two of the groups, trustees
selected the president and the academic dean to be
participators 27.4% and 17.7% of the time respectively,
while the faculty felt that these incumbents were
participating 14.6% and 26.8% respectively (Appendix C).
These were almost reversed perceptions.
The fourth academic item where the perceptions in
regard to participation were found to be significantly
different through the analysis of variance was concerned
with giving faculty raises (item 5) (Table 11). Again, the
Tukey test did not reveal any differences at the .05 level
between any two of the groups; however, an examination of
Appendix C shows that some of the difference was in the
perceptions of the business officers' participation.
Trustees selected the business office incumbent position as
participating 21.0% of the time while administration/faculty
and faculty selected this office 10.5% and 13.1% of the time
respectively. Business officers perceived themselves as
participating in giving raises 19.1% of the time while
presidents selected this office 15.2% of the time.

69
Differences in Perceptions About Student Affairs Decisions
Based on Position
There was one of the six student affairs decision items
where there was a significant difference at the .05 level in
perceptions about who makes the decision--the item related
to a decision to change an admission policy (Table 12).
Application of the Tukey test showed no significance between
group differences at the .05 level. However, from Table 12
it can be seen that the mean for the trustees in regard to
this item was 2.4, and the mean for the
administration/faculty was 4.4 which was the largest
difference between any two means for the item related to
admission policy.
Although not significant, the decision to begin a new
sport (item 8) showed a divergence in perceptions between
the trustees and the administration (Table 12), especially
with the perceptions of the presidents. The trustees
perceived themselves as making the decision 30.4% of the
time while overall the percentage was 18.6%. For the
presidents the direction of the percentages was reversed—
30.3% of the presidents perceived that they were the
decision makers while overall the percentage was 39.4%
(Appendix C).
Perceptions of incumbents about participation in making
student affairs decisions were significantly different at
the .05 level in four instances. These were for decisions
about changing a financial aid policy, beginning a new
sport, acting on a serious disciplinary measure, and

xaDie iz
Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Making
a Decision for Student Affairs Area Items Based on the Position
of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test
Decision Item and
Position of
Respondent
Selected
by Respondents as
the Decision Maker
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business Dean
Officer Students
Develop
Of ficer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Mean
Computed
F
6. Financial aid policy
Trustee <23)a
7°
6
0
4 3
0
0
0
3
3. 3L
Administration (184)
17
78
3
24 19
1
i
3
38
4.1
Admin/Faculty (39)
6
8
4
6 4
2
0
2
7
4 . 3
Faculty (30)
7
6
i
4 1
1
0
3
7
4.5
0.33
7.^Change regulation
Trustee (23)
0
13
0
0 9
0
0
0
1
3.5
Administration (185)
17
53
2
0 98
0
0
3
12
4.1
Admin/Faculty (39)
2
11
1
0 21
1
0
2
1
4.2
Faculty (32)
3
9
1
0 16
0
0
0
3
4.1
0.33
8. New sport
Trustee (23)
7
12
1
0 1
0
1
0
1
2.4
Administration (185)
35
75
20
1 15
3
7
9
20
3.5
Admin/Faculty (39)
2
15
6
0 2
1
2
6
5
4 . 4
Faculty (25)
7
5
2
1 1
0
2
0
7
2.9
1.80
9. Religious meetings
Trustee (23)
0
16
1
0 3
0
0
0
3
3.3
Administration (184)
1
92
5
0 33
4
1
4
44
4.5
Admin/Faculty (40)
0
18
0
0 5
i
1
2
13
5.2
Faculty (31)
1
15
2
0 2
0
3
3
5
4.4
1.35
10. Disciplinary measure
Trustee (23)
0
7
1
0 15
0
0
0
0
4.0
Administration (185)
0
39
2
0 134
0
0
1
9
4.6
Admin/Faculty (41)
0
6
0
0 30
1
0
0
4
5.0
Faculty (32)
0
9
0
0 19
0
0
0
4
4.7
0.95
11. Admission policy
Trustee (23)
5
10
7
0 0
0
0
0
1
2.4
Administration (182)
24
61
29
0 7
2
3
25
31
4.3
Admin/Faculty (41)
2
11
13
0 2
1
1
4
7
4 . 4
Faculty (32)
5
7
6
0 0
1
0
5
8
4.3
2.93*
a
Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there was one response per person, the number
is equal to number of respondents from the group in the sample.
b
The trustees were perceived by seven trustees as making the decision to add a course to the curriculum,
c
Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher
in the hierarchy the perceived decision making.

71
changing an admission policy (Table 13). Application of the
Tukey test showed no significant differences at the .05
level between any two of the groups on any of these four
items. However, some differences were noted upon
examination of the data.
Differences in perceptions of participation for item
6, changing a financial aid policy, were apparent between
trustees and faculty in that on an overall basis the
trustees frequently selected the higher administration while
faculty selections were more diverse (Table 13).
Specifically, the mean for the trustees on this item was 3.8
whereas the mean for the administration was 4.5.
Furthermore, administrators tended to indicate that persons
in the "others" category were involved to a greater extent
than non-administrators (Appendix C).
Differences between the views of the trustees and all
' V
of the other groups were apparent when considering
participation in decisions to begin a new intercollegiate
sport (item 8) (Table 13). Trustees perceived almost no
participation from the "others" category while the remainder
of the respondents selected the "others" category rather
frequently.
Relative to acting on a serious disciplinary measure
(item 10), there were apparent differences between the
perceptions of the faculty and administration/faculty and
some differences between the administration and the other
groups. However, these differences were not significant at

Table 13
Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as
Participating in Making Decisions for Student Affairs Items
Based on the Position of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test
Decision Item and
Position of
Respondent
Selected
by Respondents as
Participating in
Making
the Decision
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Of ficer
Dean
Students
Develop
Of ficer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Mean
Computed
F
6. Financial aid policy
Trustee (53)a
2“
13
10
13
7
5
1
0
2
3.8C
Administration (513)
18
66
99
108
82
62
5
ii
60
4.5
Admin/Faculty (98)
6
17
20
23
15
5
4
5
3
4.0
Faculty (81)
2
15
13
15
17
9
2
4
4
4.3
2.91*
7. Change regulation
Trustee (40)
8
7
4
2
13
2
0
2
2
3.8
Administration (414)
19
92
63
39
81
36
6
24
54
4.6
Admin/Faculty (86)
12
19
13
5
17
2
3
7
8
4.1
Faculty (62)
5
13
9
4
13
3
0
6
9
?
2.51
8. New sport
Trustee (60)
4
9
10
8
9
6
5
8
i
4.6
Administration (550)
15
74
97
84
85
56
38
45
56
4.9
Admin/Faculty (89)
8
12
15
10
13
3
6
12
10
4.8
Faculty (60)
4
ii
8
3
10
3
5
10
6
5.08
4.88*
9. Religious meetings
Trustee (42)
2
6
3
2
12
2
3
7
5
5.4
Administration (406)
5
54
79
37
97
37
14
31
52
5.0
Admin/Faculty (64)
4
13
10
4
13
3
1
8
8
4.7
Faculty (61)
i
10
10
2
17
1
3
10
7
5.1
2.39
10. Disciplinary measure
Trustee (38)
0
12
5
2
7
2
3
3
4
4.6
Administration (296)
1
82
46
14
48
13
2
27
63
5.0
Admin/Faculty (64)
1
16
8
2
12
0
1
9
15
5.3
Faculty (58)
1
8
11
1
11
i
3
13
9
5.5
3.56*
11. Admission policy
Trustee (71)
3
11
14
7
10
5
9
7
5
4.8
Administration (557)
18
79
123
53
90
59
19
58
58
4.8
Admin/Faculty (103)
6
16
21
5
12
5
5
22
11
5.1
Faculty (69)
3
14
15
1
13
3
4
11
5
4.7
9.51*
a
Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there were multiple responses the number is greater
than the number of respondents from the group in the sample,
b
The trustees were perceived by 2 trustees to have participated in making the decision to
change a financial aid policy,
c
Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher
in the hierarchy the perceived decision participation.

73
the .05 level on the Tukey test. The perceptions about
participating in making decisions to change admissions
policies (item 11) showed differences, even though not
significant at the .05 level between any two groups, between
the trustees and the business officers on the one side and
the presidents, academic deans, deans of students, and
faculty on the other.
Differences in Perceptions About Development Decisions
Based on Position
Of the items concerned with making development
decisions (Table 14), one item showed significant difference
at the .05 level—the item related to the decision to build
a new building. Again, the Tukey test did not show any
significant differences at the .05 level between any two
groups. However, inspection of the frequency data and means
in Table 14 shows that faculty less frequently perceived the
trustees as making the decision than the other groups.
Other differences, although not significant at the .05
level, can be found from a study of Appendix C. For
example, the development officers perceived themselves as
making the decisions about fund raising projects (item 12)
more frequently than the incumbents as a whole (31.6% to
18.1%) .
All three items concerned with participation in making
development decisions showed significant differences in
perceptions at the .05 level (Table 15). Differences for
item 12, to begin a new fund raising project, seemed to be a

•raDie 14
Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Making
a Decision for Development Area Items Based on the Position
of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test
Selected
by Respondents as
the Decision Maker
Decision Item and
Academic
Business
Dean
Develop
Chair-
Computer:
Position of
Respondent
Trust
Pres
Dean
Officer
Students
Officer
person
Faculty
Other
Mean
F
12.
Fund raising project
Trustee (23 ) a
llb
11
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1.7 c
Administration (184)
57
89
0
1
0
35
0
0
2
2.5
Admin/Faculty (40)
21
12
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
2.2
Faculty (32)
15
10
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
2.4
1.23
13.
Build new building
Trustee (22)
20
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
Administration (185)
157
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.2
Admin/Faculty (41)
34
5
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1 . 3
Faculty (33)
24
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1.7
5.38*
14.
Make investment
Trustee (22)
5
2
0
12
0
0
0
0
3
3.8
Administration (183)
51
30
1
86
0
7
0
0
8
3.1
Admin/Faculty (37)
12
7
0
14
0
4
0
0
0
2.9
Faculty (31)
12
7
0
8
0
2
0
0
2
2.8
1.78
a
Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there was one response per person, the number
is equal to number of respondents from the group in the sample.
The trustees were perceived by 11 trustee as making the decision to add a course to the curriculum,
c
Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher
in the hierarchy the perceived decision making.
*£< .05
x.

Table 15
Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as
Participating in Making Decisions for Development Items
Based on the Position of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test
Decision Item and
Position of
Respondent
Selected
by Respondents as
Participating in
Making
the Decision
Mean
Computec
F
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
12.
Fund raising project
Trustee (62)a
8b
12
6
13
3
16
i
1
2
4 . O'
c
Administration (467)
41
94
50
82
36
129
5
7
23
4.2
Admin/Faculty (97)
9
24
8
18
2
28
0
3
5
4 . 1
Faculty (71)
7
21
3
15
3
16
1
2
3
3.9
8.77*
13.
Build new building
Trustee (83)
2
20
10
15
7
14
6
7
2
4 . 4
Administration (766)
25
152
117
136
93
138
22
47
36
4.4
Admin/Faculty (123)
5
35
18
26
6
21
3
5
4
4.0
Faculty (99)
6
22
12
19
8
17
5
5
5
4.3
19.67*
14.
Make investment
Trustee (39)
6
11
2
9
1
5
0
0
5
3.8
Administration (296)
41
100
9
74
7
43
1
0
21
3.6
Admin/Faculty (75)
13
24
6
17
2
11
1
0
1
3.2
Faculty (45)
6
16
2
13
1
6
0
0
1
3.2
5.54*
a
Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there were multiple responses the number is greater
than the number of respondents from the group in the sample.
The trustees were perceived by 8 trustees to have participated in making the decision to
begin a fund raising project,
c
Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher
in the hierarchy the perceived decision participation.
*£< .05
ui

76
function of both within and between group differences. More
specifically, when the Tukey was applied there were no
significant differences at the .05 level between any two
groups. Furthermore, an examination of the means in Table
14 shows that the means for the trustees was 4.0, for the
administration 4.2, for the administration/faculty 4.1, and
the faculty 3.9.
The item regarding participating in making the decision
to build a new building (item 13) produced the second
largest F of any of the tests (19.67). Even with an
analysis of variance showing such a significant F, the Tukey
test did not show any significant differences at the .05
level between any two groups. As shown by the means, the
differences between groups was not great (trustees, 4.4;
administration, 4.4; administration/faculty, 4.0; faculty,
4.3), but the variance in selections was highly mixed within
the groups.
When the Tukey tests were done in an effort to locate
the between group differences in regard to opinions
concerning participation in the decision about investments
(item 14), none were significant at the .05 level.
Inspection of Table 15 shows similar responses for trustees
and administration and similar responses for
administration/faculty and faculty. Furthermore, for
participation in making the decision to place money in a
certain investment, 60.0% of the business officers perceived
that they made the decision while the overall perception was

77
4 4.4%. However, as can be s'een by an examination of the
means for both making the decision and participating in
making the decision (Tables 14 and 15), on this item related
to making an investment, the trustee selections indicated
perceptions as being lower in the administrative hierarchy
than the other three groups.
Differences in Perceptions About Administration Decisions
Based on Position
The administration decision area produced two items
where the perceptions among the groups about who makes the
decisions were significant at the .05 level. These items
related to making a decision about changing the purpose
(item 18) and changing the bylaws (item 19) (Table 16).
Again, application of the Tukey did not reveal any
differences at the .05 level between any two groups of the
respondents.
On the item involving changing the purpose of the
college (item 18) (Table 16), the difference that was
apparent was that 90.9% of the trustees felt that they made
the decision while the overall sample selected them as
making the decision 79.7% of the time. Bylaws changes (item
19) were perceived by all but one of the trustees to be the
sole responsibility of the trustees while some of the other
incumbents selected other incumbent positions/units. Means
for both changing purpose and changing bylaws showed
differences (although not significant at the .05 level)
between trustees and the faculty. This was most apparent
for changing the purpose of the college (trustees, 1.1;

Table 16
Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Making
a Decision for Administration Area Items Based on the Position
of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test
Decision Item and
Position of
Respondent
Selected
by Respondents as
the Decision Maker
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Mean
Computed
F
15. Long range plan .
Trustee (22)a
14
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.4
c
Administration (186)
55
118
3
1
1
0
0
0
8
2.0
Admin/Faculty (39)
16
21
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1.8
Faculty (33)
14
14
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2.2
2.14
16. Raise fees
Trustee (21)
16
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1.4
Administration (188)
130
46
0
9
0
0
0
0
3
1.5
Admin/Faculty (42)
28
10
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
Faculty (33) 21
17. Administrative vacancy
10
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1.6
0.51
Trustee (22)
5
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.8
Administration (185)
47
130
2
1
0
1
1
0
3
1.9
Admin/Faculty (40)
16
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
Faculty (32)
12
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
1 .81
18. Change purpose
Trustee (22)
20
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
Administration (185)
150
26
2
0
0
0
0
4
3
1.4
Admin/Faculty (41)
32
5
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
1.7
Faculty (33)
22
5
1
0
0
0
0
4
1
2.3
3.87*
19. Change bylaws
Trustee (23)
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1 . 3
Administration (183)
173
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1.2
Admin/Faculty (39)
30
5
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1.9
Faculty (33)
29
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1.7
2.66*
a
Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there was one response per person, the number
is equal to number of respondents from the group in the sample.
The trustees were perceived by 14 trustees as making the decision to add a course to the curriculum,
c
Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher
in the hierarchy the perceived decision making.
2< .05

79
faculty, 2.3).
Even though the F was not significant at the .05 level,
on dealing with making long range plans (item 15), a
difference was apparent between the thinking of trustees and
administration (Table 16). The trustees perceived
themselves as making the decision a majority of the time
while the administrators perceived that they made the
decision the majority of the time.
The perceptions of the respondents about participation
in making administration decisions were diverse (Table 17).
The only instance in which there was not a significant F at
the .05 level was the item to raise fees. The significant
differences were related to making long range plans (item
15), filling an administration vacancy (item 17), changing
the purpose of the college (item 18), and changing the
bylaws (item 19). Again the nature of the overall
differences were such that there were no significant
differences found between any two groups for any of the four
items. Inspection of the data and means in Table 17 shows
no apparent pattern in the diversity of opinions expressed
in regard to participation in decisions relative to the
issues dealt with in the four items.

Table 17
Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as
Participating in Making Decisions for Administration Area Items
Based on the Position of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test
Decision Item and
Position of
Respondent
Selected
by Respondents as
Participating in
Making
the Decision
Mean
Computed
F
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
15.
Long range plans
Trustee (98)a
6b
14
19
15
9
16
8
9
2
4.7C
Administration (888)
70
65
153
143
136
145
56
75
45
4.7
Admin/Faculty (154)
15
18
29
19
17
19
12
17
8
4.6
Faculty (114)
11
17
18
14
10
18
9
13
4
4.5
5.27*
16.
Raise fees
Trustee (83)
4
17
15
19
10
9
3
4
2
4.0
Administration (752)
32
137
140
154
120
112
12
11
34
4.1
Admin/Faculty (125)
10
29
26
31
12
10
0
3
4
3.6
Faculty (97)
10
20
18
25
11
7
0
3
3
3.6
0.45
17.
Administrative vacancy
Trustee (39)
10
5
8
4
2
3
1
1
5
3.8
Administration (484)
54
52
89
83
74
67
15
18
32
4 . 3
Admin/Faculty (71)
17
13
11
9
4
5
2
6
4
3.7
Faculty (77)
13
12
14
9
10
7
4
6
2
3.9
5.98*
18.
Change purpose
Trustee (90)
2
19
17
8
10
12
7
11
4
4 .6
Administration (872)
24
153
142
114
125
115
60
91
48
4.7
Admin/Faculty (139)
6
34
27
11
15
10
12
19
5
4.4
Faculty (95)
6
22
16
8
10
8
8
14
3
4.5
6.06*
19.
Change bylaws
Trustee (53)
1
22
9
6
4
5
2
2
2
3.7
Administration (513)
9
169
83
72
60
61
13
26
20
4.0
Admin/Faculty (103)
9
32
19
9
10
6
4
10
4
3.8
Faculty (82)
2
25
17
7
8
7
5
7
4
4.1
6.55*
a
Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there were multiple responses the number is greater
than the number of respondents from the group in the sample.
The trustees were perceived by 6 trustees to have participated in making the decision to oo
make a long range plan. o
c
Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher
in the hierarchy the perceived decision participation.
E< .05

81
Differences in Perceptions About the Making of
Selected Decisions Based on the
Level of Participation of the Respondent
As has been previously stated, the third question which
gave direction to the study was whether there were
significant differences between the perceptions about the
role incumbents/units involved in making selected decisions
within each of the four decision areas based on the extent
of the personal level of participation in the decision by
the respondent. An examination of the decision point
analysis instrument, Section C, (Appendix B) shows that
there were four possible levels of involvement: "I make the
decision", "I recommend the decision", "I provide
information", or "No participation". These groupings were
used as the levels within the factor for the analysis of
variance. It was hypothesized that there would be no
significant difference at the .05 level by decision items
within the four decision areas in the perceptions of the
role incumbents about who makes the decision based on their
level of participation in the decision (makes decision,
recommends decision, provides information, or no
participation). Again, where there was a significant F the
Tukey was used as a follow-up procedure.
Differences in Perceptions About Academic Decisions
Based on Level of Participation
Table 18 shows each of the five decision items within
the area of academics, the role that respondents perceived
themselves as playing in each of the decisions, and the

Table 18
Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Decision
Maker for Academic Area Items Based on Level of Respondent
Participation in the Decision and the Resultant F Test
Selected by
Respondents
as the
Decision
Maker
Level of Respondent
Participation
Trust
Pres
Academic Business Dean
Dean Officer Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Mean
Computed
F
1. Add a cpurse
No participation (115)
1°
6
66
0
0
0
5
30
7
4.8'
Provide information (56)
2
3
15
0
0
0
4
27
5
6.1
Recommend (91)
2
4
21
0
0
0
6
46
12
6.5
Make decision (19)
0
0
5
0
0
0
2
11
1
6.6
9.46*
2. Change a grade
No participation (177)
0
0
40
0
0
0
6
126
5
6.9
Provide information (34)
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
28
3
7.6
Recommend (22)
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
14
4
7.3
Make decision (44)
0
0
7
0
0
0
1
36
0
7.2
2.38
3. Hire new faculty
No participation (89)
11
35
42
0
0
0
1
0
0
2.4
Provide information (52)
6
18
27
0
0
0
1
0
0
2.5
Recommend (120)
33
47
35
0
0
0
2
3
0
2.3
Make decision (26)
3
19
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0
1 . 37
4. Faculty promotion
No participation (133)
26
36
52
0
0
0
2
10
7
3.1
Provide information (34)
2
12
12
0
0
0
0
2
6
3.9
Recommend (91)
37
16
23
0
1
0
0
9
5
2.9
Make decision (24)
6
10
5
0
0
0
0
3
0
2.7
1.71
5. Give faculty raise
No participation (117)
33
38
38
2
0
0
2
0
4
2.4
Provide information (77)
21
28
26
0
0
0
0
0
2
2.2
Recommend (66)
27
22
14
0
0
0
0
1
2
2.1
Make decision (25)
7
13
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.9
0.89
a
Refers to the total number of respondents who perceived themselves as having no participation
in the decision.
The trustees were selected 1 time as making the decision to add a course to the curriculum by persons
who reported they did not participate in making the decision,
c
Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher
in the hierarchy the perceived decision making.
*£- <.05
CD
KJ

83
perceptions the respondents held about which
incumbents/units made the decisions. For example, in regard
to adding a course to the curriculum (item 1), 115 of the
respondents perceived themselves as having no participation,
56 as providing information, 91 as recommending the
decision, and 19 as having made the decision. Further,
among the 115 respondents who said they had no
participation, 1 said the trustees made the decision, 6 said
the president, 66 said the academic dean, 5 said the
department chairperson, 30 said the faculty, and 7 said
"other" (e.g., a committee). The means contained in Table
18 show the relative level within the hierarchy that each of
these four groups perceived the decision to have been made.
Examination of the resulting F statistics contained in
Table 18 shows that there was one decision item for which
there was a significant F at the .05 level—the decision
item dealing with adding a course to the curriculum (item
1). This indicates that the respondents from the different
personal participation categories had differences in their
perceptions about who made the decision to add a course to
the curriculum. The Tukey test did not show any significant
differences at the .05 level between any two of the groups.
However, as evidenced through an examination of the means,
those who felt that they had no participation in the
decision (X = 4.8) perceived this to be made higher in the
hierarchy than did the other groups (provide information, X
= 6.1; recommend, X = 6.5; make decision, X = 6.6).

84
Furthermore, examination of the data shows that the
respondents who perceived themselves as having no
participation selected the academic dean as the decision
maker 57.4% of the time while selecting the faculty 26.1% of
the time. The other respondent groups perceived
approximately the reverse with the academic dean being
selected 20-30% of the time, and the faculty around 50%.
Even though there were no other significant differences
at the .05 level among the participants based on their level
of participation, the difference approached significance (F=
2.38) for item 2—to change the grade of a student. In this
instance the difference found seemed to be a reflection of
the extent to which respondents in the "no participation"
category perceived the academic dean as making the decision
to change a grade.
Differences in Perceptions about Student Affairs Decisions
Based on Level of Participation
As can be seen by a study of Table 19 for the six items
concerned with student affairs there were no significant
differences at the .05 level in perceptions about who makes
the decision based on level of personal participation in the
decision. Also, there was little difference between means,
although item 8 had 1.2 difference between the perceptions
of respondents who felt that they provided information (X =
4.0) and those who felt that they recommended the decision
(X = 2.8).The greatest degree of variance in responses based
on level of participation were for item 8 related to adding

xaD-Le xy
Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Decision
Maker for Student Affairs Area Items Based on Level of Respondent
Participation in the Decision and the Resulting F Test
Selected by
Respondents
as the
Decision
Maker
Level of Respondent
Participation Trust
Pres
Academic Business Dean
Dean Officer Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Mean
Computed
P
6. Financial aid policy
No participation (96)
14b
26
4
17
11
3
0
3
18
4.2C
Provide information (92)
6
39
3
8
* 9
0
1
3
23
4 . 4
Recommend (60)
10
19
1
ii
4
1
0
2
12
4.1
Make decision (31)
6
15
0
2
5
0
0
0
3
3.1
1.67
7. Change regulation
No participation (130)
5
40
3
0
75
1
0
1
5
4.1
Provide information (71)
9
19
0
0
35
0
0
2
6
4.1
Recommend (54)
9
18
0
0
20
0
0
1
6
3.8
Make decision (28)
0
9
1
0
17
0
0
1
0
4.1
0.20
8. New Sport
No participation (109)
12
43
18
2
7
2
6
6
13
3.8
Provide information (85)
13
36
4
0
7
1
5
7
12
4.0
Recommend (56)
19
22
4
0
4
0
1
2
4
2.8
Make decision (25)
5
10
4
0
2
1
0
0
3
3.2
2.31
9. Religious Meetings
No participation (128)
0
66
5
0
16
2
1
2
36
4.6
Provide information (90)
2
48
i
0
12
1
0
3
23
4 . 4
Recommend (38)
0
18
2
0
5
0
2
4
7
4.6
Make decision (25)
0
10
0
0
12
2
1
0
0
4.0
0.28
10. Disciplinary measure
No participation (168)
0
44
2
0
110
1
0
1
10
4.5
Provide information (55)
0
9
0
0
41
0
0
0
5
4.9
Recommend (26)
0
4
0
0
18
0
0
1
3
5.1
Make decision (35)
0
2
1
0
32
0
0
0
0
4.8
2.12
11. Admissions policy
No participation (93)
13
28
20
0
4
2
2
9
15
4.1
Provide information (106)
8
41
19
0
3
0
1
16
18
4 . 3
Recommend (59)
10
15
12
0
1
2
0
7
12
4 . 4
Make decision (23)
5
8
4
0
1
0
1
2
2
3.4
0.75
a
Refers to the total number of respondents who perceived themselves as having no participation in the decision,
b
The trustees were selected 14 times as makinq the decision to chanqe a financial aid policy by persons
c
Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher
in the hierarchy the perceived decision making.
p- <.05

86
a new sport (F= 2.31) and item 10 related to disciplinary
measures (F= 2.12). Further examination of Table 19 will
show that for three of the six items (change regulation,
religious meetings, and admissions policy) the F value was
below 0.75.
Differences in Perceptions About Development Decisions
Based on Level of Participation
Of the three development items, one was found to have
responses based on level of participation that were
significantly different at the .05 level. As shown in Table
20, this was for the item concerned with beginning a new
fund raising project (item 12). As in previous instances,
application of the Tukey test did not produce significance
differences at the .05 level between any two of the groups.
Inspection of the responses and means suggests that the
greatest differences were in perceptions of those persons
who perceived they made the decision (X = 3.2) and the other
participation groups, particularly those who perceived that
they recommended the decision (X = 1.9).
Differences in Perceptions About Administration Decisions
Based on Level of Participation
There was one of the five administration decision items
where there was a significant difference at the .05 level in
perceptions about who makes the decision based on level of
respondent participation (Table 21). This was for the item
related to filling an administrative vacancy other than the
presidency (item 17). Although the Tukey test did not show

Table 20
Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Decision
Maker for Development Area Items Based on Level of Respondent
Participation in the Decision and the Resulting F Test
Selected by
Respondents
as the
Decision
Maker
Level of Respondent
Participation
Trust
Pres
Academic Business Dean
Dean Officer Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Mean
Computed
F
12. Fund raise project .
No participation (110)
4 5
45
0
1
0
18
0
0
1
2 . 3'
-
Provide information (83)
24
42
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
2.5
Recommend (56)
27
24
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
1.9
Make decision (33)
9
13
0
0
0
10
0
0
1
3.2
3.53*
13. New building
No participation (63)
50
10
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1 . 4
Provide information (131)
111
19
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1.2
Recommend (68)
57
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 . 2
Hake decision (22)
17
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.2
1.12
14. Make investment
No participation (174)
48
33
0
74
0
12
0
0
7
3.1
Provide information (39)
14
6
0
15
0
0
0
0
4
3.1
Recommend (32)
14
2
0
14
0
1
0
0
1
2.8
Make decision (31)
4
6
0
20
0
0
0
0
1
3.4
0.49
a
Refers to the total number of respondents who perceived themselves as
b
The trustees were selected 45 times as making the decision to begin a
who reported they did not participate in making the decision,
c
Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a
in the hierarchy the perceived decision making.
having no participation in the decision,
fund raising project by persons
I» the lower the mean the higher
*£- <.05
oo

Table 21
Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Decision
Maker for Administration Area Items Based on Level of Respondent
Participation in the Decision and the Resulting F Test
Decision Item and
Level of Respondent
Participation
Selected by Respondents
as the
Decision
Maker
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business Dean
Officer Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Mean
Computed
F
15. Long range plans .
No participation (38)
17"
18
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1.8
c
Provide information (142)
46
86
4
0
0
0
0
1
5
2.0
Recommend (78)
24
41
0
0
0
0
0
9
4
2.7
Make decision (33)
13
18
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1.7
0.49
16. Raise fees
No participation (89)
54
24
0
10
0
0
0
0
1
1.7
Provide information (89)
66
20
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1 . 4
Recommend (87)
62
21
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1 . 5
Make decision (22)
14
6
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.00
17. Administration vacancy
No participation (97)
34
61
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1.7
Provide information (94)
24
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.7
Recommend (58)
19
36
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1.9
Make decision (33)
4
24
1
0
1
1
0
0
2
2.5
5.68»
18. Change purpose
No participation (38)
32
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1.4
Provide information (151)
118
25
1
0
0
0
0
6
1
1.5
Recommend (72)
61
5
1
0
0
0
0
3
2
1.6
Make decision (23)
16
4
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1.9
0.57
19. Change bylaws
No participation (101)
94
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1.3
Provide information (107)
98
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1.3
Recommend (53)
47
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1.6
Make decision (19)
17
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1.4
0.53
a
Refers to the total number of respondents who perceived themselves as having no participation in the decision,
b
The trustees were selected 17 times as making the decision to make long range plans by persons
who reported they did not participate in making the decision,
c
Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher
in the hierarchy the perceived decision making.
oo
00
*£m <.05

89
significant differences at the .05 level between the groups,
there was some difference between the responses of those
trustees who said that they made the decision (X = 2.5) and
the respondents in the other categories (no participation, X
= 1.7; provide information, X = 1.7; recommend, X = 1.9).

CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION
Summary
The problem of the study was to determine perceptions
of those involved about the locus of formal decision making
in four basic areas for small church-related colleges.
Specifically, answers to the following questions were
sought:
1. To what extent are specific position incumbents
and units perceived to participate in decision
making in specific decision areas (i.e.,
academics, student affairs, development, and
administration).
2. Are there differences by decision items within the
four decision areas (academics, student affairs,
development, and administration) in perceptions of
the extent to which position incumbents and/or
units are involved in making a decision and
participate in making a decision based on the
position held by the respondent (i.e., trustee,
administrator, faculty/administrator, and faculty
member).
3. Are there differences by decision items within the
four decision areas (academics, student affairs,
development, and administration) in perceptions of
90

91
the extent to which position incumbents and/or
units are involved in making a decision based on
the respondent's perceived involvement in the
decision (makes decision, recommends decision,
provides information, or no participation).
In order to provide the data necessary to answer the
aformentioned questions, a decision point analysis
instrument was developed (see Appendix B), and this
instrument was provided to the 69 colleges which made up the
Christian College Coalition. The instruments were to be
distributed to a trustee, the president, the academic dean,
the business officer, the dean of students, the development
officer, a department chairperson, and a faculty member at
each institution. Some usable responses were received from
59 of these institutions. The total number of instruments
returned was 293 out of a possible 552. Given the number of
returns it was felt that there might be a problem with
generalization. To determine the extent of this problem the
returns from the first set of mailings were compared by
means of chi square with the returns from the second set and
no significant difference at the .05 level was found on any
of the instrument items.
In order to answer the first question the data were
analyzed by simple descriptive statistics. To answer the
second and third questions two operational null hypotheses
were projected and the technique for analysis was the single
factor analysis of variance.

92
In regard to the first question relating to who made
decisions and who participated in making decisions, six
major findings emerged:
1. The incumbents most frequently perceived to make
the decision for each item were as follows:
Academic area decisions
(1) Add a course—faculty (40.3%)
(2) Change the grade—faculty (74.2%)
(3) Hire new faculty—president (42.3%)
(4) Promote a faculty member—academic dean
(32.9%)
(5) Give a faculty raise—president (36.1%)
Student Affairs area decisions
(6) Change financial aid policy--president (35.3%)
(7) Change parietal regulation--dean of students
(51.8%)
(8) New collegiate sport—president (39.8%)
(9) Series of religious meetings--president (50.0%)
(10) Disciplinary measure—dean of students (70.7%)
(11) Change admission policy—president (31.8%)
Development area decisions
(12) Begin fund raising project—president (44.1%)
(13) Build a new building—trustees (83.0%)
(14) Place money in investment—business officer
(44.7%)
Administration area decisions
(15) Make a long range plan—president (57.8%)

93
(16) Raise tuition fees--trustees (68.5%)
(17) Fill vacancy in administration-president
(67.9%)
(18) Change purpose of college—trustees (79.7%)
(19) Change bylaws—trustees (91.4%)
As can be seen from the above, the trustees were most
frequently seen as the decision makers in regard to items
13, 16, 18, and 19; the presidents were most frequently seen
as decision makers in regard to items 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12,
15, and 17; the academic deans in regard to item 4; the
business officers relative to item 14; the dean of students
in regard to items 7 and 10; and the faculty were most
frequently seen as making the decision relative to items 1
and 2. The development officers and department chairpersons
were not perceived as major decision makers for any item.
2. The incumbents most frequently perceived to
participate in making the decisions for each of the items
were as follows:
Academic area decisions
(1) Add a course—department chairpersons (31.6%)
(2) Change the grade—academic dean (39.3%)
(3) Hire new faculty—department chairpersons (28.0)
(4) Promote a faculty member-academic dean (25.1%)
(5) Give a faculty raise—academic dean (24.2%)
Student Affairs area decisions
(6) Change financial aid policy—business officer
(21.4%)

94
(7) Change parietal regulation—president (21.7%)
(8) New collegiate sport—academic dean (17.1%)
(9) Series of religious meetings--dean of students
(24.2%)
(10) Disciplinary measure—president (25.8%)
(11) Change admission policy—academic dean (21.6%)
Development area decisions
(12) Begin fund raising project—development officer
(27.2%)
(13) Build a new building—president (21.2%)
(14) Place money in investment—president (33.3%)
Administration area decisions
(15) Make a long range plan—academic dean (17.4%)
(16) Raise tuition fees—business officer (21.7%)
(17) Fill vacancy in administration—academic dean
(18.0%)
(18) Change purpose of college—president (19.1%)
(19) Change bylaws—president (32.9%)
From the above data it can be seen that the following
were perceived most frequently to participate in making a
decision: the presidents--items 7, 10, 13, 14, 18, and 19;
the academic deans—items 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, and 17; the
business officers—items 6 and 16; the dean of students—
item 9; the development officers—item 12; and the
department chairpersons—items 1, 3, and 4. The trustees
and faculty were not perceived as most frequently
participating in making a decision for any item.

95
3. The greatest unanimity in the expressed opinions
about who makes decisions was in regard to the trustees
being the perceived decision makers relative to changing the
college bylaws (item 19). In this instance 91.4% of the
sample perceived them to be the decision makers.
4. The least unanimity shown about who makes decisions
was relative to changing the admissions policy of the
college (item 11). In this instance 31.8% of the
respondents saw the president as the decision maker, 20.0%
felt the academic dean made the decision, 17.1% indicated
the "other" category as the decision makers, 12.1% thought
the faculty made the decision, and the remaining five
incumbents/units received the other 19% of the selections.
5. The decision item with the broadest base of
perceived participation was for filling a vacancy in the
administration other than the president (item 17). Six
incumbents/units had participátion percentages above 10%
(trustees, 13.9%; presidents, 12.6%; academic deans, 18.0%;
business officers, 15.7%; dean of students, 13.3%; and
development officers, 12.1%).
6. The decision item with the most narrow base of
participation was for changing a grade (item 2). Three
incumbent/units had participation percentages above 10%
(academic dean, 39.3%; department chairpersons, 29.4%; and
faculty, 16.8%) .
In regard to the second question which related to
differences in perceptions about who makes decisions and

96
who participates in making decisions based on the position
of the respondents, the four major findings were as follows:
1. There were six decision items where there were
significant differences at the .05 level in the perceptions
of the respondents based on their positions relative to who
makes decisions. These were for the items related to adding
a new course (item 1), changing a grade (item 2), changing
admission policies (item 11), building a new building (item
13), changing the purpose of the college (item 18), and
changing the bylaws (item 19). For these items the null
hypothesis that no significant differences at the prescribed
level would be found was rejected. While the Tukey test for
multiple comparisons was done on each of the items where a
significant F at the .05 level was found, only the item
concerned with adding a new course to the curriculum
produced a significant difference at the .05 level between
positions/units. In this case the differences were between
the trustees and each of the other groups.
2. There were 15 decision items where there were
significant differences at the .05 level in the perceptions
of respondent groups about who participates in making the
decision. These were for the items regarding the decision
to add a new course (item 1), change a grade (item 2),
promote faculty (item 4), give a faculty raise (item 5),
change a financial aid policy (item 6), begin a new sport
(item 8), act on a disciplinary measure (item 10), change an
admissions policy (item 11), begin a fund raising project

97
(item 12), build a new building (item 13), make an
investment (item 14), make long range plans (item 15), fill
an administration vacancy (item 17), change the purpose of
the college (item 18), and change the bylaws (item 19). The
null hypothesis was that no significant differences would be
found at the prescribed level, and therefore, for the above
15 items the null hypothesis was rejected. The Tukey test
showed a significant difference at the .05 level for the
item concerned with adding a course to the curriculum. The
differences were between the trustees and the faculty.
3. Examination of the item variance relative to the
perceptions about who makes decisions based on the position
of the respondent showed that the greatest diversity of
opinion was for the academic area, and the least diversity
was for the student affairs area.
4. Examination of the item variance relative to the
perceptions about who participates in making the decisions
based on the position of the respondent showed that the
greatest diversity of opinion was for the development area,
and the least diversity was for the student affairs area.
In regard to the third question concerned with
differences in perceptions about who makes decisions based
on the perceived level of participation in the decision,
there were two major findings:
1. There were significant differences at the .05 level
in the perceptions of the respondents about who made the
decision based on their self-reported level of participation

98
in the decision in regard to adding a new course to the
curriculum (item 1), beginning a new fund raising project
(item 12), and filling an administrative vacancy other than
the presidency (item 17). Again, the Tukey test was done on
each of the three items where there was a significant F
value at the .05 level. In no instance was there a
significant difference found at the .05 level between any
two groups. Therefore, for these three items the null
hypothesis of no significant difference at the prescribed
level would be found was rejected, and for the remaining 16
items the null hypothesis was accepted.
2. Examination of the item variance relative to the
perceptions about who makes decisions based on the
respondents' level of participation in the decision shows
that the greatest diversity of opinion was for the academic
area, and the least diversity was for the student affairs
area.
Conclusions
The results of the investigation appear to justify five
major conclusions:
1. There is considerable unanimity of opinion among
the position incumbents about who makes decisions in the
colleges of the Christian College Coalition. (Note the
relative absence of significant Fs at the .05 level.)
2. Those administrators who are often thought to make
decisions in their area of expertise tended to have the most
total involvement in such decisions in the Christian College

99
Coalition institutions. (For example, academic deans,
chairpersons, and faculty tended to make and participate in
academic decisions; deans of students in student affairs
decisions; development officers and business officers in
development decisions; and trustees and presidents in
administration decisions.)
3. The unanimity expressed suggests that the most
frequent decision makers in Christian College Coalition
institutions are those persons at the top of the
administrative hierarchy, particularly the trustees and the
presidents. Furthermore, the trustees are the most frequent
decision makers where there is to be a basic change in
direction of the college (e.g., a change in purpose or
bylaws) or there is a major financial decision to be made
(e.g., build a new building or raise tuition/fees).
Conversely, the incumbents/units least involved in the
decision-making process were those in the lower level in the
hierarchy (i.e., the chairpersons and faculty).
4. There are major differences among the respondents
from the different governing positions/units about the
breadth of participation in decision making within the
decision-making areas. (Note the large number of
significant Fs at the .05 level for the responses relative
to participation in making decisions.) The trustees
tended to perceive less participation than any other
position/unit and the administrators as a group generally
perceived wider participation than either the trustees,

100
administrators/faculty (e.g., chairpersons), or the faculty.
5. Differences in perceptions about who makes the
decisions in the Christian College Coalition institutions
based on the respondents level of participation in the
decision are minimal. (Note the low item F values, means,
and relative lack of significant Fs at the .05 level when
comparisons based on level of participation were made.)
Discussion
Since the present study was conducted using a survey
approach, an obvious question may be raised about the
validity of the findings and conclusions. There are obvious
shortcomings in the method generally and with the present
study. Use of survey instruments such as the decision point
analysis instrument have weaknesses: generally there is not
a 100% return, directions are not understood by each
participant in the same manner thereby producing differing
meaning in the opinions expressed, designed items may not be
equally important to all participants, and instrument
validity may be in question, especially if elements are
changed to meet the criteria of the research such as was
done in the present study (Herriott, 1969). There are,
however, some advantages which apply to surveys generally
and to the present study. A large number of subjects were
contacted economically by sending the instruments to one
person who then sent them to the eventual respondents. Some
of the items may have evoked more respondent thought without

101
the time limitations sometimes involved with face-to-face
interviews, and since the present survey approach provided
that the responses of the person were anononymous, the
respondents may have been more candid.
Within the context of the foregoing, it seemed
reasonable to believe that generalizing the results to the
entire Christian College Coalition is not unreasonable. The
returns represented 53% of the subject population, and
represented usable returns from some respondents within 59
of the 69 colleges in the Coalition. However, no
generalizations can be extended to colleges or universities
beyond the Coalition.
For the Coalition, the import of the study is probably
in terms of what it might mean for future practice and
research. Many Christian colleges pride themselves on
decentralization of decisions. Although this may be true in
some of the Coalition colleges, there was no evidence from
the present study of such practices being widespread. In
fact, studies such as those of Cohen and March (1974) and
Baldridge (1971b) indicate that there may be wider decision¬
making involvement of university faculties, especially
through the established formal decision making structures,
than was found in colleges of the Coalition.
Perhaps the relative lack of decentralization in
decision making which appeared to be evident in the findings
of the present study may be explained in terms of the level
of controversy in the colleges making up the Christian

102
Coalition in comparison to the controversies in larger more
complex institutions. A review of the literature contained
in Chapter II leads to the generalization that there is
considerable controversy in more complex colleges and
universities. However, there is no indication that there is
such level of controversy in the colleges making up the
Christian Coalition. Perhaps those who choose to associate
themselves with a certain institution do so because of their
basic commitment to the institution, its ideals, purposes,
and programs. Crowley (1980) made the point most succinctly
when he noted that "the steadiest fires of controversy
involves the proper relationship of professors, presidents,
and trustees" (p. 199). Perhaps from Crowley's perspective
the proper relationship is not present in the colleges of
the Christian Coalition because the steady fires of
controversy did not seem to be evident in Christian College
Coalition institutions.
Of special interest, because of the abundance of
literature on the subject, was the decision-making influence
attributed to the trustees by those involved in the present
research. The trustees were generally perceived to be
responsible for large monetary spending decisions such as
building new buildings or changing tuition charges and for
major changes in direction as indicated by changes in
purpose and bylaws, and they were rather frequently
perceived to be influential in some other decisions.
However, their participation in decisions represented by the

103
19 items was fairly limited. In contrast, a review of the
lists of responsibilities and duties of trustees offered by
the authorities and presented in Chapter II suggested that
trustees of small colleges should be involved in practically
all of the decisions represented by the 19 items contained
on the decision point analysis instrument. Therefore, the
findings from the present study are at variance from
authoritative opinion about the involvement of trustees.
Specifically, even though the trustees are most influential
in major financial and policy items, they are not intimately
involved in participating in a wide variety of decisions, at
least in the colleges of the Christian Coalition.
As the results of the present investigation are viewed
in their totality, including the unsolicited remarks offered
by the respondents, it becomes fairly evident that for the
colleges in the Christian Coalition there is an essential
core of administrative personnel who exercise influence
broadly in regard to the four decision areas about which
data were sought. Specifically, from the point of view of
some of the respondents, even though they may have
attributed a specific decision item as having been made by
the president, the chief academic officer, or some other
administrative officer, they often commented that even
though these people were the official decision makers and
made the decision, it was their perception that a group,
which might be known as the administrative council,
including representives from the academic, student affairs,

104
development, and administrative interests of the college
were involved in such decisions.
Closely related was the frequent unsolicited mention
made of respondents about the use of committees in the
colleges of the Christian Coalition. As indicated earlier,
the formal decision-making structures of institutions of
higher learning, particularly large complex colleges and
universities, often include extensive use of committees.
However, a review of the literature related to small
colleges did not suggest the same frequency of committee use
in such institutions. Therefore, one of the unexpected
findings of the present investigation related to the
frequency with which committees were referred to,
particularly as these related to decisions in the student
affairs area. The foregoing suggests that a fruitful area
for future research in regard to colleges of the Christian
Coalition would be the extent to which committees are
utilized within each of the four decision areas studied, and
the relative influence that these committees by their formal
actions may have.
Finally, given the previous point related to the
perception that the trustees are not as heavily involved in
the several activities of the colleges of the Christian
Coalition as the literature would suggest, there is perhaps
the need for further research on the trustees as a single
governing unit. Specifically, there are questions that may
be raised about the characteristics of the trustees of such

105
institutions, their interests, what do they actually do over
and beyond being involved in making decisions in relation to
purposes, bylaws, and the like. There have been such
studies done on universities and community colleges, but no
broad-based studies have been done in small colleges.

APPENDIX A
CHRISTIAN COLLEGE COALITION
Anderson College
Anderson, Indiana
Eastern College
St. Davids, Pennsylvania
Asbury College
Wilmore, Kentucky
Eastern Mennonite College
Harrisonburg, Virginia
Azusa Pacific University
Azusa, California
Eastern Nazarene College
Quincy, Maine
Barrington College
Barrington, Rhode Island
Evangel College
Springfield, Missouri
Bartlesville Wesleyan College
Bartlesville, Oklahoma
Fresno Pacific College
Fresno, California
Belhaven College
Jackson, Mississippi
Friends University
Wichita, Kansas
Bethany Nazarene College
Bethany, Oklahoma
Geneva College
Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania
Bethel College
North Newton, Kansas
George Fox College
Newberg, Oregon
Bethel College
St. Paul, Minnesota
Gordon College
Wenham, Maine
Biola University
La Mirada, California
Grace College
Winona Lake, Indiana
Bryan College
Dayton, Tennessee
Grand Canyon College
Phoenix, Arizona
Calvin College
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Greenville College
Greenville, Illinois
Campbell University
Buies Creek, North Carolina
Grove City College
Grove City, Pennsylvania
Campbellsville College
Campbellsville, Kentucky
Houghton College
Houghton, New York
Central Wesleyan College
Central, South Carolina
Huntington College
Huntington, Indiana
Covenant College
Lookout Mountain, Tennessee
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, Arizona
Dordt College
Sioux Center, Iowa
Judson College
Elgin, Illinois
1 fifi

107
King College
Bristol, Tennessee
Roberts Wesleyan College
Rochester, New York
The King's College
Briarcliff Manor, New York
Seattle Pacific University
Seattle, Washington
Lee College
Cleveland, Tennessee
Simpson College
San Francisco, California
Los Angeles Baptist College
Newhall, California
Sioux Falls College
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Malone College
Canton, Ohio
Southern California College
Costa Mesa, California
Marion College
Marion, Indiana
Spring Arbor College
Spring Arbor, Michigan
Messiah College
Grantham, Pennsylvania
Sterling College
Sterling, Kansas
Mid-America Nazarene College
Olathe, Kansas
Tabor College
Hillsboro, Kansas
Milligan College
Milligan College, Tennessee
Taylor University
Upland, Indiana
Mississippi College
Clinton, Mississippi
Trevecca Nazarene College
Nashville, Tennessee
North Park College
Chicago, Illinois
Trinity Christian College
Palos Heights, Illinois
Northwest Christian College
Eugene, Oregon
Trinity College
Deerfield, Illinois
Northwest Nazarene College
Nampa, Idaho
Westmont College
Santa Barbara, California
Northwestern College
Orange City, Iowa
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois
Northwestern College
Roseville, Minnesota
Whitworth College
Spokane, Washington
Nyack College
Nyack, New York
Olivet Nazarene College
Kankakee, Illinois
Point Loma College
San Diego, California

APPENDIX B
DECISION POINT ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT
In filling out this instrument you are urged to answer
each question as it relates to your present position. The
same three questions are asked in each decision item. Below
are explanations of the questions about each statement.
A. Who actually makes this decision? Choose the
person or persons in your college who is or are
primarily responsible for making this decision.
Place an X in the appropriate box of the person
who is the decision maker. If "other" box is
chosen, please specify who makes the decision.
B. What other persons participate in the making of
the decision other than the ones already
indicated? Place an 0 in appropriate box(s).
C. What is the nature of your participation in making
this decision? Select from among the four choices
which best describes your participation in making
this decision. Mark the appropriate statement.
ACADEMICS
1. The decision to add a new course to the curriculum.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
108

109
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
2. The decision to change the grade of a student.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
3. The decision to hire a new faculty member.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.

110
4. The decision to promote a faculty member in rank.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
5. The decision to give a faculty member a raise.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§ §§§'§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
STUDENT AFFAIRS
6. The decision to change a financial aid policy.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)

Ill
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
7. The decision to change a parietal regulation (such as
curfew, dress, resident hall visitation rights).
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
8. The decision to participate in a new intercollegiate
sport.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§

112
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
9. The decision to have a series of religious meetings on
campus.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
10. The decision to act on a serious disciplinary measure.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.

113
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
11. The decision to change an admission policy.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
DEVELOPMENT
12. The decision to begin a new fund raising project.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§ §§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.

114
13. The decision to build a new building.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
14. The decision to place money in a certain investment.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
ADMINISTRATION
15. The decision to add or make a long range plan for the
college.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)

115
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
16. The decision to raise the tuition fees.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
17. The decision to fill a vacancy in the administration
(not the president).
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)

116
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
18. The decision to change the purpose or mission statement
of the college.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
19. The decision to change the bylaws of the institution.
A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)
B. Who else participates in making this decision?
(Mark with an 0.)
Acad Bus Dean Devlop Depart
Trust Pres Dean Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other
§§§§§§§§ §§

117
C. What is the nature of your participation in the
making of this decision? Mark the appropriate
statement.
I make the decision. I provide information.
I recommend the decision. No participation.
Your present position at the college is .
Comments

APPENDIX C
NUMBER OF "MAKE DECISION" AND
"PARTICIPATES IN MAKING DECISION" RESPONSES
BY ITEM AND RESPONDENTS

1
To add a course to the curriculum.
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair-
person
Faculty
Other
Totals
Trustee
(make)
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
0
6
(partic)
5
2
1
1
2
2
1
0
1
15
President
(make)
7
0
1
3
0
2
1
0
0
14
(partic)
8
9
4
12
11
15
2
5
1
67
Acad Dean
(make)
14
12
6
25
17
18
11
7
1
111
(partic)
8
18
30
11
21
15
20
20
1
144
Bus Officer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
2
1
0
4
1
3
0
0
0
11
Dean Stdnts
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
1
0
2
3
4
4
0
0
0
14
Devel Offer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
1
0
2
2
1
2
0
0
0
8
Chairperson
(make)
0
3
2
1
3
1
6
2
0
18
(partic)
13
19
32
24
24
26
25
24
3
190
Faculty
(make)
1
18
25
7
17
10
18
20
0
116
(partic)
10
15
9
20
18
20
14
11
2
119
Other
(make)
0
1
6
1
3
2
6
3
1
23
(partic)
3
6
4
0
5
0
11
5
0
34
Totals
(make)
23
34
41
37
41
35
42
33
2
288
(partic)
51
70
84
77
87
87
73
65
8
602

2. To change the grade of a student
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Totals
Trustee (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
President (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
5
Acad Dean (make)
7
5
8
12
7
9
7
2
0
57
(partic)
4
17
15
10
16
13
13
12
3
103
Bus Officer (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dean Stdnts (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
0
0
0
0
6
2
1
0
0
9
Devel Offer (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chairperson (make)
2
0
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
7
(partic)
10
11
9
9
11
11
11
4
1
77
Faculty (make)
14
26
30
17
31
24
33
30
2
207
(partic)
7
4
4
10
5
5
9
0
0
44
Other (make)
0
3
0
0
3
0
1
1
0
8
(partic)
0
4
4
1
6
2
4
3
0
24
Totals (make)
23
34
39
32
41
33
42
33
2
279
(partic)
21
36
32
32
44
34
39
20
4
262
120

3
To hire a new faculty member
Respondents
Position Academic Business Dean Develop Chair-
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Dean
Of ficer
Students
Officer
person
Faculty
Other
Totals
Trustee
(make)
5
9
10
7
3
6
7
6
0
53
(partic)
10
3
4
6
11
7
7
9
0
57
President
(make)
7
17
23
17
11
12
17
15
2
121
(partic)
13
20
19
19
20
18
16
13
0
138
Acad Dean
(make)
11
7
7
10
26
18
15
11
0
105
(partic)
12
26
33
27
15
16
24
18
2
173
Bus Officer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
2
1
3
7
3
3
1
1
1
22
Dean Stdnts
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
3
0
4
4
7
2
1
3
1
25
Devel Offer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
1
0
2
2
2
2
0
2
1
12
Chairperson
(make)
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
4
(partic)
15
30
34
31
34
25
35
24
1
229
Faculty
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
(partic)
7
23
23
14
21
9
22
21
1
141
Other
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
0
5
4
2
1
1
4
4
0
21
Totals
(make)
23
34
40
36
41
36
41
33
2
286
(partic)
63
108
126
112
114
83
110
95
7
818

4. To promote a faculty member in rank
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Totals
Trustee
(make)
7
11
13
12
4
8
8
8
0
71
(partic)
6
3
6
7
4
9
5
9
0
49
President
(make)
4
10
12
9
9
9
11
10
1
75
(partic)
17
19
23
18
13
20
16
12
0
138
Acad Dean
(make)
12
10
6
13
19
11
13
6
0
90
(partic)
11
24
32
20
20
23
25
22
2
179
Bus Officer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
2
0
1
3
2
2
2
1
0
13
Dean Stdnts
(make)
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
(partic)
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
0
12
Devel Offer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
7
Chairperson
(make)
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
(partic)
16
22
29
23
24
21
23
20
1
179
Faculty
(make)
0
1
5
0
2
6
5
4
0
23
(partic)
6
19
14
14
13
5
10
13
1
95
Other
(make)
0
2
3
1
5
0
2
3
1
17
(partic)
2
6
8
2
6
2
10
3
1
40
Totals
(make)
23
34
40
35
40
35
40
31
2
280
(partic)
62
94
116
92
85
84
92
82
5
712

5
To give a faculty member a raise
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Totals
Trustee
(make)
9
13
17
8
9
9
17
8
1
91
(partic)
9
5
7
/
7
8
8
7
8
0
59
President
(make)
10
11
18
12
12
15
11
11
1
101
(partic)
11
23
21
18
18
14
23
12
0
140
Acad Dean
(make)
3
9
3
16
16
11
12
8
0
78
(partic)
17
20
30
20
20
17
24
16
1
165
Bus Officer
(make)
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
(partic)
13
14
13
18
14
1 3
9
8
0
102
Dean Stdnts
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
1
5
6
4
7
6
2
1
0
32
Devel Offer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
1
3
5
3
5
7
3
2
0
29
Chairperson
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
(partic)
8
10
11
16
13
1 1
8
9
0
86
Paculty
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
(partic)
2
8
3
6
6
4
6
4
0
39
Other
(make)
0
1
2
0
2
1
1
2
0
9
(partic)
0
4
3
2
6
3
4
1
0
23
Totals
(make)
22
34
40
36
40
37
42
31
2
284
(partic)
62
92
99
94
97
83
86
61
1
675

6
To change a financial aid policy
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Totals
Trustee
(make)
7
6
1
2
5
3
6
7
0
37
(partic)
2
2
5
3
3
5
6
2
0
28
President
(make)
6
16
20
15
11
16
8
6
1
99
(partic)
13
17
7
11
18
15
17
15
0
113
Acad Dean
(make)
0
2
0
1
0
0
4
1
0
8
(partic)
10
15
23
19
22
20
20
13
1
143
Bus Officer
(make)
4
2
4
6
7
5
6
4
1
39
(partic)
13
25
21
23
23
16
23
15
1
160
Dean Stdnts
(make)
3
4
2
5
4
4
4
1
0
27
(partic)
7
13
17
16
23
13
15
17
1
122
Devel Offer
(make)
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
4
(partic)
5
9
14
13
12
14
5
9
1
82
Chairperson
(make)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
(partic)
1
0
2
0
0
3
4
2
0
12
Faculty
(make)
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
3
0
8
(partic)
0
2
4
2
1
2
5
4
0
20
Other
(make)
3
4
11
4
13
6
7
7
0
55
(partic)
2
13
12
13
12
10
3
4
0
69
Totals
(make)
23
34
38
35
41
36
39
30
2
278
(partic)
53
96
105
100
114
98
98
81
4
749

7. To change a parietal regulation
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Totals
Trustee
(make)
0
.5
2
4
3
3
2
3
0
22
(partic)
8
4
2
3
5
5
12
5
1
45
President
(make)
13
10
14
7
9
13
11
9
1
87
(partic)
7
21
16
20
20
15
19
13
1
132
Acad Dean
(make)
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
4
(partic)
4
11
17
13
9
13
13
9
1
90
Bus Officer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
2
6
9
12
6
6
5
4
1
51
Dean Stdnts
(make)
9
17
17
23
22
19
21
16
1
145
(partic)
13
15
19
13
18
16
17
13
1
125
Devel Offer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
(partic)
2
5
9
10
5
7
2
3
1
44
Chairperson
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
0
1
3
0
1
1
3
0
0
9
Faculty
(make)
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
5
(partic)
2
4
7
2
7
4
7
6
0
39
Other
(make)
1
2
4
1
4
1
1
3
0
17
(partic)
2
13
7
6
20
8
8
9
0
73
Totals
(make)
23
34
38
36
40
37
39
32
2
281
(partic)
40
80
89
79
91
75
86
62
6
608

8
To participate in a new intercollegiate sport
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Total:
Trustee
(make)
7
11
4
5
7
8
2
7
0
51
(partic)
4
1
2
2
4
6
8'
4
0
31
President
(make)
12
10
17
17
18
13
15
5
1
108
(partic)
9
16
15
13
13
17
12
11
0
106
Acad Dean
(make)
1
5
5
4
2
4
6
2
0
29
(partic)
10
17
20
22
20
18
15
8
1
131
Bus Officer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
(partic)
8
13
15
23
16
17
10
3
2
107
Dean Stdnts
(make)
1
2
3
3
3
4
2
1
0
19
(partic)
9
17
16
18
20
14
13
10
1
118
Devel Offer
(make)
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
(partic)
6
6
10
15
13
12
3
3
1
69
Chairperson
(make)
1
1
1
2
3
0
2
2
0
12
(partic)
5
6
7
5
8
12
6
5
0
54
Faculty
(make)
0
2
1
1
1
4
6
0
0
15
(partic)
8
13
11
7
9
5
12
10
1
76
Other
(make)
1
2
5
4
7
2
5
7
1
34
(partic)
1
16
10
8
14
8
10
6
0
73
Totals
(make)
23
33
38
36
41
37
39
25
2
274
(partic)
60
105
106
113
117
109
89
60
6
765

9. To have a series of religious meetings on campus
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Onit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Totals
Trustee (make)
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
(partic)
2
0
1
1
0
3
4
1
0
12
President (make)
(partic)
16
12
20
22
14
24
18
15
1
142
Acad Dean (make)
1
5
5
4
2
4
6
2
0
29
(partic)
10
17
20
22
20
18
15
8
1
131
Bus Officer (make)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
(partic)
8
13
15
23
16
17
10
3
2
107
Dean Stdnts (make)
1
2
3
3
3
4
2
1
0
19
(partic)
9
17
16
18
20
14
13
10
1
118
Devel Offer (make)
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
(partic)
6
6
10
15
13
12
3
3
1
69
Chairperson (make)
1
1
1
2
3
0
2
2
0
12
(partic)
5
6
7
5
8
12
6
5
0
54
Faculty (make)
0
2
1
1
1
4
6
0
0
15
(partic)
8
13
11
7
9
5
12
10
1
76
Other (make)
1
2
5
4
7
2
5
7
1
34
(partic)
1
16
10
8
14
8
10
6
0
73
Totals (make)
23
33
38
36
41
37
39
25
2
274
(partic)
60
105
106
113
117
109
89
60
6
765

10. To act on a
serious
disciplinary measure
*
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Respondents
Total
Trust
Academic
Pres Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Trustee (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
President (make)
7
2
9
12
4
12
6
9
0
61
(partic)
12
18
13
20
13
18
16
8
0
118
Acad Dean (make)
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
(partic)
5
8
10
11
6
11
8
11
0
70
Bus Officer (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
2
0
3
4
3
4
2
1
0
19
Dean Stdnts (make)
15
31
26
24
32
21
30
19
2
200
(partic)
7
4
12
11
7
14
12
11
0
78
Devel Offer (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
(partic)
2
0
3
2
3
5
0
1
0
16
Chairperson (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
3
0
1
1
0
0
1
3
0
9
Faculty (make)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
(partic)
3
6
7
3
8
3
9
13
2
54
Other (make)
0
1
2
0
4
2
4
4
0
17
(partic)
4
11
13
9
20
10
15
9
0
91
Totals (make)
23
34
38
36
41
36
41
32
2
283
(partic)
38
47
63
61
60
65
64
58
2
458
128

11
To change an admission policy
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Of ficer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Total:
Trustee (make)
5
6
3
3
4
8
2
5
0
36
(partic)
3
5
1
2
7
3
6
3
0
30
President (make)
10
9
7
18
15
12
11
7
1
90
(partic)
11
18
14
12
18
17
16
14
0
120
Acad Dean (make)
7
5
7
7
3
7
13
6
1
56
(partic)
14
24
22
23
30
24
21
15
1
174
Bus Officer (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
7
9
7
13
15
9
5
1
1
67
Dean Stdnts (make)
0
2
1
0
1
3
2
0
0
9
(partic)
10
18
16
24
19
13
12
13
1
126
Devel Offer (make)
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
4
(partic)
5
10
9
14
16
10
5
3
1
73
Chairperson (make)
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
4
(partic)
9
3
2
5
4
5
5
4
0
37
Faculty (make)
0
4
12
0
5
4
4
5
0
34
(partic)
7
10
9
17
16
6
22
11
0
98
Other (make)
1
7
7
3
12
2
7
8
0
47
(partic)
5
11
9
10
18
10
11
5
1
80
Totals (make)
23
34
37
33
41
36
41
32
2
280
(partic)
71
108
89
120
143
97
103
69
5
805
129

12. To begin a new fund raising project
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Total!
Trustee
(make)
11
15
16
15
7
4
21
15
0
104
(partic)
8
9
4
7
16
5
9
7
0
65
President
(make)
11
13
18
14
23
21
12
10
1
123
(partic)
12
21
20
20
17
16
24
21
1
152
Acad Dean
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
6
9
11
11
10
9
8
3
0
67
Bus Officer
(make)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
(partic)
13
14
20
21
18
9
18
15
0
128
Dean Stdnts
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
3
6
8
10
8
4
2
3
0
44
Devel Offer
(make)
1
6
3
5
9
12
7
7
1
51
(partic)
16
27
26
27
29
20
28
16
1
190
Chairperson
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
7
Faculty
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
1
3
1
1
2
0
3
2
0
13
Other
(make)
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
(partic)
2
7
5
2
2
7
5
3
0
33
Totals
(make)
23
34
38
34
40
38
40
32
2
281
(partic)
62
97
96
101
102
71
97
71
2
699

13. To build a new building
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Fres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Of ficer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Tota 1:
Trustee (make)
20
29
36
28
32
32
34
24
0
235
(partic)
2
5
7
4
9
6
5
6
1
39
President (make)
2
5
2
7
8
6
5
7
2
44
(partic)
20
29
35
29
29
30
35
22
0
229
Acad Dean (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
10
24
28
22
25
18
18
12
1
158
Bus Officer (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
(partic)
15
26
26
29
30
25
26
19
1
197
Dean Stdnts (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
7
17
20
20
20
16
6
8
1
115
Devel Offer (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
(partic)
14
26
27
25
28
32
21
17
2
192
Chairperson (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
6
3
7
1
5
6
3
5
1
37
Faculty (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
(partic)
7
13
10
5
10
9
5
5
1
65
Other (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
(partic)
2
10
8
5
6
7
4
5
1
65
Totals (make)
22
34
38
35
40
38
41
33
2
283
(partic)
83
153
162
140
162
149
123
99
9
1,060
131

14
To place money in a certain investment
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Of ficer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Totals
Trustee (make)
5
10
13
9
8
11
12
12
0
80
(partic)
6
9
7
6
9
8
13
6
0
66
President (make)
2
6
6
2
10
6
7
7
0
46
(partic)
11
21
22
17
18
22
24
16
1
152
Acad Dean (make)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
(partic)
2
2
1
1
3
2
6
2
0
19
Bus Officer (make)
12
13
15
21
17
20
14
8
2
122
(partic)
9
18
17
10
16
13
17
13
0
113
Dean Stdnts (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
1
1
0
2
2
2
2
1
0
11
Devel Offer (make)
0
0
2
0
5
0
4
2
0
13
(partic)
5
8
5
3
11
16
11
6
0
65
Chairperson (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
Faculty (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other (make)
3
4
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
13
(partic)
5
6
3
4
3
5
1
1
0
28
Totals (make)
22
33
37
35
40
38
37
31
2
275
(partic)
39
65
55
45
62
69
75
45
1
456

15. To add or make a long range plan for the college
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Respondents
Totals
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Trustee
(make)
14
15
12
13
6
9
16
14
0
99
(partic)
6
14
12
15
17
12
15
11
1
103
President
(make)
6
19
21
24
27
27
21
14
2
163
(partic)
14
14
16
14
12
9
18
17
0
114
Acad Dean
(make)
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
2
0
6
(partic)
19
30
31
33
34
25
29
18
1
220
Bus Officer
(make)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
(partic)
15
27
27
34
30
25
19
14
1
192
Dean Stdnts
(make)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
(partic)
9
24
28
32
30
22
17
10
1
173
Devel Offer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
16
25
33
32
19
18
2
200
Chairperson
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
8
14
16
9
12
5
12
9
1
86
Faculty
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
(partic)
9
17
20
16
15
7
17
13
1
115
Other
(make)
0
0
3
0
4
1
1
2
0
11
(partic)
2
9
8
8
9
11
8
4
1
60
Totals
(make)
22
34
38
38
39
37
39
33
2
282
(partic)
98
174
185
194
191
144
154
114
9
1,263

16. To raise the tuition fees
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Total;
Trustee (make)
16
26
29
25
25
25
28
21
1
196
(partid
4
7
5
6
7
7
10
10
0
56
President (make)
3
7
7
9
13
10
10
10
1
70
(partic)
17
28
29
30
26
24
29
20
1
204
Acad Dean (make)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
(partic)
15
27
27
27
34
25
26
18
1
200
Bus Officer (make)
1
0
2
3
1
3
4
1
0
15
(partic)
19
32
29
31
32
30
31
25
2
231
Dean Stdnts (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
10
24
22
24
28
22
12
11
1
154
Devel Offer (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
9
20
21
22
26
23
10
7
1
139
Chairperson (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
3
2
2
2
3
3
0
0
0
15
Faculty (make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
4
5
1
1
3
1
3
3
0
21
Other (make)
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
4
(partic)
2
7
6
5
8
8
4
3
0
43
Totals (make)
21
34
38
38
40
38
42
33
2
286
(partic)
83
152
142
148
167
143
125
97
6
1,063
134

17. To fill a vacancy in the administration (not the presidency)
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Academic
Pres Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Officer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Total;
Trustee
(make)
5
12
11
5
14
5
16
12
1
81
(partic)
10
9
11
14
10
10
17
13
0
94
President
(make)
17
22
26
30
23
29
24
20
0
191
(partic)
5
12
12
6
16
6
13
12
3
85
Acad Dean
(make)
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
3
(partic)
8
20
15
20
20
14
11
14
0
122
Bus Officer
(make)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
(partic)
4
17
13
22
17
14
9
9
1
106
Dean Stdnts
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
2
15
13
18
15
13
4
10
0
90
Devel Offer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
(partic)
3
13
11
14
14
15
5
7
0
82
Chairperson
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
(partic)
1
4
2
2
3
4
2
4
1
23
Paculty
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
1
4
6
1
6
1
6
6
0
31
Other
(make)
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
(partic)
5
7 5
3
10
7
4
2
0
43
Totals
(make)
22
34
38
37
39
37
40
32
2
281
(partic)
39
101
88
100
111
84
71
77
5
676
135

18. To change the purpose or mission statement of the college.
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Of ficer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Totals
Trustee
(make)
20
29
31
28
31
31
32
22
2
226
(partic)
2
4
2
8
6
4
6
6
0
38
President
(make)
2
3
3
9
7
4
5
5
0
38
(partic)
19
30
32
28
32
31
34
22
2
230
Acad Dean
(make)
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
4
(partic)
17
26
30
30
31
25
27
16
1
203
Bus Officer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
8
20
18
26
26
24
11
8
1
142
Dean Stdnts
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
10
22
24
28
28
23
15
10
1
161
Devel Offer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
12
20
20
25
25
25
10
8
1
146
Chairperson
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
7
11
11
9
18
11
12
8
1
88
Paculty
(make)
0
1
1
0
0
2
3
4
0
11
(partic)
11
22
22
13
19
15
19
14
1
136
Other
(make)
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
4
(partic)
4
8
12
8
9
11
5
3
0
60
Totals
(make)
22
34
36
37
40
38
41
33
2
283
(partic)
90
163
171
175
194
169
139
95
8
1,204

19. To change the bylaws of the institution
Respondents
Position
Incumbent/Unit
Trust
Pres
Academic
Dean
Business
Officer
Dean
Students
Develop
Of ficer
Chair¬
person
Faculty
Other
Totali
Trustee
(make)
22
32
33
35
37
36
30
29
1
255
(partic)
1
2
2
2
2
1
9
2
0
21
President
(make)
0
1
0
1
3
1
5
1
0
12
(partic)
22
33
32
37
34
33
32
25
1
249
Acad Dean
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
9
12
15
14
25
17
19
17
1
129
Bus Officer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
6
9
11
17
20
15
9
7
1
95
Dean Stdnts
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
4
6
10
12
18
12
10
8
1
83
Devel Offer
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
5
7
10
9
21
14
6
7
1
80
Chairperson
(make)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(partic)
2
2
3
1
6
1
4
5
0
24
Fapulty
(make)
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
5
(partic)
2
5
5
3
9
4
10
7
0
45
Other
(make)
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
1
0
7
(partic)
2
5
4
1
5
5
4
4
0
30
Totals
(make)
23
34
35
37
40
37
39
33
1
279
(partic)
53
83
92
96
140
102
103
82
5
756

REFERENCES
American Association for Higher Education. (1967). Faculty
participation in academic governance. Washington, DC:
National Education Association.
American Association of University Professors. (1960).
Committee T: faculty participation in college and
university government. AAUP Bulletin, 46, 203-205.
Armour, R. (1965). Going around in academic circles. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Balderston, F. E. (1974). Managing today's university. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baldridge, J. V. (1971a). Power and conflict in the
university. New York: John Wiley.
Baldridge, J. V. (1971b). Academic governance. Berkeley:
McCutchan.
Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., & Williams, M. S. (1981). The
academic grid. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burnett v. Barnes, 546 S. W. 2nd. 744 (MO. 1977).
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, C. S. (1963). Experimental and
quasi-experimental design for research. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1973). The
governance of higher education: six priority problems.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chambers, M. M. (1976). Keep higher education moving.
Danville, IL: Interstate Printers.
Christian college coalition information. (1979).
Washington, DC: Christian College Coalition.
Cleary, R. E. (1978). University decision making. The
Educational Forum, 43, 89-98.
Cohen, M. D. & March, J. C. (1974). Leadership and
ambiguity: the American college president. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Conversations With Clark Kerr. (1973). Association of
Governance Board Reports. 15(9).
138

139
Cooke, M. L. (1910) Academic and industrial efficiency. New
York: Carnegie Foundation.
Cowley, W. H. (1980) Presidents, professors, and trustees.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dykes, A. R. (1968). Faculty participation in academic
decision making. Washington, DC: American Council on
Education.
Eye, G. G., Gregg, R. T., Francke, D. C., Lipham, J. M., &
Netzer, L. A. (1966). Relationship between
instructional change and the extent to which school
administrators and teachers agree on the location of
responsibilities for adminsitrative decisions
(Cooperative Research Project No. 5-0443). Washington,
DC: United States Office of Education.
Fogarty, B. M. & Gregg R. T. (1966). Centralization of
decision-making and selected characteristics of
superintendents of schools. Education Administration
Quarterly, 2, 62-72.
Fox, D. J. (1969). The research process in education. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Franzreb, A. C. (1978, January/February). Warning, trustees
may be dangerous to your health. Fund Raising
Management, 44-45, 52.
Garbarino, J. W. (1974). Creeping unionism in the faculty
labor market. In M. S. Gordon (Ed.), Higher education
and the labor market. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goldschmidt, D. (1978). Power and decision making in higher
education. Comparative Education Review, 22, 212-241.
Griffith, D. E. (1959). Administrative theory. New York:
Appleton.
Griffith, D. E. (1969). Administrative theory. In R. L. Ebel
(Ed.). Encyclopedia of educational research (pp. 17-
24). London: Macmillan.
Gross, E. & Grambsch, P. V. (1968). University goals and academic
power. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
Gross, E. & Grambsch, P. V. (1974). Changes in university
organization: 1964-1971. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hartnett, R. T. (1969). College and university trustees.
Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Heilbron, L. H. (1973). The college and university trustee.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

140
Herbst, J. (1974). The first three American colleges:
schools of the reformation. Perspectives in American
History: Vol. 8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Herriott, R. E. (1969). Survey research method. In R. L.
Ebel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (pp.
1400-1408). London: Macmillan.
Herron, O. R. (1969). The role of the trustee. Scranton, PA:
International Textbook Co.
Holcombe, W. N. (1974). The locus of formal decision-making
for curricular and instruction in selected multi-campus
community colleges (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Florida, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 36, 637A.
Hudson, B. J. (1973). Perceptions of post-bargaining changes
in organizational structure and locus of institutional
decision making in selected community colleges
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1973).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 7002A.
Ikenberry, S. 0. (1971). Restructuring college and
university organization and governance. Journal of
Higher Education, 42, 421-429.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1968). Student participation in university
educational decision making. The Record, 70, 45-51 .
Kaplin, (1978). The law of higher education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
McCluskey, J. W. (1972). An investigation of the locus of
formal decision-making for student personnel services
in selected multi-unit community college districts.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Florida, Gainesville.
Messersmith, J. C. (1964). Church-related boards responsible
for higher education. Washington, DC: U. S. Department
of Health Education and Welfare.
Oppenheim, A. N. (1966). Questionaire design and attitude
measurement. New York: Basic Books.
Pake, G. E. (1971). Whither United States universities?
Science, 172, 908-916.
Pierson, G. E. (1952). Yale college, an educational history,
1871-1921. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

141
Potter, G. E. (1976). Responsibility: enhancing trustee
effectiveness. New Directions for Community Colleges,
4(3), 9-16.
Rauh, M. A. (1969). The trusteeship of colleges and
universities. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Richardson, R. C. (1980). Decision making in the '80s: hard-
nosed pragmatists vs. participative involvers.
Community and Junior College Journal, 51, 25-27.
Richman, B. M. & Farmer, R. N. (1974). Leadership, goals,
and power in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Rosenzweig, R. M. (1970). Who wants to govern the
university? Educational Record, 51, pp. 267-272.
Sammartino, P. (1954). The president of a small college.
Rutherford NJ: Fairleigh Dickerson College Press.
Scaggs, S. W. (1980). Decision-making processes involved in
curriculum change as perceived by faculty and
administrators in Florida community colleges (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Florida, 1980).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 4468A.
Special Trustee Committee. (1957). The role of the trustees
of Columbia University. New York: New York Times.
Stern v. Lucy Webb Hayes National Training School for
Deconnesses and Missionaries, 381 F. Supp. 1003 (D. D.
C. 1974).
Tice, T. N. (1972). Faculty power: collective bargaining on
campus. Ann Arbor: Institute of Continuing Legal
Education.
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat, 518 (U.
S. 1819).
Van Dusseldorp, R. A., Richardson, D. E., & Foley, W. J.
(1971). Educational decision-making through operations
research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Veblen, T. (1965, originally published, 1918). The higher
learning in American. New York: Hill and Wang.

142
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Wesley Lee Rouse was born on March 29, 1936, in Canton,
Ohio. In 1954, upon graduation from Anderson High School in
Anderson, Indiana, Mr. Rouse joined the United States Air
Force where he served as base photographer at Lincoln Air
Force Base in Nebraska. Upon completion of active duty he
moved to Coral Gables, Florida, and matriculated at the
University of Miami where he received his Bachelor of Arts
degree in biology in 1962 and his Master of Arts in biology
in 1971. He worked as a Research Associate in biological
and oceanographic research from 1962 to 1971 for the
University of Miami. In 1971 he moved to Lake Wales,
Florida, to teach biology in a newly established institution,
Warner Southern College. Along with teaching duties he was
appointed Dean of Students and in 1982 became Vice President
for Student Affairs. In 1976 he entered the College of
Education at the University of Florida to pursue the Doctor
of Philosophy degree with a major in educational
administration.
Mr. Rouse is married to the former Rebecca Minix of
Sweetwater, Texas, and has a son, Jay, and a daughter, Joy.
142

I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Administration and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
John Nickens
Professor of Educational
Administration and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Robert Soar
Professor of Foundations
of Education
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the Department of Educational Administration and
Supervision in the College of Education and to the Graduate
School, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
December, 1983
Dean for Graduate Studies
and Research

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08556 8540





PAGE 1

THE LOCUS OF FORMAL DECISION MAKING IN CHRISTIAN COLLEGE COALITION INSTITUTIONS By WESLEY LEE ROUSE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGRE E OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLOR I DA 1983

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer is especially indebted to Dr. Michael Y. Nunnery, Chairperson of the Doctoral Committee, and to Drs. John Nickens and Robert Soar, for their guidance throughout the study. Sincere gratitude is given to Dr. John R. Dellenback, President of the Christian College Coalition, for his support. Acknowledgment is also made to the presidents of the Coalition who helped provide the required data; without them there would have been no study. A final note of thanks is extended to the writer's wife, Becky, for her continued patience, understanding, and help, and to Joy and Jay, the children who continually encouraged their Dad in this endeavor. ii

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABS TRACT V CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .1 Background and Rationale l The Problem .................................. 11 Definition of Terms 14 Procedures ................................... 15 Organization of the Remainder of the Study .... 22 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 23 Multiple Governing Unit Literature 24 Single Governing Unit Literature ........... 28 Critique ....................................... 39 III RESULTS OF THE STUDY 41 Perceptions Relative to Who Makes and Participates in Selected Decisions 42 Differences in Perceptions About the Extent of Involvement in Selected Decisions Based on the Position of the Respondent 62 Differences in Perceptions About the Making of Selected Decisions Based on the Level of Participation of the Respondent 81 IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION ........... 90 Summary .................................... 9 0 Conclusions .................................... 98 Discussion .................................... 100 APPENDICES A CHRISTIAN COLLEGE COALITION ................... 105 B DECISION POINT ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT ............ 107 C NUMBER OF "MAKE DECISION" AND "PARTICIPATES IN MAKING DECISION" RESPONSES BY ITEM AND RESPONDENTS .............. ............... 117 iii

PAGE 4

REFERENCES 13 7 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ......................... 14~ iv

PAGE 5

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE LOCUS OF FORMAL DECISION MAKING IN CHRISTIAN COLLEGE COALITION INSTITUTIONS By Wesley Lee Rouse December, 1983 Chairman: Dr. Michael Y. Nunnery Major Department: Educational Administration and Supervision The problem was to determine the perceptions of those involved about the locus of formal decision making relative to academic, student affairs, development, and administration decisions for Coalition colleges. Answers were sought to questions about which specific position incumbents/units were perceived to be involved in making and participating in making decisions, and differences in perceptions based on respondent role (trustees, administration, administration/faculty, faculty) and on level of involvement (no involvement, provides information, recommends, makes decision). Data were obtained by means of a decision point analysis instrument from 59 of the 69 institutions with 293 returns. Analysis of variance was utilized to determine differences in perceptions. V

PAGE 6

Faculty members, academic deans, and presidents were perceived to be major decision makers in academics; deans of students and presidents in student affairs; trustees, presidents, and business officers in development; and trustees and presidents in administration. Most frequently perceived to participate were chairpersons and academic deans in academics; presidents, academic deans, deans of students, and business officers in student affairs; presidents and development officers in development; and presidents, academic deans, and business officers in administration. Based on position, there were significant differences about who makes the decision for 6 of the 19 items and about who participates for 15. The significant differences in who makes the decision were for adding a course, changing a grade, changing an admission policy, building a building, changing the purpose of the college, and changing bylaws. Based on level of involvement, there were significant differences about who makes the decision for 3 of the 19 items. These were for adding a course, beginning a fund raising project, and filling an administrative vacancy. It was concluded that there was considerable unanimity of opinion about who makes decisions, but little about who participates. The most frequent decision makers were those at the top of the hierarchy (trustees and presidents), and those who least frequently made the decisions were those at the lower levels (chairpersons and faculty).

PAGE 7

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background and Rationale Decision-making authority in educational institutions is basic to the educational process, but the specific loci of the formal decision-making authority, especially in small private church-related colleges had not been adequately studied. Because of this lack of study, research needed to be conducted in order to know how such small colleges functioned; furthermore, results of research on the locus of decision making, conducted primarily in large public and private universities, were conflicting. Thus, there was a need for further research in this area. Cowley (1980) traced the types of formal decision making that were emerging concurrently with the development of higher education in the United States and showed that decision making has evolved from a rather chaotic state into the basic governing units found in virtually all higher educational institutions in the United States--a board of trustees, a president with supporting administrators, and a faculty. He also indicated that there were other influences on college decision making (students, alumni, government, philanthropists, the general public) but indicated that the amount controlled by the various governing positions and units was still in controversy. 1

PAGE 8

Rosenzweig's (1970) description of the control of educational institutions, although written several years ago, is still pertinent. To describe it is to begin to appreciate its singular nature. It is held in trust by a small group of men who hold their office for a long period of time and who are in some instances responsible for appointing their successors--who may be themselves. Responsibility for the university's conduct is conferred by its trustees upon a man hired by them and in principle answerable only to them. Given that responsibility and that line of accountability, however, this individual finds that his most important allies, adversaries, and judges are not those who hired him but two other large, quite amorphous groups. One of those groups, the one that does the chief work of the institution, consists of individuals each of whom has the security and independence of a justice of the United States Supreme Court. The other group consists of individuals most of whom are legally children but who have a capacity for trouble which is wholly adult. (p. 267) The faculty, the group "that does the chief work of the institution," has been involved in many control battles within higher education. Cowley (1980) stated that "one of the most persistent myths prevailing in American higher education insists that a golden age once existed wherein professors operated their own institutions in some sort of 'free republic of scholars'" (p. 9). That this was a myth is borne out by studies of early American college leaders who adopted the system of their German, French, and English counterparts, none of which operated in such a manner. Harvard University, College of William and Mary, Brown University, Yale University, and Princeton University all participated in developing governing systems that were in 2

PAGE 9

use at the time of the study reported herein. Even in 1983 many small church-related colleges had a board of trustees much like that established at Princeton in 1784 by Jonathan Belcher--a strong control board composed of ministers and laymen in equal proportions (Cowley, 1980, p. 47). While a few institutions (such as Harvard) have had a bicameral structure of top control which includes the faculty in major decision making, most colleges have had a unicameral system designating much of the major formal decision making to the trustees (Herbst, 1974). This unicameral system, largely bypassing the faculty, became a major feature of the college governance structure in the United States. Herron (1969) contended that "the board of trustees is the single most important agency of an institution." (p. 42). He further stated that the trustee needed to understand his/her role because "of all organizations in the world, institutions of higher learning are in ferment, intellectually dynamic because they are rightfully committed to social improvement, and dynamic because they challenge hierarchies of thought and structure" (p. xv). How trustees of small church-related colleges adapt to the role was not clear f r om the lite r atu r e. Background o f trustees from la r ger institut i ons investigat e d by H art n e t t (1969) showed them to be qu i te conservativ e and th a t t h eir d e cisions as board m e mbers probably car r i e d th e same conservatism. 3

PAGE 10

It has long been thought that the board of trustees wielded the major decision-making power in colleges though these decisions may be made with little of the proper background information (Harnett, 1969, p. 135). Rosenzweig (1970) made an analysis of universities and concluded that "it is unreasonable to expect a group of men, all with full time responsibilities elsewhere, to adequately govern the university" (p. 270). While the decision-making responsibilities of trustees have been listed by numerous authors, Franzreb (1978) and Rosenzweig (1970) intimated that board members are generally unaware of educational administration, that most are even unaware of the purposes of the institution they represent, and that many would be surprised at the legal responsibilities they have assumed. 4 Legal decision-making authority vested in a board of trustees is quite encompassing with the definitions and limitations of that authority contained in the corporate charter of the institution and in the laws of the state of incorporation. In general, the board member is charged with acting "fairly and responsibly in protecting the institution's resources and interests" (Kaplin, 1978, p. 48). Unlike public institutions whose authority may be vested in a state constitution that cannot be easily changed, somewhat less stringent limits are imposed by the state on private college through their articles of incorporation. The courts in Burnett v. Barnes (1977) and Stern v. Lucy Hayes National Training School for Deconnesses and Missionaries (1974) provided considerable leeway for

PAGE 11

private colleges: trustees could change the college bylaws so long as the change was not inconsistent with the college articles of incorporation and/or the laws of the state (Kaplin, 1978, p. 46). These articles of incorporation, including any decision-making authorities associated with them, constitute a binding contract between the state and the college. This compatible separation is consistent with the landmark Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) case in which it was ruled that a private college operating with a state-granted charter had the right to exist without being taken over by the state. Other court cases relative to the decision-making authority of trustees have been few. Only one was noted by Kaplin (1978)--financial responsibility. This responsibility was discussed in Stern and it was held that boards of trustees and corporate directors can be held accountable for mismanagement, nonmanagement, and self dealing. It also extended the responsibility of boards (which could not ~e delegated) to maximize the trust income by prudent investments (Kaplin, 1978, p. 48). Kaplin (1978, p. 50) further ~tated that some confusion existed over trustee delegation of decision-making authority. In several cases boards have been held responsible for a decision even when it was delegated to administrators (e.g., the president, deans), faculty, and/or campus agents (e.g., police, student organizations, campus newspaper). 5

PAGE 12

Whi le legal decision-making responsibilities and duties are largely a part of the bylaws, liability for tort, even by those to whom the board has delegated authority, falls on the board of trustees. Without the sovereign immunity of some public institutions, liability for contracts made by subordinates at private colleges, whether delegated or not, often becomes the responsibility of the board or even the individual members of the corporation (usually the officers 6 of the board) (Kaplin, 1978, pp. 61-67). Therefore, boards of trustees of private institutions are often in a dilemma-they must make decisions for which they may not be properly prepared and they must accept the responsibility for decisions made by subordinates over whom they may have little effective control. While legal decision making of private colleges and universities has been adjudicated to some extent, during the 1960s and 1970s policy and operational control was still in turmoil. George Pake (1971) writing in Science noted the following: How does it happen that universities which once could manage, now cannot? There is not a simple answer, but I keep coming back to the faculty. The faculty holds the power in a practical sense; the trustee holds it in a legal sense. If the faculty were to responsibly delegate power to the administration as effectively as the trustees have in recent decades, I believe that able university administrators could, in fact, cope with today's crisis. But the faculty has been unwilling to do so. As the faculty has become larger, more unwieldy, and more concerned with individual professional pursuits, it has become less able to exercise its powers. Where small student or nonstudent elements have brought whole institutions to a halt, they have thrived on this vacuum of power. (pp. 915-916)

PAGE 13

Rosenzweig (1970) gave the faculty a similarly high responsibilty: In the end the faculty constitutes the only hope for genuine self-government of the campus. This is not because they can, themselves govern; they cannot. It is because they are the only group on campus with the authority and the prestige to establish the rules of the game, the ways in which things can and cannot be done--not so much the substance of policy as the process from which substance emerges. Equally important, they are the only group that can confer on the president and his administration sufficient legitimacy to enable him to enforce those rules. Trustees can take similar action by brute force, but only for a short time and at exorbitant cost to the institution. Only the faculty can act in a way that strengthens rather than weakens the institution. (p. 272) Laird Bell, a member of the trustee boards of the University of Chicago, Carleton College, and Harvard University felt that trustees had best bear in mind that they could not be College faculty and that they should keep their hands off education Once overall policy is decided it ought to be true that the educational experts should determine how the policy is to be implemented. (Special Trustee Committee, 1957, p. 24) Few educational institutions openly concede operational decision making to the faculty, especially if that means a weak presidency. However, Yale instituted such a policy in the early 1800s (Pierson, 1952, p. 129) and to a great extent it was still the same at the time of this writing. Cowley (1980, pp. 91-94) discussed four areas where decision-making authority is often the purview of the faculty: discipline, admissions and degree requirements, teaching effectiveness, and curricula along with the 7

PAGE 14

associated instructional materials and methods. In this connection it should be noted that colleges controlled by churches often have heavy outside influence on curricula and accreditation associations dominate some segments of all education programs. Although some early writers went so far as to suggest that faculty take over all decision making by doing away with administration and the board of trustees (Veblen, 1918/1965), most authorities, including the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), have taken a different approach. In 1960 the AAUP endorsed a multicameral concept of academic government making the faculty and trustees mutually, even though differentially, involved in decision making (American Association of University Professors, 1960). Most boards of trustees delegate much of the operational decision making, not to the faculty, but to the president. In fact, some trustees have advocated a rather complete delegation of such authority; consider the following by Charles Coolridge while a member of the Harvard board: I can sum up the rules of conduct for trustees by 8 a big don't--DON'T MEDDLE You must realize that you are not an expert in education ... As I see it, the job of a lay member of a governing board boils down to this: Do your best to see that the organization is good, that it is well manned, and that it runs smoothly--but don't try to run it. Make your decisions on evidence furnished by experts, and not on your own imperfect knowledge of academic affairs. If you do that, I think you will be of real help to the President, and that is my view of what you are

PAGE 15

there for. (Special Trustee Committee, 1957, pp. 23-24) While control over operations and execution of policy in most educational institutions is vested in a president (Balderston, 1974, p. 88), early experiments in college management resulted in some institutions being controlled by committees, either from the board of trustees or from the faculty. A few, such as the University of Virginia in the 1900s, operated without a president. However, such experiments were short-lived and, in the last few decades the president has had the strongest influence in educational decision making (Cowley, 1980, p. 45). It is generally thought that the trend leading to the position of strong influence of the president had its genesis in the works of Frederick W. Taylor, the industrialist who conducted time and motion studies in the late 1800s (Cowley, 1980, pp. 63-64). One of his disciples, Morris L. Cooke, carried Taylor's scientific principles to education when in 1910 the Carnegie Foundation published his work under the title of Academic and Industrial Efficiency. Three of Cooke's 1910 concepts may have led to major changes in the decision-making power of the presid e ntfunctional organization, efficiency, and operat i ons research. The first, functional o r ganizat i on, f ound wid e acceptance in educational circles. Pres e nt d a y gov er n i ng positions such as vic e pr e sident and dean re c e iv ed th e ir impetus from this concept, and the line and sta ff system has become widespread in educational institut i ons. Sinc e th e 9

PAGE 16

structure in educational institutions, much decision-making power has gravitated in that direction. The second concept, efficiency, was heavily advocated as a decision-making guide by Taylor for industry and by Cooke for education. Although it gained credence in industry, education has been able to implement it only to a small extent. Although presidents offer numerous decision alternatives intended to produce efficiency, waste is still a major part of modern education institutions (Cowley, 1980, p. 63). Regardless of whether such efficiency or lack of it is useful to education, it has been used by presidents to charge that rival bodies should or should not have decision making authority. The third concept, operations research, has not generally gained wide acceptance in educational institutions (Balderston, 1974, pp. 69-72). However, in some places such research has become a major influence on institutional decision making (Van Dusseldorp, Richardson, & Foley, 1971). Since such research is often ordered by or prepared for the president, its use is usually the prerogative of the president and results in increased presidential power. Despite the evolutionary process that has permitted survival and led to a workable situation at most higher education institutions, "the steadiest fires of controversy involve the proper relationship of professors, presidents, and trustees" (Cowley, 1980, p. 199). As is detailed in the next chapter, the decision-making relationships among these 10

PAGE 17

groups had been studied in some detail for universities; however, there had been little study of decision making in private church-related colleges. Therefore, the focus of the research herein was the locus of formal decision making within the various governing positions and units in such colleges. The Problem Statement of the Problem The problem of the study was to determine perceptions of those involved about the locus of formal decision making in four basic areas for small church-related colleges. More specifically, answers to the following questions were sought: 1. To what extent are specific position incumbents and units perceived to participate i n decision making in specific decision areas (i.e., academics, student affairs, development, and administration)? 2. Are there differences by decision items within the four decision areas (academics, student affairs, development, and administration) in perceptions of the extent to which position incumbents and/or units are involved i n making a dec i s i on an d participate in making a decision b as ed on t h e position held by the r e spondent (i. e ., trust e e, administrator, faculty/administ r ator, and f aculty member)? 11

PAGE 18

3. Are there differences by decision items within the four decision areas (academics, student affairs, development, and administration) in perceptions of the extent to which position incumbents and/or units are involved in making a decision based on the respondent's perceived involvement in the decision (makes decision, recommends decision, provides information, or no participation)? Limitations and Delimitations While conducting the investigation several restrictions were observed. The population for the investigation was confined to representatives from each of the 69 church related colleges that made up the Christian College Coalition as of August, 1982 (see Appendix A). Further, the population was confined to the role incumbent from each college for the following administrative positions: president, chief administrator for academic affairs, chief of business affairs, chief student affairs officer, and chief development officer; and the following selected by the president: one trustee, one department chairperson, and one faculty member. The total number of role incumbents who could possibly be involved from the 69 institutions was 552, and the total number of responses received was 293. Of the 69 institutions involved 59 provided some usable data, 3 institutions refused to participate, 2 institutions simply sent summary information which could not be utilized in the 12

PAGE 19

format provided, and 5 institutions did not respond. The 293 respondents included 23 trustees, 34 presidents, 41 academic deans, 38 chief business officers, 41 chief student affairs personnel, 38 development officers, 43 department chairpersons, 33 faculty members, and 2 others. It was recognized that the lack of a 100% return from the sample could limit the extent to which the results could be generalized. In an effort to deal with this basic weakness in survey research, an analysis was made of those role incumbents who responded to the first request in comparison to the responses of those responding to the second request (257 versus 36). This comparison was done using a chi square analysis for each of the items on the decision point analysis instrument which was used to gather the data. It was found the there were no significant differences at the .05 level between the two samples. Therefore, it was felt that the less than 100% sample return rate didn't create a major bias because the differences between those responding the first time and those who followed was not significant. (Also, the data from the two summaries received were similar to that provided by the usable samples.) Given the nature of the problem, a descriptive survey design was used (Fox 1969, Chap. 15). This design, included as an ex post facto quasi experimental design in Campbell and Stanley (1963), dictates that two conditions must be met: 13

PAGE 20

1. There is an absence of information about a problem that has educational significance. 2. The situation from which the information may be obtained exists and the data can be gathered by the researcher (Fox, 1969, p. 24). Campbell and Stanley (1963, p. 64) discussed the correlational cause and effect aspects of the ex post facto design. However, in the present study no claims are made as to the relation between the success of one college over another and certain decision-making methods, or between a specific decision and a change in subsequent success of the college. At best the external validity extends to the sampled population, the private church-related colleges of the Christian College Coalition. Generalization to all Christian colleges was not possible although the sampled population represented a sizable proportion of all Christian colleges. It was recognized that the validity of the decision ~oint analysis instrument could be questioned. The mechanics of the design of such an instrument had been used previously (Holcombe, 1974), but modifications were made for use in the present study. Therefore, only face value could be claimed. D e finition of Terms Deci s ion ar ea s. Divisions g e n e rally delin e ated in small coll e g e s--ac a d e mics, s tud e nt a ffairs, d e v e lopm e nt, and adminis t ration. 14

PAGE 21

Decision point analysis instrument. An opinionnaire instrument presenting statements of individual decisions that must be made at educational institutions and the area in which these decisions may be made. Governing units. The board of trustees, administration, administration/faculty, and faculty. Governing positions. The board of trustee members, president, chief of academic affairs, chief of business affairs, chief student affairs officer, chief development officer, departmental chairpersons, and faculty members. Locus. The role position/unit that has the effective responsibility for decision making in specific task units of the institution. This may include the actual making of the decision and/or participation in the making of a decision. Position incumbent. The individual involved in key decisions identified in this study. Private church-related colleges. A nonpublic institution controlled by a religious denomination. Procedures Introduction. In order to conduct this study of the locus of formal decision making in private church-related institutions, it was necessary (a) to determine the colleges to participate in the study and the governing positions/units within the colleges that could contribute to decision making; (b) to select the position incumbents who would be the actual participants; (c) to select a means of determining 15

PAGE 22

perceptions of these persons; (d) to determine procedures for the collection of the data; and (e) to analyze the data in terms of the questions. In the paragraphs following attention is given to each of these topics. Selection of the Colleges As was discussed previously most of the research in decision making within higher education has been done in large colleges and universities. The target population for this study was a group of small private Christian colleges, in particular, those 69 colleges that had membership in the Christian College Coalition (Appendix A). The Christian College Coalition was formed in 1976 when a group of Christian liberal arts colleges combined forces to help preserve and strengthen their Christian convictions. The Coalition, a Washington, D.C. based organization, had the following objectives: 1. The monitoring of public opinion, legislation, judicial activity, and governmental regulations on matters which affect the freedom of Christian colleges to function educationally and religiously. 2. The development of unified positions on critical issues for presentation to governmental agencies, other organizations, and those influential in the formation of public policy. 3. The development of well-researched positions on potential erosions of religious and educational 16

PAGE 23

freedom in the Christian college movement. (Christian College Coalition, 1979) The Coalition was governed by a board of directors of nine members, each being the president of a Coalition college. An executive staff was elected by the board of directors and was made up of a chairman of the board, president of the Coalition, and a secretary. Participants Within Each Institution To determine decision-making perceptions by individuals in the colleges it was necessary to identify persons who were incumbents in several comparable positions. Therefore, determination was made to seek persons representing each of the generally recognized major governing positions and units in small private colleges. Specifically, it was decided participation was needed from the governing board of trustees, administrators in the chief areas of operation (i.e., administration, academics, student affairs, and development), persons who were full-time faculty members, and part time academic administrators who also teach (i.e., division/department chairpersons). Therefore, participants in this study included members of the board of trustees, presidents, academic deans, business officers, chief student affairs officers, chief development officers, division/department chairpersons, and faculty members. Of the 552 possible respondents in the population (69 colleges and 8 positions) opinionnaires were returned by 293 role incumbents (23 trustees, 34 presidents, 41 academic 17

PAGE 24

deans, 38 business officers, 41 deans of students, 38 development officers, 43 department chairpersons, 33 faculty members and 2 others [i.e. an athletic director and a director of marketing]). This represented a sample of 53% of the population. As has been noted, in an effort to support the case for generalization to the Christian College Coalition, an analysis of the responses from the initial mailing was compared with the responses after a repeated appeal and no significant differences between the two sets were found. Instrumentation Even though there has been considerable diversity in methodology used to study the locus of decision making, most frequently such studies have been based on the social research questionnaire style as delineated by Oppenheim (1966). Such an approach was used by Baldridge (1971a) in his study of the political model of the New York University system, and by Gross and Grambsch (1974). A research technique to help "translate the theoretical concern into applied research" (Holcombe, 1974, p. 16) was realized with the development of a decision point analysis instrument. The instrument was first developed by Eye, Gregg, Francke, Lipham, and Netzer (1966) as part of a project for the United States Office of Education related to the decision-making responsibilities of school administrators and teachers. The instrument was subsequently used by Fogarty and Gregg (1966) to test relationships between personal 18

PAGE 25

characteristics of public secondary school superintendents and the centralization of decision making. Two studies that used the instrument in community colleges were McCluskey (1972) who used a modification of the instrument in research of student personnel decision making and Scaggs (1980) who studied decision making for curriculum change. The basic instrument structure for the present research came from these studies, although the items of each of the task units and the governing positions/units in the instrument were altered to fit peculiarities of the present study. Data Collection. Data were collected using the 19-item decision point analysis instrument with decision statements unique to this research (Appendix B). The statements were divided into four decision areas--academics, student affairs, development, and administration--with decision statements/items for each area. Endorsement from the Christian College Coalition was sought, and a letter was sent by the president of the organization to each president of a Coalition college encouraging them to participate in the study. A cover letter to the presidents, an introductory letter to the role incumbent, and the decision point analysis instruments were sent to presidents of the Coalition colleges. The presidents were asked to select the persons to complete the opinionnaire and have them returned to the researcher. Two 19

PAGE 26

hundred ninty three opinionnaires had some usable item responses. As has been noted, opinionnaires from 52 of the 69 colleges were received from the first mailing. A second mailing was made to those colleges not responding to the first mailing, and opinionnaires were received from seven additional institutions. This represented some usable responses from 85% of the colleges. Three additional colleges wrote letters choosing not to participate, two sent summarized opinions from the president (neither of which were used in the analysis), and no response was received from five institutions. Data analysis To answer the first question, tabular distributions of responses for the total group of respondents by decision making areas and items were made. To provide answers to the second and third questions, a single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the perceptions of the incumbents of the various governing units and positions. The statistical null hypotheses tested were as follows: 1. There is no significant difference at the .05 level by decision items within the four decision areas in the perceptions of the role incumbents from the various governing positions (board of trustees, administrators, administrator/faculty members, and faculty members) about who makes the 20

PAGE 27

decision and who participates in making the decision. 2. There is no significant difference at the .05 level by decision items within the four decision areas in the perceptions of the role incumbents about who makes the decision based on their level of participation in the decision (makes decision, recommends decision, provides information, or no participation). In applying the analysis of variance in relation to the first hypothesis, for each decision item the four governing groups (trustees, administrators, administrator/faculty, and faculty) were treated as levels within the factor and the positions were treated as an ordered series and assigned a number based on level in the administrative hierarchy as suggested by the literature (i.e., trustees, president, academic dean, chairperson, faculty, and "other"). The trustees, being at the top level of the hierarchy were assigned a 1, the pres i dent a 2, and so on. In instances where there was a significant F, the Tukey multiple comparisons test based on the studentized range was used as a follow up procedure in an effort to determine the location(s) of the difference(s). This was done for both "makes decision" responses and "participates in mak i ng decision" responses. The same procedure was followed for the second hypothesis except the levels within the factor were the levels of perceived participation (no 21

PAGE 28

participation, provide information, recommend, and make decision) and the analysis was done for the "makes decision'' responses only. Organization of the Remainder of the Study Contained in Chapter II which follows immediately is a review of the relevant literature. Chapter III is devoted 22 to presentation of the data relative to the three basic questions which gave direction to the study. Chapter IV contains the summary, conclusions, and discussion.

PAGE 29

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Included in the present literature review of the locus of decision making is research and authoritative opinion. The review is divided into studies and authoritative opinion that deal with more than one governing unit and those that deal with a single governing position and/or unit. In all of the major studies the researchers have concerned themselves with universities, mostly public. There are some limited data available about large private colleges and universities and some authoritative opinion about small colleges. The review is concluded with a critique. The authoritative opinion approach was taken by Sammartino (1954) when he waa president of Fairleigh Dickinson College. He pointed out that the small college president makes decisions that have to do with departmental organization, public relations, evaluation of instructors, guidance of students, fund raising, alumni, parents, food service, office management, custodial service, and the library. This constrasts sharply with the statement by Daniel Griffith (1959) concerning universities that "it is not the function of the chief executive to make decisions; it is his function to monitor the decision-making process to make certain that it performs at the optimum level" (p. 89). 23

PAGE 30

Between these two ideas is a wide diversity of thought as to what happens and what should happen in decision making in educational institutions. Although this review could extend back several years, it is limited to literature since the 1960s primarily because authorities such as Griffiths (1969, p. 19) have suggested that only in the 1960s were educational institutions becoming serious about the study of decision making. Multiple Governing Unit Literature On the university level, three major research studies that included decision making of the various governing positions have been made since the 1960s: Gross and Grambsch (1968, 1974); Baldridge (1971a); and Cohen and March (1974). Although the data from these researches lend themselves more to the study of goals related to perceived decision making, the relationships to perceptions of individuals involved in decision making is obvious. The Gross and Grambsch Studies Gross and Grambsch (1968, 1974) using an opinion naire/questionnaire developed by the authors as their data collection instrument, conducted two surveys involving 68 universities (public and private), one in 1964 and one in 1971. Comparisons between the 1964 and 1971 data showed that the perceived decision-making power structure differed little between the two surveys. 24

PAGE 31

In almost all the universities in the samples the president was perceived as having the most decision-making power with trustees perceived only slightly less powerful. Participants were asked (a) to rank the goals of the university from absolutely top importance to little or no importance, (b) to indicate which governing position had the least say in making decisions, (c) to decide whether the influence of these positions had increased in the last seven or eight years (in the 1971 survey), and (d) to indicate the perceived power thought to be held by him/herself. The two surveys showed that students, faculty, and the federal government gained in influence in private universities, while students, legislators, trustees, and state government gained some influence in public universities. Several conclusions concerning these data were drawn by Richman and Farmer (1974). One, power may be different in state universities than in private institutions. Two, external groups probably have much more power in the public sector. Three, there may be an expansable supply of power judging from the total scores in the public sector being substantially higher than in the private sector. Richman and Farmer (1974) pointed out that one of the major results of the studies was that "a more important role in decision making has now become available to a wider spectrum of participants who are now able to influence each other to a greater extent than previously" (p. 162). They 25

PAGE 32

went on to state that "the power structure at many institutions has probably been shifting substantially to outsiders and perhaps also to a lesser extent to potential students as compared with the faculty and administrators" (p. 163). The Baldridge Study Baldridge (1971a, 1971b) studied the New York University system during the 1960s, and through this study he developed a description of a new method of governancethe political model. He concluded that conflict is a natural part of the goal-setting and decision-making process, that small groups of political elites act as the major decision makers, and that decisions are influenced greatly by external interest groups with internal groups left with little power. According to Cleary (1978), who commented on the Baldridge study, the political model is established through debate and governance is administratively assigned through the president. Roles of perceived responsibility were delineated in the Baldridge study for the various governing areas of the university system. He further pointed out that the central administration (used interchangeably with presidents) had been successful in gaining decision-making power as the degree of confidence of faculty members in administration had risen since similar data were taken in 1959. The study also dealt with the amount and degree of influence in 10 major decision areas. The central 26

PAGE 33

administration was shown to have had the greatest influence overall, and to have clearly the dominant role in influence over college budget, university budget, physical plant, master plan, and public relations. Richman and Farmer (1974) pointed out that this study also showed that power may not be finite: Baldridge's studies suggest that power and influence do not necessarily come in fixed cans, and that by filling power vacuums and initiating actions and decisions, one can often gain power and influence without others losing any of theirs, in the net sense at least. (p. 167) The Cohen and March Study This 1974 study included interviews with 41 university presidents, 36 chief academic officers, 36 chief financial officers, 28 other officials close to the president, and student leaders and editors at 31 public and private university campuses across the country. The authors concluded from their results that power was rather ambiguous and diffused at institutions of higher learning even though the president usually exerted the most influence over individual decisions. Cohen and March (1974) called the model that they found organized anarchy. Richman and Farmer (1974) summarized its basic properties: Organized anarchies include ambiguity of purpose and problematic goals; unclear technology; fluid participation; ambiguity of power; ambiguity of services; in particular presidential success. Cohen and March believe that organized anarchies should not be viewed as vehicles for solving well defined problems, but more as a collection of choices looking for problems, issues and feelings 27

PAGE 34

looking for decision situations in which they might be aired, solutions looking for issues to which they might be answers, and decision makers looking for work. (p. 31) Balderston (1974) also commented on the model. The presidency has to tend, and periodically engineer, changes in the complex structure of organization. In each major area, large numbers of decisions have to be made. Thus, it is necessary to develop adequate general policies and accompanying procedures, so that most of these decisions can be made quickly, near the point where they need to be made. Only those large, exceptional, or ad hoc cases that can not be settled in a decentralized way should have to be passed on to higher levels. As Cohen and March point out, problems may not actually be resolved at all but may instead be held in "garbage cans''. (p. 89) Single Governing Unit Literature There was much literature that placed emphasis on the board of trustees. A diverse view of the trustee's decision-making role was presented. This diversity and multifaceted makeup of boards, especi~lly in small colleges, make it difficult to see just what role boards of trustees do play in decision making. The literature abounds with statements concerning the phenomenological nature of boards of trustees in American institutions. Although boards can be found in many kinds of institutions, educational institutions are almost always seen as "controlled" by a board of trustees. Heilbron (1973) offered the following description of the trustees around the campus: From the viewpoint of the administration--the president and deans--the trustee is a personnel 28

PAGE 35

problem who requires special handling according to his humor and temperament. But he is also a sounding board, a buffer against pressures from faculty, students, and outside agencies. He is a perpetual student who must be educated by the administration in time to meet a crisis, a fabricator of prefabricated policies. From the viewpoint of faculty he is a meddler in educational affairs, a possible vehicle for overturning the administration and transferring its authority to the faculty; an agent to procure the appropriations the faculty wants; a man with corporate bias who seeks to run the college like a business; sometimes a kind and friendly soul who might be brought to the door of the temple but should never be allowed to enter or share the secrets of the brotherhood. From the viewpoint of students, he is a member of the older generation who usually cannot understand, often immobilized by tradition, occasionally preoccupied with hair and hangups, a symbol of the establishment; actually, no more harmful than Dad, and surprisingly, one who can be talked to when protesting requirements and asking for change. From the viewpoint of other trustees, he is a pretty good fellow (though he may be a little too talkative or too taciturn or too liberal or too conservative); interested only in a better educational program; wanting to do a fair, honest, constructive job; unhappy when there is friction in the college community; willing to cooperate with all parties; expecting no public thanks and, in this respect, not being disappointed. (p. 2-3) Armour (1965) had his own description: He seldom makes the meeting in the fall; An afternoon in spring, at best, is all The time he has to give to education, So busy is he with his corporation. And if his watch is often in his hand, The other gentlemen will understand That though it is, admittedly, a pity, He has important business in the city, So, having been assured there are no Reds And shaken hands with all department heads And heard the Prexy's hopeful parting bit About a way to end the deficit. He leaves the academic scene behind And shortly puts it safely out of mind. His name, they say, is one that carries w ei ght When listed in the catalogue, and fate And taxes willing, doubtless will appear Upon a building almost any year. (p. 105) 29

PAGE 36

Most scholars writing on the subject have a list of decisions that should be assigned to the board of trustees. Some of them are more detailed than others, but all are supposedly what the responsibilities should be. One of the most concise lists was offered by Rauh (1969): 1. They hold the basic legal document of origin. 2. They evolve the purpose of the institution consonant with the terms of this document. 3. They seek a planned development. 4. They select and determine the tenure of the chief executive. 5. They hold the assets in trust. 6. They act as a court of last resort. (p. 9) The tenor of Rauh's (1969) writing indicated that he felt most trustees might not be aware of the purpose or the bylaws of the institution. He proposed that the faculty and president usually have more influence on the institution than all of the trustees combined. He further commented that wherever the influence is held or whatever the locus of influence, by position or unit, it is probably a function of pure chance forced by fiscal contingencies. Potter (1976) suggested that the trustees were more involved in the day-to-day decision-making responsibilities of the college. He identified the following specific areas in which trustees were involved: (a) selecting, evaluating, and terminating the president; (b) ensuring professional management of the institution; (c) purchasing, constructing, 30

PAGE 37

and maintaining facilities; (d) defining the role and mission of the college; (e) engaging in public relations; (f) evaluating institutional performance; (g) preserving institutional independence; (h) creating a climate for change; (i) insisting on being informed; (j) engaging in planning; and (k) assessing board performance (pp. 11-12). Included in the above responsibilities is a decision responsibility that was found in only one other list (Carnegie Commission, 1973)--the trustee as a change agent. Most authors felt that few boards functioned in the role of change agent. Clark Kerr (Conversations, 1973) presented a series of decision-making responsibilities that if followed would make the board much more the locus of the control center of the institution: 1. Study their own membership to develop a board of fully independent and devoted members who are sensitive to but not committed to the views of several constituencies that relate to the institution. 2. Protect the essential independences of their institutions from external control. 3. Review periodically the purposes of thei r institution. 4. Assume the forward motion of their institutions as against the current "survivalist" ment a lity of so 31

PAGE 38

many in the academic community. This includes the selection of active presidents. S. Manage their resources effectively. 6. Contemplate levels and nature of future enrollments and plan adjustments in advance. This includes potential adjustments in faculty cooperation, tenure and non-tenure, and participation of women and members of minority groups. 7. Be cognizant of the new mentalities developing among faculty members and students, new attitudes, new motivations and interests, and new styles of life. To be in touch. 8. Assure a voice for trustees at the state and federal levels when matters of common concern are under discussion such as tax policy on gifts and policies on control over higher education. (p. 53) Kerr would have the trustee be the "brain" to recognize and/or overrule the various "mentalities" of the institution. How this was to be done in the modern college or university was not explained. Of a more pertinent nature to the present study was the discussion of decision-making responsibilities of church r e lated coll e ge boards by Messe r smith (1964). These decision responsibilities were supposed to be "actual'' dec i sion-making duties rather than "should be" responsibilities, although Messersmith qualified his 32

PAGE 39

position by pointing out that he was being optimistic. His decision-making list included policy matters, budget approval and control, current operations, planning and financing physical facilities, administrative services, faculty and student services, and curricular and extracurricular activities. The Messersmith (1964) decision-making list was the only one that gave the trustees the duty of financing current operations. Also, Messersmith provided the only definitive statement found about decision-making responsibilities in small private colleges. Rauh (1969) researched small colleges and included 20 topics commonly considered by boards, but whether decisions concerning these topics were ratified or actually made by the board of trustees was unclear. The following categories were delineated: personnel (faculty appointments, wage scales of nonfaculty personnel, retirement plans); student life (dormitory rules, athletic programs, policies on student-invited speakers); finance (investment, budget analysis, long-range planning); plant (development of a campus master plan, selection of an architect, architectural drawings for a particular building); educational program (decision about a research contract, changes in the undergraduate program, instructional methods, library services, admissions policies); and external affairs (fund raising plans, alumni affairs, selection of a new trustee). Rauh further pointed out that even though in private 33

PAGE 40

colleges trustees are considered the college legally (also see Chambers, 1976) they are not as involved in college programs as those trustees in other public colleges. "At the highest level of involvement [trustees in] private institutions are consistently less involved than all trustees combined. This suggests a stronger commitment of these trustees to delegation of management functions to the college staff" (p.190). Orley Herron (1969) felt that proper delegation of decision making duties was only possible with proper communication (also discussed by Balderston, 1974, pp. 8285). He prepared a checklist questionnaire to study the communication between boards and other areas of the college (president, faculty, students). Most of the returns were from large colleges and universities although a few were from private colleges. Herron (1969) concluded that the use of trustee committees was the most effective decision-making method between the board and administration, faculty, and students. He further concluded that each committee should have decision-making responsibility for one of the major divisions of the college--academic, student, finance, development, buildings, and personnel. About half of the boards had no response to the questions on the regularity of committee meetings with the president. The regularity of individual board members contacting faculty members directly in the Herron (1969) 34

PAGE 41

study was answered as "infrequently" by 40%. For contacting administration members directly, the results were virtually the same (43%). Herron did not report on some aspects of his questionnaire results; particularly lacking were results on board interaction with students and whether presidents encouraged board members to contact individuals unilaterally before making decision. Other decision-making literature pertaining directly to presidents and/or faculty from small colleges are virtually nonexistent. Most additional research is from universities and much of it is tied to the collective bargaining process and the resultant gain in power by faculty rather than decision making per se (e.g., Garbarino, 1974; Tice, 1972). A study by Hudson in 1973 showed that the loci of decision making had shifted some toward faculty after the advent of collective bargaining, but that most major decision-making duties were within the role of the administration. He further stated that "actually making a decision may not be nearly so important to a faculty as being consulted in a meaningful way in the deliberation which preceded the decision" (p. 34). Of more pertinence to the present study (although the research was done on the university level) was the study by Dykes (1968) who studied the perceptions of faculty members on their degree of influence in academic affairs, personnel matters, financial affairs, capital improvements, student affairs, and alumni relations. The results showed that a 35

PAGE 42

high majority of the faculty felt that they should always or usually determine decisions in academic affairs (86%) and personnel affairs (69%), but fewer felt the same about financial affairs (11%), capital improvements (21%) student affairs (24%), and public and alumni relations (0%). Most of the others felt that the faculty should recommend to administration in all matters. Richardson (1980) felt that during the 1980s most presidents would be trying to seek more faculty and other outside involvement in order to share the responsibility for unpopular decisions. Goldschmidt (1978), however, in a study of the structures of power and decision making in higher education systems of seven countries, reported that professors in the United States were being consulted less, while junior academic staff, students, and nonacademic personnel were gaining in decision-making power. In 1967 the American Association for Higher Education published a report which was to be a forecast of subsequent faculty involvement in academic governance. The following statements comprise a summary of those findings: 1. There is faculty discontent in institutions of higher learning in the United States. 2. Campus governance should be built on shared authority between faculty and administration. 3. Such shared authority should include educational and administrative policies, personnel administration, economic matters ranging from the 36

PAGE 43

total resources of the institution to compensation for particular individuals, public questions that affect the role and functions of the institutions, and procedures for faculty representation in campus governance. 4. Faculty representation must be related to the locus of decision making in the institution. 5. Faculty should have the right to select the type of representation desired (e.g., academic senate, bargaining agent). 6. Three alternate approaches to faculty administration decision making should be available to faculty--information sharing and appeals to reason; use of neutral third parties including arbitration; and application of political, educational, or economic sanctions including strikes. 37 7. The shared authority concept could best be implemented through an internal organization, preferably an academic senate including both faculty and administrators, with a majority of the senate being faculty members. Issues which directly affect the faculty, such as general allocations of budget, should be decided by the senate; however, some issues, such as business management, should be primarily the responsibility of the administrators.

PAGE 44

8. An appeals procedure for unfair decisions, the scope of which would be determined by the senate, should be established including third-party intermediators and arbitration. 9. External professional associations should be used to act as a constructive complement to the senate by providing information and technical services and/or by supporting educational sanctions. 10. The faculty should have the right to choose a bargaining representative especially in institutions that have not established internal organizations for faculty representation. Kerlinger (1968) writing about the same time during the student power struggle of the late 1960s, felt that the faculty had the legitimacy, competence, and responsibility to make policy-making decisions concerning educational program, curriculum, course structure and content, and admissions requirements. If the faculty did not undertake these responsibilities, thus forcing the administration to make these decisions, it would lead to academic mediocrity and result in student disrespect. He further thought that students should be involved in the study of educational policies and practices even to the point of criticizing such policies by making their opinions known at decision-making meetings, but he felt that giving students debating and voting privileges would not be healthy. 38

PAGE 45

The struggle for decision-making power in the late 1960s and early 1970s seemed to be summarized in a 1971 seminar sponsored by the American Association for Higher Education. They discussed six major problem areas relative to the organization and governance of American higher education resulting from changes occurring in the locus of decision making--the decline in autonomy, procedural regularization (standardization), conflict recognition and management, decentralization, the challenge to professionalism, and the demise of academic mystique. Ikenberry (1971), reporting on this meeting, stated that the dilemma confronting higher education is that of restoration of purpose, of achieving an acceptable and manageable level of campus conflict, and of strengthening the accountability of college and university, while at the same time preserving the essential essence of the academic organization. (p. 428) Critique As one reviews the decision-making literature related to higher education, it is quickly apparent that only a few apply to a study of the loci of decision making in small colleges and even fewer to small Christian colleges. There is a large body of literature concerned with leadership styles and the decisions made by the different styles. (Blake, Mouton, and Williams [1981) synthesized the literature.) However, this is little help in understanding the locus of decision making in educational institutions such as small Christian colleges. 39

PAGE 46

Of the work that has been done, that dealing with the board of trustees seems most relevant to the present study. The literature consisted mainly of authoritative opinion and commentary reflecting experience at one or perhaps a limited number of institutions. Also, a comment offered by several writers to the effect that the opinions expressed were concerned more with the decisions that should be made by certain governing units rather than the decisions that were actually made by the unit or position, is most appropriate. This led to a rather wide variation of opinion about what was actually done with little evidence to support the several opinions. 40

PAGE 47

CHAPTER III RESULTS OF THE STUDY In this chapter an analysis of the formal decision making procedures for Christian College Coalition institutions is presented. The focus of the study was on the decision-making procedures used in the colleges which ranged from 150 to 2700 students in enrollment. There were 69 members of this coalition in 1982, and some usable data were received from 59 of these institutions. The total number of responses received was 293 out of a possible of 552. As was reported in Chapter I, a chi square analysis by opinionnaire items was made between a first set of returns and those subsequently received and no significant differences at the E < .05 level were found. Therefore, it was felt that although there may be certain effects on external validity, there was some reason to e x pect that the remaining sample from which no returns were received might not differ significantly. The chapter is divided into three sections. First, a tabular distribution of responses to the items within the decision areas is presented both as to who makes decisions and who participates in making the decisions. Major decision-making areas of small private colleges wer e identified as academics, student affairs, development, and administration. The governing structures of most Christian 41

PAGE 48

42 colleges are organized to give attention to each of these areas. Second, the results of the analysis of variance to determine differences among the perceptions of the governing positions/units (trustees, administration, administration/faculty, and faculty) are reported. This includes both perceptions of the position/unit actually making the decision and whether or not the position incumbent was perceived as having participated in making the decision. Third, findings are presented relative to the analysis of variance for the differences in perceptions of role incumbents about the positions/units making decisions based on their personal level of participation. The categories of personal participation were as follows: "I made the decision", "I recommend the decision", "I provide information", and "No participation". Perceptions Relative to Who Makes and Participates in Selected Decisions Within this section data relative to who makes and participates in the selected decisions are presented. The data are organized by the four decision areas common to small private colleges: academics, student affairs, development, and administration. Contained in Appendix C is a numerical distribution by respondent groups from the 293 persons in regard to who is the primary decision maker and who participates in making decisions for each item within

PAGE 49

43 each of the four decision areas under consideration. Reference to this appendix may assist the reader in having a better understanding of the data presented herein. The governing positions from and about which responses were obtained were trustees, presidents, academic deans (vice president for academic affairs, dean of faculty), business officers (manager, vice president for finance, treasurer, comtroller), deans of students (vice president for student affairs/student services/student development/student life), development officers (vice president for public affairs, director of college relations, vice president for institutional advancement/church relations), academic department chairpersons, faculty members, and others (one athletic director and one director of marketing). Academic Area Presented in Table 1 are the perceptions of the respondents in regard to who actually makes decisions relative to five selected academic items. Four role incumbents were most often perceived as making academic decisions--trustees, the president, the academic dean, and the faculty. The trustees were most often mentioned as the decision makers for giving faculty raises, giving promotions, and hiring new faculty. The president was also frequently mentioned as a major decision maker for these items. The academic dean and the faculty were most frequently perceived to make decisions about adding new courses and changing grades with the faculty receiving the

PAGE 50

Table 1 Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Makes Selected Decisions Concerning Academics Governing Positions/Units 1 Add a Course n % a Trustee 6 2.1 President 14 5.2 Academic Dean 111 38.2 Business Officer O 0.0 Dean Students O 0.0 Development Officer O 0.0 Chairperson 18 6.3 Faculty 116 40.3 Other 23 8.0 2 Change a Grade n % 0 0.0 0 0.0 57 20.4 0 0.0 0 o.o 0 0.0 7 2.5 207 74.2 8 2.9 Totals 288 100.lb 279 100.1 a Decision Item 3 Hire New Faculty n % 53 18.5 121 42.3 105 36.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 o.o 4 1.4 3 1.0 0 0.0 --------286 99.9 4 Faculty Promotion n % 71 25.4 75 26.1 90 32.9 0 0.0 2 0.4 0 0.0 2 0.7 23 8.6 17 6.1 -------280 100.2 Six respondents perceived the trustees to have made the decision. b Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding. 5 Give Faculty Raise n % 91 31.3 101 36.1 78 28.6 2 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.7 1 0.4 9 3.2 --------284 101.0 Totals n % 221 15.5 311 21.9 441 31.3 2 0.1 2 0.1 0 0.0 33 2.3 350 24.8 57 4.0 --------1417 100.0 .,:,. .,:,.

PAGE 51

45 highest percentage of mentions (74.2%) of all the academic items for making the decision to change a grade. Overall totals showed the academic dean as most frequently making academic decisions (31.3% of the time) with the faculty second (24.8%) and the president third (21.9%). Respondents perceived business officers, deans of students, and development officers as rarely making decisions relative to the academic items; they were mentioned 4 times out of a possible 1,417. Perceptions of those participating in making decisions (Table 2) show that the department chairpersons and the academic deans were the major participants in helping to make the decisions relative to the academic items. The business officer was perceived frequently as participating in decision making related to faculty raises. A more complete picture of total involvement can be seen by a combined examination of the "makes decision" table (Table 1), the "participates in making the decision" table (Table 2), and Appendix C for each item. For making the decision to change the grade of a student (item 2) virtually all respondents perceived the faculty (74.2% of the mentions) and the academic dean (20.4%) as the decision makers. A few respondents indicated "other" and remarked that a committee was responsible either for making the decision or participating in making such decisions. The department chairperson was indicated as having a relative high rate of participation relative to

PAGE 52

Table 2 Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Participates in Making Selected Decisions Concerning Academics Governing Positions/Units l Add a Course n % a Trustee 15 2.5 President 67 11.l Academic Dean 144 23.9 Business Officer 11 1.8 Dean Students 14 2.3 Development Officer 8 1.3 Chairperson 190 31.6 Faculty 119 19.8 Other 34 5.6 2 Change a Grade n % 0 0.0 5 1.9 103 39.3 0 0.0 9 3.4 0 0.0 77 29.4 44 16.8 24 9.2 Totals 602 99.9b 262 100.0 a Decision Item 3 Hire New Faculty n % 57 7.0 138 16.9 173 21.l 22 2.7 25 3.1 12 1.5 229 28.0 141 17.2 21 2.6 --------818 100.1 4 Faculty Promotion n % 49 6.9 138 19.4 179 25.l 13 1.8 12 1.7 7 1.0 179 25.l 95 13.3 40 5.6 --------712 99.9 5 Give Faculty Raise n % 59 8.7 140 20.7 165 24.4 102 15.l 32 4.7 29 4.3 86 12.7 39 5.8 23 3.4 Totals n % 180 5.9 488 15.9 764 24.9 148 4.8 92 3.0 56 1.8 761 24.8 438 14.3 142 4.6 675 99.8 3,069 100.0 Fifteen respondents perceived the trustees to hav e participated in making the decision. b Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding.

PAGE 53

47 changing grades, but almost no involvement in actually making the decision. This item was the only item that showed both the trustees and the president as having no involvement in making a decision. Except for Item 10, concerning disciplining a student, no other item had O for trustees making the decision (also O for participation), and no other item had O for the president making the decision (only 53 indicated participation) (Tables 1 and 2). It was the highest total involvement (making the decision plus participation) of the faculty for all the items. The results relative to the decision item to hire a new faculty member (item 3) were concentrated among the president, academic dean, and trustees who had 97.5% of the "makes decision" percepticins. The department chairperson, however, had a frequent mention of participation (highest of all items for chairpersons). For the decision to promote a faculty member (item 4), the highest total involvement was perceived to be for the academic dean. Thirty-two and nine-tenths percent of the "makes decision" responses were for the academic dean as were 25.1% of the "participates in making the decision" responses. Perceptions of position incumbents concerning the decision to give a faculty raise (item 5) were concentrated with the higher administration and trustees (Table 1). Chairpersons and faculty members had virtually no mention as

PAGE 54

48 makers of this decision, but some participation in making the decision was perceived. Student Affairs Area Most decisions concerning student affairs were perceived to be made by the president and the dean of students with several respondents selecting the ''other" category (Table 3). Trustees were perceived to have the lowest involvement in student affairs of all the decision areas for both "makes the decision" and "participates in making the decision" (Tables 3 and 4). The student affairs area had by far the highest number of responses in the "other" category. Remarks accompanying the responses indicated that the respondents perceived frequent committee decision making in this decision area. The decision to change a financial aid policy (item 6) had the second highest "other" perceptions of the 19 items (Table 3). Many of the attached remarks (88%) indicated that a committee was responsible for making this decision. The other "makes decision" choices in regard to this item were concentrated among the president, trustees, business officer, and dean of students. The business officer was perceived as making the decision or participating in making the decision about financial aid policy by 199 of the 278 respondents (71.6%) wh i le the dean of students was identified by 149 of the respondents (53.6%). The dean of students was seen as heavily involved in decision item 7 (changing parietal regulations). Of the 281

PAGE 55

Table 3 Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Makes Selected Decisions Concerning Student Affairs Decision Item 6 7 8 9 Governing Fin Aid Change New Religious Positions/Units Policy Regulation Sport Meetings n n n n Trustee 37al2.9 22 7.8 51 17.9 2 0.7 President 99 35.3 87 30.9 108 39.8 142 so.a Academic Dean 8 2.9 4 1. 4 29 10.9 8 2.9 Business Officer 39 13. 7 0 0.0 2 0.7 0 0.0 Dean Students 27 10.l 145 51.8 19 7.3 44 16.l Development Officer 4 1.4 l 0.4 4 1.5 5 1.8 Chairperson l 0.4 0 0.0 12 4. 4 5 1.8 Faculty 8 2.9 5 1.8 15 5.5 9 3.2 Other 55 20.5 17 6.0 34 12.0 65 23.6 10 11 Disciplinary Admission Measure Policy Totals n n n 0 0.0 36 12.9 148 8. 6 61 21. 2 90 31. 8 587 34.8 3 1.1 56 20.0 108 6. 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 41 2. 4 200 70.7 9 3.2 444 26.7 l 0.4 4 1.4 19 1.1 0 0.0 4 1. 4 22 1. 3 l 0.4 34 12.l 72 4. 3 17 6.7 47 17.1 235 14.3 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Totals 278 100.lb 281 100.l 274 100.0 280 100.l 283 100.l 280 99.9 1,676 100. 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a Thirty-seven respondents perceived the trustees to have made the decision b Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding. I.D

PAGE 56

Table 4 Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Participat e s in Making Selected Decisions Concerning Student Affairs Governing Positions/Units 6 Fin Aid Policy n I 7 Change Regulation n I Decision Item 8 New Sport n I 9 Relig i ous Meetings n % 1 0 11 D i s ciplinary A d m i ssio n M ea su re Po l i cy n % n % Total s n % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee 28a 3 7 President 113 15.2 Academic Dean 143 19.0 Bus i ness Off i cer 160 21.4 Dean Students 122 16.2 Development Officer 82 10.9 Chairperson 12 1.6 Faculty 20 2.7 Other 69 9.3 45 7 4 132 21. 7 90 14.8 51 8.4 125 20.6 44 7 2 9 1.5 39 6 4 73 12 0 31 4. 1 106 13.9 131 17. 1 107 14.0 118 15 4 69 9.0 54 7.1 76 9.9 73 9.5 1 2 2.1 84 14. 5 10 3 17.8 46 7.9 140 24.2 44 7 6 22 3.8 56 9 7 72 12.4 3 0 7 118 25.8 7 0 15 3 19 4 .1 7 8 1 7. 0 1 6 3 5 9 2 0 54 1 1. 8 9 1 19 9 30 3 7 120 1 4 .9 1 74 2 1. 6 67 B.3 12 6 15 7 73 9 1 3 7 4. 6 9 8 1 2.2 80 9 9 149 3.8 673 17.0 7 11 17.9 450 11.4 7 09 17 9 3 28 8 3 143 3.6 343 8 6 4 58 1 1. 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Totals 749 100.0 608 100.0 765 100.0 579 100.0 458 100.lb 805 1 00.0 3,964 100.1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------a Twenty-eight respondents perceived the trustees to hav e parti c ipat e d in making the decision. b Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding. V, 0

PAGE 57

respondents, 145 saw the dean of students as making the decision and 125 saw him/her as participating (Tables 3 and 4). 51 Making decisions involved with beginning a new sport (item 8) were perceived to be the responsibility of the president by almost 40% of the sample. The academic dean was perceived to have a higher total involvement than the dean of students. As can be seen from Table 3, item 9, the decision to have a series of religious meetings on campus, had the highest incidence of "other" responses of all of the 19 items (65 out of 280 cases). As in the other student affairs items, committees were mentioned in a high percentage of the cases where remarks were made. The president was most frequently seen as the decision maker (50.0% of the responses) with the dean of students and the academic dean seen as frequently participating (24.2% and 17.8% of the responses). Perceptions about acting on a disciplinary measure (item 10) were heavily concentrated in the dean of student position with 200 out of 283 responses (70.7%) being that he/she makes the decision. Total involvement was highest for the dean of student position of all the items (278 out of 283) (Tables 3 and 4). This item had one of the lowest levels of trustee involvement (0 for "made the decision" and 3 for "participates in making the decision").

PAGE 58

52 Perceptions about decision-making responsibility for admission policies (item 11) were diverse. The distribution was as follows: the president, 31.8%; the academic dean, 20.0%; others, 17.1%; the trustees, 12.9%; and the faculty, 12.1%; with all other positions/units less than 4.0% each. Development Area Development decisions were perceived to be made by trustees almost one half of the time with presidents, business officers, and development officers perceived as the other frequent decision makers in this area (Table 5). The same positions/units were perceived as most frequently participating in development divisions (Table 6). Item 12, the decision to begin a new fund raising project, had the highest perceived total involvement ("makes decision" plus "participates in making the decision") for development personnel (241 out of 281 responses) (Tables 5 and 6). The overall totals indicated that 44.1% of the respondents perceived the president to be making this decision at their institutions. Except for changing the bylaws (item 19), the trustees were perceived to have the most decision-making involvement concerning the question of constructing a new building (item 13). They were selected on 235 of 283 opinionnaires as the decision makers. The president was perceived by 273 persons to have involvement, but only 44 persons said he/she actually made the decision. Of the three development items,

PAGE 59

Table 5 Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Makes Selected Decisions Concerning Development Decision Item ---------------------------------12 13 14 Governing Fund Raising Build New Positions/Units Project Building Investment Totals n % n % n % n % ---------------------------------------------------------------------T rustee 104a 37.0 235 83.0 80 29.1 419 49.9 President 123 44.1 44 15.5 46 16.8 213 25.5 Academic Dean 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 1 o.o Business Officer 1 0.4 1 0.4 122 44.7 124 14.9 Dean Students 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Development Officer 51 17.8 1 0.4 13 4.7 65 7.6 Chairperson 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Faculty 0 0.0 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 0.1 Other 2 0.7 1 0.4 13 4.7 16 1.9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Totals 281 100.0 283 100.lb 275 100.0 839 a One hundred and four respondents perceived the trustees to have made the decision. b Percentages do no t always add to 100% becaus e of rounding. 99.9 u, W I

PAGE 60

Table 6 Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Participates in Making Selected Decisions Concerning Development Governing Positions/Units Decision Item 12 13 14 Fund Raising Build New Project Building Investment n % n % n % Totals n % ---------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee President Academic Dean Business Officer Dean Students Development Officer Chairperson Faculty 65a 9.3 152 21.7 67 9.6 128 18.3 44 6.3 190 27.2 7 1.0 13 1.9 39 3.6 229 21.2 158 14.6 197 18.2 115 10.6 192 17.8 37 3.4 65 6.0 66 14.5 152 33.3 19 4.2 113 24.8 11 2.4 65 14.3 2 0.4 0 o.o 170 7.6 533 23.8 244 10.9 438 19.6 170 7.6 447 20.0 46 2.1 78 3.5 Other 33 4.7 48 4.4 28 6.1 109 4.9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Totals 699 100.0 1,080 99.8b 456 100.0 2,235 100.0 a Sixty-five respondents perceived the trustees to have participated in making the decision. b Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding. u, .i,.

PAGE 61

chairpersons and faculty reportedly had the most participation on this item. 55 The business officer had the highest involvement of any of the incumbents on the decision to make new investments (item 14), and except for raising tuition/fees, investing money was indicated as the highest business officer involvement (Tables 5 and 6). This item had the lowest perceived involvement by chairpersons and faculty. Administration Area The decisions in the area of administration were almost exclusively thought to be made by trustees and presidents. As can be seen in Table 7, the trustees were seen as the decision ~akers 60.8% of the time and the president 33.5%. Table 8 shows that the administrators as a group were seen as having a high level of participation. Decisions about long-range plans (item 15) were indicated as being the purview of the trustees and presidents by almost 93% of the respondents. The numerical distribution for total involvement (Tables 7 and 8) in regard to long-range plans was as follows: trustees, 202; president, 287; academic dean, 226; business officer 193; dean of students, 174; development officer, 200; chairpersons, 86; and faculty, 116. The "other'' category was also the highest outside the student affairs decision area (71). Decision making relative to the raising of fees (item 16) was perceived to be made by the trustees by 68.5% of the

PAGE 62

Table 7 Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Makes Selected Decisions Concerning Administration Decision Item 15 16 17 18 19 Governing Long Range Raise Administrative Change Change Positions/Units Plan Fees Vacancy Purpose Bylaws Totals n % n % n % n % n % n % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a Trustee 99 35.1 196 68.5 81 28.9 226 79.7 2 55 91.4 857 60.8 President 163 57.8 70 24.5 191 67.9 38 13.4 12 4.3 474 33.5 Academic Dean 6 2.1 1 0.4 3 1.1 4 1.4 0 0.0 14 1.0 Business Officer 1 0.4 15 5.2 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 1.2 Dean Students 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0 1 0.0 Development Officer O 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.4 0 0.0 O 0.0 1 0.0 Chairperson O 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 Faculty 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 3.9 5 1.8 17 1.2 Other 11 3.9 4 1.4 3 1.1 4 1.4 7 2.5 29 2.1 -Totals 282 100.lb 286 100.0 281 100.2 283 100.0 279 100.0 1,411 99.9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a Ninety-nine respondents perceived the trustees to have made the decision. b Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding. Vl (j\

PAGE 63

Table 8 Perceptions of Respondents Relative to Who Participates in Making Selected Decisions Concerning Administration Governing Positions/Units Trustee President Academic Dean Business Officer Dean Students Development Officer Chairperson Faculty Other -----15 Long Range Plan n % --------103a 8.2 114 9.0 220 17.4 192 15.2 173 13.7 200 15.8 86 6.8 115 9.1 60 4.8 Decision Item 16 Raise Fees n % 56 5.3 204 19.2 200 18.8 231 21.7 154 14.5 139 13.1 15 1.4 21 2.0 43 4.0 17 18 Administrative Change Vacancy Purpose n % n % 94 13.9 85 12.6 122 18.0 106 15.7 90 13.3 82 12.1 23 3.4 31 4.6 43 6.4 38 3.2 230 19.1 203 16.9 142 11.8 161 13.4 146 12.1 88 7.3 136 11.3 60 5.0 19 Change Bylaws n % 21 2.8 249 32.9 129 17.1 95 12.6 83 11.0 80 10.6 24 3.2 45 6.0 30 4.0 Totals 1,263 100.0 1,063 100.0 676 100.0 1,204 100.lb 756 100.2 a Totals n % 312 6.3 882 17.8 874 17.6 766 15.4 661 13.3 647 13.0 236 4.8 348 7.0 236 4.8 --------4,962 100.0 One hundred and three respondents perceived the trustees to have participated in making the decision. b Percentages do not always add to 100% because of rounding. U1 -..J

PAGE 64

58 responses (Table 7). It had one of the highest total involvements of the presidents (274 out of 286 opinionnaires responses). The decision to fill administration vacancies (item 17) was marked by 67.9% of the respondents as being made by the president who also had the highest total involvement on this item of all the items with perceived involvement on 276 of the 281 returns (Tables 7 and 8). Total involvement relative to the decision to change the purpose of the college (item 18) was high for the president, second only to making long range plans (Tables 7 and 8). Trustees, however, were perceived to actually make the decision in almost 80% of the cases. The trustees were seen as making the decision in regard to item 19, changing the bylaws, by 91.4% of the respondents. This represents the greatest unanimity expressed by the respondents. It also had the highest total involvement for trustees (276 out of 279 returns) (Tables 7 and 8). Involvement by Decision Areas for the Governing Position/Units Table 9, which represents a synthesis of Tables 1-8, shows the frequency of perceived involvement for the four decision areas and overall for each of the governing positions/units. Involvement is shown in terms of "makes the decision" and "participates in making the decision." In the paragraphs that follow, attention is given to each position/unit in regard to the decision areas.

PAGE 65

Table 9 Perceived Involvement by Decision Areas for Each Governin.9: Position/Unit ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Governing --------------------------------------------------------Dean Develop Chair-'ra and Truet Dean Otficer Officer peraon Faculty Other Type of Involvement n n n n n n n n n n ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------221a15.5 Decision 311 21.9 HI 31. 3 2 o. I 2 0.1 0 0. 0 33 2 3 350 24. 8 57 4.0 1,417 100 .0 100 5.9 488 15 9 76 4 24 9 148 4.8 92 3.2 56 l.8 761 24.8 08 14.3 14 2 4. 6 3,069 100.0 Student -'ftairs Decisi o n 148 8.6 587 34 .8 108 6 5 41 2. 4 444 26.7 19 l.l 22 l. 3 72 4 ) 235 14.3 1,676 100 .0 149 ). 8 673 17.0 711 17. 9 450 ll.4 709 17 9 328 8 3 10 ). 6 343 8 6 458 ll.6 3,964 100 .lb Development Deel sion 419 49 9 213 25.5 l 0. 0 124 14. 9 0 o .o 65 7. 6 0 0.0 l 0. I 16 l. 9 839 99 9 170 7.6 533 23.8 244 10.9 08 19 6 170 7. 6 447 20.0 46 2. l 78 3.5 109 4.9 2 ,235 100 .0 De c ision 857 60.8 474 33.5 l 4 l.0 17 l. 2 l o o l o.o l o.o 17 l. 2 29 2 l l 4 I l 99 9 Participate 312 6 3 882 17.8 874 17.6 766 15 4 661 l 3. 3 647 13.0 236 348 7.0 23 6 4 8 4,962 100.0 -'ll Combined Deci 1,645 30.8 1,585 29.7 564 10.6 184 ). 4 447 85 l.6 56 l.0 440 8 2 337 6 3 5 ,343 100 .0 811 5.7 2,576 18.l 2,593 18.2 1,802 12.7 1,623 11.5 1,478 10.4 1,186 8.3 1,207 8 5 945 6.6 14,230 100.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a When th tor the within the decision area were eu,nmed, the truateee were perceived by 221 to have made the b do not add to 1001 be c ause ot r o unding. V, I..O

PAGE 66

60 Trustees. As can be seen in Table 9, this governing unit was most frequently perceived as actually making a decision (1,645 of 5,343 responses). However, they were perceived the least frequently as participating in making a decision (even lower than the "other" category). Their most frequent total involvement ("makes decision" plus "participates in making the decision") was for administration decisions, followed by development, academics, and student affairs. President. The president was perceived to have the most frequent decision-making involvement in the administrative area and the least frequent in the development area. As can be determined from Table 9, this position had the highest level of total involvement of all positions/units with 4,161 selections out of 19,573. Academic Dean. The total involvement of the academic dean was highest for the academic area and lowest for the development area. Overall, the position was selected 3,157 times out of a possible 19,573. Business Officer. Involvement of the business officer/manager was most evident in the administration and development areas. Involvement of the business manager in the academic area was limited (Table 9). Dean of Students. This position had the third highest perceived total involvement (2,079 of 19,573 responses). As can be seen in Table 9, by areas the dean of students was

PAGE 67

most frequently involved in student affairs and least frequently in in academics. 61 Development Officer. This position was next to the lowest in actually making the decision (85 of 5,343 responses). By areas, the highest involvement was in development and the lowest was in academics. Department Chairperson. Chairpersons had high perceived involvement in academics, but were low in all other decision areas (Table 9). Chairpersons had the lowest total of all position incumbents/units in the "makes decision" category (56 of 5,343). Faculty. The faculty was perceived to have its most frequent total involvement in the academic area followed by student affairs, administration, and development. Review of Table 1 shows that the frequency of "makes decision" responses in the academic area can be attributed to two items--to add a course to the curriculum and to change a grade. Of their 440 times they were selected as making the decision, 116 were for adding a course and 207 were for changing a grade. Other. According to remarks provided by the respondents, the "other" category represented a large number of responses considered to be committee decisions. As shown in Table 9, this category was seen as having more total involvement than department chairpersons (1,282 to 1,242). By areas, the "other" choices were most frequently in student affairs and rather limited in the other decision areas.

PAGE 68

Differences in Perceptions About the Extent of Involvement in Selected Decisions Based on the Position of the Respondent 62 As indicated, the second question that gave direction to the study related to differences in responses about making and participating in decisions based on the position of the respondent. To determine if there were differences, a single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized. The groups used as levels within the factor were trustees, administrators (including presidents, academic deans, business officers, deans of students, and development officers), faculty/administrators (faculty members serving in part-time administrator roles such as department chairpersons), and faculty. Dropped from this analysis were the responses from two persons who were classified as "other'' because they made up such a small percentage of the total. To provide direction to the analysis, it was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference at the .05 level by decision items within the four decision areas in the perceptions of role incumbents from the various governing groups (board of trustees, administrators, administrator/faculty members, and faculty members) about who makes the decision and who participates in making the decision. Differences in Perceptions about Academic Decisions Based on Position Table 10 shows the five decision items in the academic area and the number of times that each of the role

PAGE 69

Table 10 Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Making a Decision for Academic Area Items Based on the Position of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test -Decision Item and Position of Respondent Trust Selected by Reapondenta as the Haker --------------------------------------------Academic Business Dean Develop ChairPres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Mean Computed F ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Add a course a b Trustee (23) 1 Administration (188) 4 Admin/Faculty (42) 0 Faculty (33) 1 2. Change a grade Trustee (23) 0 Administration (179) 0 Admin/Faculty (42) 0 Faculty (33) 0 3. Hire new faculty Trustee (23) 5 Administration (187) 35 Admin/Faculty (41) 7 Faculty (33) 6 4. Faculty promotion Trustee (23) 7 Administration (184) 48 Admin/Faculty (40) 8 Faculty (31) 8 5. Give faculty raise Trustee (22) 9 Administration (187) 56 Admin/Faculty (42) 17 Faculty (31) 8 7 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 80 17 15 4 49 11 10 10 68 11 11 14 78 11 7 7 41 7 2 11 68 15 11 12 59 13 6 3 55 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------a 0 10 6 2 2 4 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 l 0 1 l 77 18 20 14 128 33 30 0 0 2 1 0 14 5 4 0 0 0 1 0 13 6 3 0 6 1 l 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 3 0 6 1 2 2 .8 C 5.6 6.5 6.8 6.4 6 9 7. 2 7. 7 2.3 2. 3 2.5 2.3 2. 2 3.0 3. 3 3 4 1. 7 2. 3 2 1 2.8 Refer s to the number of responses from the group; since there was one response per p erso n, th e number is equal to number of respondents from the group in the sample b The trustees were perceived by l trustee as making the decision to add a course to the c urriculum C Bas ed on level in hierarchy (l-9); since the trustees w ere assigned a l, the lower the mean the high er in the hierarchy the perceived decision mak ing. p < .05 13.98* 4.21* 0.30 0. 97 1. 36 O"I w

PAGE 70

64 incumbents/units were mentioned by the four respondent groups as making the decision for that item. (The reader is reminded that administration included presidents, academic deans, business officers, deans of students, and development officers and that the "others" category responses were dropped.) Also shown is a respondent group mean for each item and the F value resulting from application of the analysis of variance. (The reader is further reminded that the governing positions/units were assigned a number based on level in the hierarchy with 1 being assigned to trustees and so on. Thus, the means shown are based on the numbers assigned to the levels and the lower the mean, the higher in the hierarchy the respondent group perceived the decision making or participation.) As can be seen by an examination of Table 10, there were two instances in which there were significant differences in perceptions based on the position of the respondent--in regard to the items for adding a new course and changing a grade. Using the Tukey as a follow-up study procedure, it was found that the difference in the first instance was caused by significant differences at the .05 level in perceptions of the trustees compared to those of the other groups. More specifically, the mean response for the trustees was 2.8 for this item, whereas the mean for the administration was 5.6, the administration/faculty 6.5, and the faculty 6.8. This meant that the trustees saw the decision to add a course being made significantly higher in

PAGE 71

65 the administrative hierarchy than did the other groups. In the second instance, The Tukey test revealed no significant differences at the .05 level between any two of the groups even though the overall difference was significant at that level. Some of the overall significance may have been in that virtually no faculty members perceived other incumbent positions/units as making the decision to change a grade (item 2) (Table 10); however, for the total group of respondents, 20.4% (57 out of 279) thought that the academic dean made tne decision (Appendix C). Even 20.5% of the academic deans perceived their office as making the decision. Even though the item for making the decision to give a raise (item 5) did not produce a significant difference at the specified level, the trustees felt that their own position had a more frequent decision-making role than the overall statistics showed (40.9% perceived themselves making the decision while 32.0% of the total sample perceived the same). As can be determined from Appendix C, the academic deans perceived that position to be less involved than the overall total (7.5% indicated their own position makes the decision while 27.5% of entire sample perceived the same). However, each of the groups perceived the decision about giving faculty a raise to be made at the upper levels of the hierarchy as evidenced by the means ranging from 1.7 for the trustees to 2.8 for the faculty. As indicated by the means for the items within the academic area, this item was the one which the respondents saw as being made at the highest

PAGE 72

66 echelons of the administrative hierarchy. Table 11 shows similar information for incumbents who were perceived to have participated in making the decision. (This involvement must be viewed in relation to the data about who makes the decision; it may appear that a role incumbent/unit had little involvement when examining only the participation data when, in fact, the incumbent may have been selected frequently as making the decision.) As indicated in Table 11, for four out of the five decision items there were significant differences at the .05 level. There was a significant difference about participation in decisions for adding a course, changing a grade, faculty promotion, and giving the faculty member a raise. When the Tukey test was used as a follow-up for the item concerned with adding a course to the curriculum (item 1), no significant difference between groups at the .05 level was found. Further examination of the means shows that the trustees perceived the participation to be at higher 1evels in the hierarchy than did the administration/faculty. (As can be seen from the table the mean for the trustees was 5.1 and the administration/faculty 6.2). In regard to the item about participating in the decision to change a grade (item 2), the application of the Tukey did not reveal any significant difference at the .05 level between any two of the groups. However, inspection shows the greatest degree of difference, even though it was not significant, was between the faculty (X = 4.7) and the

PAGE 73

Table 11 Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Participating in Making Decisions for Academic Area Items Based on the Position of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Decision Item and Position of Respondent Selected by Respondents as Participating in Making the Decision -------------------------------------------------------Trust Academic Business Dean Develop C hairPres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Mean C o mputed F 1. Add a course ------------------------------------------------------Trustee (Sl)a 5b Administration (405) 8 Admin/Faculty (73) l Faculty (65) 0 2. Change a grade Trustee (21) 0 Administration (178) 0 Admin/Faculty (39) 0 Faculty (20) 0 3. Hire new faculty Trustee (63) 10 Administration (543) 31 Admin/Faculty (110) 7 Faculty (95) 9 4. Faculty promotion Trustee (62) 6 Administration (471) 29 Admin/Faculty (92) 5 Faculty (82) 9 5. Give faculty raise Trustee (62) 9 Administration (465) 35 Admin/Faculty (86) 7 Faculty (61) 8 8 51 2 5 0 3 1 l 13 96 16 13 17 93 16 12 11 94 23 12 8 95 20 20 4 71 13 12 12 117 24 18 11 119 25 22 17 107 24 16 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 1 1 2 8 2 1 13 72 9 8 l 13 0 0 0 8 1 0 3 17 1 3 1 9 1 1 l 2 8 2 l 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 2 1 5 0 1 1 23 3 2 13 l 2 5 25 2 4 10 5 1 11 4 l 5 l 5 4 35 24 16 l 1 9 23 20 8 61 8 9 10 8 2 14 11 7 2 8 9 0 7 9 0 22 2 1 6 65 1 0 13 2 2 7 6 4 3 15 11 5 0 17 4 3 0 13 4 4 2 24 10 3 0 18 4 l 5. l c 5. 4 6 .2 5. 7 6 .6 5 6 5 9 4. 7 4. 2 5. 0 6. 1 5 .1 4. 4 4 8 5. 0 4. 7 3. 5 4. 1 3 .8 3. 7 22 50 2.92 l. 3 5 3 61 4.80* a -----------------------------------------------------------Refers to the number of responses from the group; sinc e there wer e mult iple respo ns es t h e n um ber i s g reater than the number of respondents from the group in the sample. b The trustees Wefe oercetved by 5 trustees to have participated in m a king th e dec isio n t o a d d a course to the curriculum. C Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees wer e ass i gn ed a 1 th e lo w er t h e m ea n t h e highe r in the hierarchy the perceived decision participation. < .OS O'I -..J

PAGE 74

68 trustees (X = 6.6) (Table 11). The trustees perceived the chairpersons participating at more than twice the frequency of the faculty and perceived the academic dean at about a third the frequency. The third item that had a significant difference was for promoting a faculty member in rank (item 4). Although the Tukey test did not show any significant differences at the .05 level between any two of the groups, trustees selected the president and the academic dean to be participators 27.4% and 17.7% of the time respectively, while the faculty felt that these incumbents were participating 14.6% and 26.8% respectively (Appendix C). These were almost reversed perceptions. The fourth academic item where the perceptions in regard to participation were found to be significantly different through the analysis of variance was concerned with giving faculty raises (item 5) (Table 11). Again, the Tukey test did not reveal any differences at the .OS level between any two of the groups; however, an examination of Appendix C shows that some of the difference was in the perceptions of the business officers' participation. Trustees selected the business office incumbent position as participating 21.0% of the time while administration/faculty and faculty selected this office 10.5% and 13.1% of the time respectively. Business officers perceived themselves as participating in giving raises 19.1% of the time while presidents selected this office 15.2% of the time.

PAGE 75

69 Differences in Perceptions About Student Affairs Decisions Based on Position There was one of the six student affairs decision items where there was a significant difference at the .05 level in perceptions about who makes the decision--the item related to a decision to change an admission policy (Table 12). Application of the Tukey test showed no significance between group difference~ at the .05 level. However, from Table 12 it can be seen that the mean for the trustees in regard to this item was 2.4, and the mean for the administration/faculty was 4.4 which was the largest difference between any two means for the item related to admission policy. Although not significant, the decision to begin a new sport (item 8) showed a divergence in perceptions between the trustees and the administration (Table 12), especially with the perceptions of the presidents. The trustees perceived themselves as making the decision 30.4% of the time while overall the percentage was 18.6%. For the presidents the direction of the percentages was reversed-30.3% of the presidents perceived that they were the decision makers while overall the percentage was 39.4% (Appendix C). Perceptions of incumbents about participation in making student affairs decisions were significantly different at the .05 level in four instances. These were for decisions about changing a financial aid policy, beginning a new sport, acting on a serious disciplinary measure, and

PAGE 76

Tao.1e .11. Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Making a Decision for Student Affairs Area Items Based on the Position of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test Decision Item and Position of Respondent Trust 6. Financial aid policy b Trustee (23)a 7 Administration (184) 17 Admin/Faculty (39) 6 Faculty (30) 7 7. Change regulation Trustee (23) 0 Administration (185) 17 Admin/Faculty (39) 2 Paculty (32) 3 8. New sport Trustee (23) 7 Administration (185) 35 Admin/Faculty (39) 2 Faculty (25) 7 9. Religious meetings Trustee (23) 0 Administration (184) 1 Admin/Faculty (40) 0 Faculty (31) 1 10. Disciplinary measure Trustee (23) 0 Administration (185) 0 Admin/Faculty (41) 0 Faculty (32) 0 11. Admission policy Trustee (23) S Administration (182) 24 Admin/Faculty (41) 2 Faculty (32) S Selected by Respondents as the Decision Haker --------------------------------------------Academic Business Dean Develop ChairPres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other 6 78 8 6 13 53 11 9 12 75 15 s 16 92 18 15 7 39 6 9 10 61 11 7 0 3 4 l 0 2 l l l 20 6 2 l s 0 2 1 2 0 0 7 29 13 6 4 24 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 19 4 l 9 98 21 16 l 15 2 l 3 33 s 2 15 134 30 19 0 7 2 0 0 l 2 l 0 0 l 0 0 3 l 0 0 4 l 0 0 0 l 0 0 2 l l 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 7 2 2 0 l l 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 l 0 0 3 2 3 0 3 2 0 0 9 6 0 0 4 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 25 4 s 3 38 7 7 1 12 1 3 1 20 s 7 3 44 13 s 0 9 4 4 l 31 7 8 Hean 3.l c 4.1 4. l 4. S 3.5 4. l 4 2 4. l 2.4 3.5 4 4 2.9 3.3 4 S 5.2 4. 4 4.0 4. 6 5.0 4. 7 2 4 4. 3 4. 4 4. 3 Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there was one response per person, the number is equal to number of respondents from the group in the sample. b The trustees were perceived by seven trustees as making the decision to add a co urse to the curriculum. C Based on level in hierar c hy (l-9); since the trustees were assigned al, the lower the mean the higher in the hierarchy the perceived decision making. *E< .OS Computed F 0.33 0. 33 l.80 l. 35 0.95 2 .93* -.J 0

PAGE 77

71 changing an admission policy (Table 13). Application of the Tukey test showed no significant differences at the .OS level between any two of the groups on any of these four items. However, some differences were noted upon examination of the data. Differences in perceptions of participation for item 6, changing a financial aid policy, were apparent between trustees and faculty in that on an overall basis the trustees frequently selected the higher administration while faculty selections were more diverse (Table 13). Specifically, the mean for the trustees on this item was 3.8 whereas the mean for the administration was 4.5. Furthermore, administrators tended to indicate that persons in the "others" category were involved to a greater extent than non-administrators (Appendix C). Differences between the views of the trustees and all of the other groups were apparent when considering participation in decisions to begin a new intercollegiate sport (item 8) (Table 13). Trustees perceived almost no participation from the "others" category while the remainder of the respondents selected the "others" category rather frequently. Relative to acting on a serious disciplinary measure (item 10), there were apparent differences between the perceptions of the faculty and administration/faculty and some differences between the administration and the other groups. However, these differences were not significant at

PAGE 78

Table 13 Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Participating in Making Decisions for Student Affairs Items Based on the Position of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test Selected by Respondents as Participating in Making the Decision Decision Item and Position of Respondent Acad emic Business Dean Develop ChairComputed Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Officer person Fa cu lty Other Mean F 6. F in ancial aid policy b Trustee (5J)a 2 Administrati o11 ( 513) 18 Admin/Faculty (98) 6 Faculty (81) 2 7. Cha nge regulation Trustee ( 40) 8 Administration (414) 19 Admin /Facu lty (8 6) 12 Faculty (62) 5 8. New sport Trustee (60) 4 Administration (550) 15 Admin/Faculty (89) 8 Faculty (60) 4 9. Religious meetings Trustee ( 42) 2 Administration (406) 5 Admin/Faculty (64) 4 Faculty (61) 1 10. Disciplinary measure Trustee (38) 0 Administratio n (29 6) 1 Admin /Faculty (64) 1 Faculty ( 58) l 11. Admission policy a Trustee (71) 3 Administratio n (557) 18 Admin / Faculty (103) 6 Faculty (69) 3 13 68 17 15 7 92 19 13 9 74 12 11 6 54 13 10 12 82 16 8 11 79 16 14 10 99 20 13 4 63 13 9 10 97 15 8 3 79 10 10 5 46 8 11 14 123 21 15 13 108 23 15 2 39 5 4 8 84 10 3 2 37 4 2 2 14 2 1 7 53 5 1 7 8 2 15 17 13 81 17 13 9 85 13 10 12 97 13 17 7 48 12 11 10 90 12 13 5 62 5 9 2 36 2 3 6 56 3 3 2 37 3 1 2 13 0 1 5 59 5 3 1 5 4 2 0 6 3 0 5 38 6 5 3 14 l 3 3 2 1 3 9 19 5 4 0 li 5 4 2 24 7 6 8 45 12 10 7 31 8 10 3 27 9 13 7 58 22 11 2 60 3 4 2 5 4 8 9 1 56 10 6 5 52 8 7 4 63 15 9 5 58 11 5 3.8 c 4. 5 4 0 4 3 3. 8 4 6 4 .1 7 4 6 4. 9 4. 8 5.08 5. 4 5 .0 4. 7 5 .1 4. 6 5.0 5. 3 5. 5 4. 8 4 8 5. l 4. 7 2 .91* 2.51 4 .88 2. 39 3.56* 9.51* Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there wer e multiple responses the numb e r is greater than the nurober of respondents from the group in the sample. b The trustees were perceived by 2 trustees to have participated in making the decision t o change a financial a id poli c y. C Based on level in hierarchy (19); since the trustees wer e assigned a l, the lower the mean the higher in the hierarchy the percei ved decision participation e < os -.J I\J

PAGE 79

73 the .05 level on the Tukey test. The perceptions about participating in making decisions to change admissions policies (item 11) showed differences, even though not significant at the .05 level between any two groups, between the trustees and the business officers on the one side and the presidents, academic deans, deans of students, and faculty on the other. Differences in Perceptions About Development Decisions Based on Position Of the items concerned with making development decisions (Table 14), one item showed significant difference at the .05 level--the item related to the decision to build a new building. Again, the Tukey test did not show any significant differences at the .05 level between any two groups. However, inspection of the frequency data and means in Table 14 shows that faculty less frequently perceived the trustees as making the decision than the other groups. Other differences, although not significant at the .05 level, can be found from a study of Appendix C. For example, the development officers perceived themselves as making the decisions about fund raising projects (item 12) more frequently than the incumbents as a whole (31.6% to 18.1%). All three items concerned with participation in making development decisions showed significant differences in perceptions at the .05 level (Table 15). Differences for item 12, to begin a new fund raising project, seemed to be a

PAGE 80

~aoie i4 Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Making a Decision for Development Area Items Based on the Position of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Selected by Respondents as the Decision Maker Decision Item and ------------------------------------------------------------------Position of Academic Business Dean Develop ChairCompute c: Respondent Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Mean F ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12. Fund raising project llb 1. 7 C Trustee (23la ll 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Administration (184) 57 89 0 1 0 35 0 0 2 2. 5 Admin/Faculty (40) 21 12 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 .2 Faculty (32) 15 10 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 2.4 1. 2 3 13. Build new building Trustee ( 2 2) 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 Administration (185) 157 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 2 Admin/Faculty (41) 34 5 0 l 0 1 0 0 0 1. 3 Faculty (33) 24 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1. 7 5.38* 14. Make investment Trustee (22) 5 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 3 3.8 Administration (183) 51 30 1 86 0 7 0 0 8 3 .1 Admin/Faculty (37) 12 7 0 14 0 4 0 0 0 2.9 Faculty ( 31) 12 7 0 8 0 2 0 0 2 2. 8 1. 78 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there was one response per person, the number is equal to number of respondents from the group in the sample b The trustees were perceived by 11 trustee as making the decision to add a co urse to the curriculum. C Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher in the hierarchy the perceived decision making. *E< 05 '-.I

PAGE 81

Table 15 Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Participating in Making Decisions for Development Items Based on the Position of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Selected by Respondents as Participating in Making the Decision Deciaion Item and --------------------------------------------------------------------Position of Academic Business Dean Develop ChairC o mpu t e c Respondent Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Officer p 7 rson Faculty Other Mean F --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12. Fund raising project Trustee (62)a ab 12 6 13 3 16 1 l 2 4. 0 c Administration (467) 41 94 50 82 36 129 5 7 2 3 4. 2 Admin/Faculty (97) 9 24 8 18 2 28 O 3 5 4 1 Faculty (71) 7 21 3 15 3 1 6 1 2 3 3.9 8. 7 7 13. Build new building Trustee (83) 2 20 10 15 7 14 6 7 2 4.4 Administration (766) 25 152 117 136 93 138 2 2 4 7 36 4.4 Admin/Faculty (123) 5 35 18 26 6 21 3 5 4 4 .0 Faculty (99) 6 22 12 19 8 17 5 5 5 4.3 1 9 67 14. Make investment Trustee (39) 6 11 2 9 l 5 O O 5 3 .8 Administration (296) 41 100 9 74 7 43 1 O 21 3 .6 Admin/Faculty (75) 13 24 6 17 2 11 1 0 1 3. 2 Faculty (45) 6 16 2 13 1 6 0 0 1 3 .2 5. 5 4 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there w e r e multiple res po n se s t he number is g reat er than the number of respondents from the group in the sample b The trustees were perceived by 8 trustees to have participated in ma k ing the de c is i o n to begin a fund raising project. C Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assign ed a 1 the l ow e r the mean the higher in the hierarchy the perceived decision participation. < .05 -..J u,

PAGE 82

76 function of both within and between group differences. More specifically, when the Tukey was applied there were no significant differences at the .05 level between any two groups. Furthermore, an examination of the means in Table 14 shows that the means for the trustees was 4.0, for the administration 4.2, for the administration/faculty 4.1, and the faculty 3.9. The item regarding participating in making the decision to build a new building (item 13) produced the second largest F of any of the tests (19.67). Even with an analysis of variance showing such a significant F, the Tukey test did not show any significant differences at the .05 level between any two groups. As shown by the means, the differences between groups was not great (trustees, 4.4; administration, 4.4; administration/faculty, 4.0; faculty, 4.3), but the variance in selections was highly mixed within the groups. When the Tukey tests were done in an effort to locate the between group differences in regard to opinions concerning participation in the decision about investments (item 14), none were significant at the .05 level. Inspection of Table 15 shows similar responses for trustees and administration and similar responses for administration/faculty and faculty. Furthermore, for participation in making the decision to place money in a certain investment, 60.0% of the business officers perceived that they made the decision while the overall perception was

PAGE 83

77 44. 4%. However, as can be seen by an examination of the means for both making the decision and participating in making the decision (Tables 14 and 15), on this item related to making an investment, the trustee selections indicated perceptions as being lower in the administrative hierarchy than the other three groups. Differences in Perceptions About Administration Decisions Based on Position The administration decision area produced two items where the perceptions among the groups about who makes the decisions were significant at the .05 level. These items related to making a decision about changing the purpose (item 18) and changing the bylaws (item 19) (Table 16). Again, application of the Tukey did not reveal any differences at the .05 level between any two groups of the respondents. On the item involving changing the purpose of the college (item 18) (Table 16), the difference that was apparent was that 90.9% of the trustees felt that they made the decision while the overall sample selected them as making the decision 79.7% of the time. Bylaws changes (item 19) were perceived by all but one of the trustees to be the sole responsibility of the trustees while some of the other incumbents selected other incumbent positions/units. Means for both changing purpose and changing bylaws showed differences (although not significant at the .05 level) between trustees and the faculty. This was most apparent for changing the purpose of the college (trustees, 1.1;

PAGE 84

Table 16 Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Making a Decision for Administration Area Items Based on the Position of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test --------------------------------------,----------------------------------------------------------------------Selected by Respondents as the Decision Maker Decision Item and --------------------------------------------------------------------Position of Academic Business Dean Develop ChairComputed Respondent Trust Officer Students Officer Pres Dean p~rson Faculty Other Mean F -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15. Long range plan 14b 1. 4 C Trustee ( 22 )a 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Administration (186) 55 118 3 1 1 0 0 0 8 2.0 Admin/Faculty (39) 16 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.8 Faculty (33) 14 14 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 2.2 2. 14 16. Raise fees Trustee ( 21) 16 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1. 4 Administration (188) 130 46 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 1.5 Admin/Faculty (42) 28 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Faculty (33) 21 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1.6 17. Administrative vacancy 0.51 Trustee ( 22) 5 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 Administration (185) 47 130 2 1 0 1 1 0 3 1. 9 Admin/Faculty (40) 16 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 6 Faculty (32) 12 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 6 18. Change purpose 1. 81 Trustee (22) 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 Administration (185) 150 26 2 0 0 0 0 4 3 1. 4 Ad.min/Faculty (41) 32 5 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1. 7 Faculty (33) 22 5 l 0 0 0 0 4 1 2.3 19. Change bylaws 3.87* Trustee (23) 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1. 3 Administration (183) 173 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1. 2 Admin/Faculty (39) 30 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1. 9 Faculty (33) 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1.7 2.66* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there was one response per person, the number is equal to number of respondents from the group in the sample. b C The trustees were perceived by 14 trustees as making the decision to add a course to the curriculum. Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher in the hierarchy the perceived decision making. ,e< 05 -..J co

PAGE 85

79 faculty, 2.3). Even though the F was not significant at the .05 level, on dealing with making long range plans (item 15), a difference was apparent between the thinking of trustees and administration (Table 16). The trustees perceived themselves as making the decision a majority of the time while the administrators perceived that they made the decision the majority of the time. The perceptions of the respondents about participation in making administration decisions were diverse (Table 17). The only instance in which there was not a significant Fat the .05 level was the item to raise fees. The significant differences were related to making long range plans (item 15), filling an administration vacancy (item 17), changing the purpose of the college (item 18), and changing the bylaws (item 19). Again the nature of the overall differences were such that there were no significant differences found between any two groups for any of the four items. Inspection of the data and means in Table 17 shows no apparent pattern in the diversity of opinions expressed in regard to participation in decisions relative to the issues dealt with in the four items.

PAGE 86

Table 17 Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Participating in Making Decisions for Administration Area Items Based on the Position of the Respondent and the Resulting F Test -------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------------------Selected by Respondents as Participating in Making the Decision --------------------------------------------------------------------Decision Item and Position of Respondent Academic Business Dean Develop Pres Dean Officer Students Officer ChairCo mputed Trust person Faculty Other Mea n F -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15. Long range plans 6b Trustee (98)a 14 19 15 9 16 8 9 2 4 .7c Administration (888) 70 65 153 143 136 145 56 75 45 4. 7 Admin/Faculty (154) 15 18 29 19 17 19 12 17 8 4. 6 Faculty (114) 11 17 18 14 10 18 9 13 4 4. 5 5 .27* 16. Raise fees Trustee ( 8 3) 4 17 15 19 10 9 3 4 2 4. 0 Administration (752) 32 137 140 154 120 112 12 11 34 4. 1 Admin/Faculty (125) 10 29 26 31 12 10 0 3 4 3.6 Faculty (97) 10 20 18 25 11 7 0 3 3 3.6 0 .45 17. Administrative vacancy Trustee (39) 10 5 8 4 2 3 1 1 5 3.8 Administration ( 4 8 4) 54 52 89 83 74 67 15 18 32 4 3 Admin/Faculty (71) 17 13 11 9 4 5 2 6 4 3. 7 Faculty (77) 13 12 14 9 10 7 4 6 2 3. 9 5 .98* 18. Change purpose Trustee (90) 2 19 17 8 10 12 7 11 4 4. 6 Administration ( 872) 24 153 142 114 125 115 60 91 48 4. 7 Admin/Faculty (139) 6 34 27 11 15 10 12 19 5 4. 4 Faculty (95) 6 22 16 8 10 8 8 14 3 4. 5 6.06* 19. Change bylaws Trustee (53) 1 22 9 6 4 5 2 2 2 3.7 Administration (513) 9 169 83 72 60 61 13 26 20 4. 0 Admin/Faculty (103) 9 32 19 9 10 6 4 10 4 3 .8 Faculty (82) 2 25 17 7 8 7 5 7 4 4 1 6.55* ----------------------------------------------------------------------. -------------a Refers to the number of responses from the group; since there were multiple responses the numb e r is great er than the number of respondents from the group in the sample. b The trustees were perceived by 6 trustees to have participated in making the decision to make a long range plan. C Based on level in hierarchy (1-9)1 since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower th e m ea n t h e hi g h e r in the hierarchy the perceived decision participation. .05 (l) 0

PAGE 87

Differences in Perceptions About the Making of Selected Decisions Based on the Level of Participation of the Respondent 81 As has been previously stated, the third question which gave direction to the study was whether there were significant differences between the perceptions about the role incumbents/units involved in making selected decisions within each of the four decision areas based on the extent of the personal level of participation in the decision by the respondent. An examination of the decision point analysis instrument, Section C, (Appendix B) shows that there were four possible levels of involvement: "I make the decision", "I recommend the decision", "I provide information", or "No participation''. These groupings were used as the levels within the factor for the analysis of variance. It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference at the .05 level by decision items within the four decision areas in the perceptions of the role incumbents about who makes the decision based on their level of participation in the decision (makes decision, recommends decision, provides information, or no participation). Again, where there was a significant F the Tukey was used as a follow-up procedure. Differences in Perceptions About Academic Decisions Based on Level of Participation Table 18 shows each of the five decision items within the area of academics, the role that respondents perceived themselves as playing in each of the decisions, and the

PAGE 88

Table 18 Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Decision Maker for Academic Area Items Based on Level of Respondent Participation in the Decision and the Resultant F Test ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Selected by Respondents as the Decision Maker --------------------------------------------Academic Business Dean Develop ChairComputed Decision Item and Level of Respondent Participation Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Mean F --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Add a 99rse a No participation (115) 1b Provide information (56) 2 Recommend (91) 2 Make decision (19) 0 2. Change a grade No participation (177) 0 Provide information (34) 0 Recommend (22) 0 Make decision (44) 0 3, Hire new faculty No participation (89) 11 Provide information (52) 6 Recommend (120) 33 Make decision (26) 3 4. Faculty promotion No participation (133) 26 Provide information (34) 2 Recommend (91) 37 Make decision (24) 6 5, Give faculty raise No participation (117) 33 Provide information (77) 21 Recommend (66) 27 Make decision (25) 7 6 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 35 18 47 19 36 12 16 10 38 28 22 13 66 15 21 5 40 3 4 7 42 27 35 4 52 12 23 5 38 26 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 6 2 6 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 30 27 46 11 126 28 14 36 0 0 3 0 10 2 9 3 0 0 1 0 7 5 12 1 5 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 5 0 4 2 2 0 4.8 c 6.1 6.5 6.6 6.9 7. 6 7. 3 7. 2 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.0 3.1 3.9 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2 .1 1. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a 9.46* 2 .38 1. 37 1. 71 0 .89 Refers to the total number of respondents who perceived themselves as having no participation in the decision. b The trustees were selected 1 time as making the decis ion to add a course to the curriculum by persons who reported they did not participate in making the decision. C Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the trustees were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the higher in the hierarchy the perceived decision making. <.OS co N

PAGE 89

83 perceptions the respondents held about which incumbents/units made the decisions. For example, in regard to adding a course to the curriculum (item 1), 115 of the respondents perceived themselves as having no participation, 56 as providing information, 91 as recommending the decision, and 19 as having made the decision. Further, among the 115 respondents who said they had no participation, 1 said the trustees made the decision, 6 said the president, 66 said the academic dean, 5 said the department chairperson, 30 said the faculty, and 7 said "other" (e.g., a committee). The means contained in Table 18 show the relative level within the hierarchy that each of these four groups perceived the decision to have been made. Examination of the resulting F statistics contained in Table 18 shows that there was one decision item for which there was a significant Fat the .05 level--the decision item dealing with adding a course to the curriculum (item 1). This indicates that the respondents from the different personal participation categories had differences in their perceptions about who made the decision to add a course to the curriculum. The Tukey test did not show any significant differences at the .05 level between any two of the groups. However, as evidenced through an examination of the means, those who felt that they had no participation in the decision (X = 4.8) perceived this to be made higher in the hierarchy than did the other groups (provide information, X = 6.1; recommend, X = 6.5; make decision, X = 6.6).

PAGE 90

84 Furthermore, examination of the data shows that the respondents who perceived themselves as having no participation selected the academic dean as the decision maker S7.4% of the time while selecting the faculty 26.1% of the time. The other respondent groups perceived approximately the reverse with the academic dean being selected 20-30% of the time, and the faculty around SO%. Even though there were no other significant differences at the .OS level among the participants based on their level of participation, the difference approached significance (F= 2.38) for item 2--to change the grade of a student. In this instance the difference found seemed to be a reflection of the extent to which respondents in the ''no participation" category perceived the academic dean as making the decision to change a grade. Differences in Perceptions about Student Affairs Decisions Based on Level of Participation As can be seen by a study of Table 19 for the six items concerned with student affairs there were no significant differences at the .OS level in perceptions about who makes the decision based on level of personal participation in the decision. Also, there was little difference between means, although item 8 had 1.2 difference between the perceptions of respondents who felt that they provided information (X = 4.0) and those who felt that they recommended the decision (X = 2.8).The greatest d e gree of variance in responses based on level o f participation were for item 8 related to adding

PAGE 91

Tao1.e 1. ';;I Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Decision Maker for Student Affairs Area Items Based on Level of Respondent Participation in the Decision and the Resulting F Test -----------------------------------------~--------------------------------------------------------Selected by Respondents aa the Deciaion Maker -~ ----------------------------------------. ------------------------Academic Business Dean Develop ChairComputed Item and Level of Participation Truat Prea Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Mean P 6. Financial aid policy a No participation (96) 14b Provide information (92) 6 Recommend (60) 10 Make decision (31) 6 7. Change regulation No participation (130) 5 Provide information (71) 9 Recommend (54) 9 Make decision (28) 0 8 New Sport No participation (109) 12 Provide information (85) 13 Recommend (56) 19 Make decision (25) 5 9. Religious Meetings No participation (128) 0 Provide information (90) 2 Recommend (38) 0 Make decision (25) 0 10. Disciplinary measure No participation (168) 0 Provide information (55) 0 Recommend (26) 0 Make decision (35) 0 11. Admissions policy No participation (93) 13 Provide informat i on (106) 8 Recommend (59) 10 Make de c ision (23) 5 26 39 19 15 40 19 18 9 43 36 22 10 66 48 18 10 44 9 4 2 28 41 15 8 4 3 1 0 3 0 0 l 18 4 4 4 5 l 2 0 2 0 0 l 20 19 12 4 17 8 11 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 9 4 5 75 35 20 17 7 7 4 2 16 12 5 12 110 41 18 32 4 3 l l 3 0 l 0 l 0 0 0 2 l 0 l 2 l 0 2 l 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 l 0 l 0 2 l 0 0 0 0 2 l 0 l 3 3 2 0 l 2 l l 6 7 2 0 2 3 4 0 l 0 l 0 9 16 7 2 18 23 12 3 5 6 6 0 13 1 2 4 3 36 2 3 7 0 10 5 3 0 1 5 18 1 2 2 4 2c 4 4 4.1 3.1 4 .1 4.1 3.8 4.1 3 8 4. 0 2. 8 3 2 4 .6 4. 4 4 6 4. 0 4 5 4.9 5 1 4. 8 4 .1 4 3 4. 4 3. 4 l. 67 0 2 0 2. 31 0 .2 8 2.12 0. 7 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------a Refers to the total numbe r of respondents wh o perceived themselves as having no par t icipat io n i n th e d ecisio n b The trustees were selected 14 tim e s as makinq the decision to chanqe a financial aid policy by persons C Based on level in hierarchy (l-9)1 since the trustee& were assigned a 1, the lower t he mean the highe r in the hierarchy the perceived decision mak i ng. ~< .05 (X) V1

PAGE 92

86 a new sport (F= 2.31) and item 10 related to disciplinary measures (F= 2.12). Further examination of Table 19 will show that for three of the six items (change regulation, religious meetings, and admissions policy) the F value was below 0.75. Differences in Perceptions About Development Decisions Based on Level of Participation Of the three development items, one was found to have responses based on level of participation that were significantly different at the .05 level. As shown in Table 20, this was for the item concerned with beginning a new fund raising project (item 12). As in previous instances, application of the Tukey test did not produce significance differences at the .05 level between any two of the groups. Inspection of the responses and means suggests that the greatest differences were in perceptions of those persons who perceived they made the decision (X = 3.2) and the other participation groups, particularly those who perceived that they recommended the decision (X = 1.9). Differences in Perceptions About Administration Decisions Based on Level of Participation There was one of the five administration decision items where there was a significant difference at the .05 level in perceptions about who makes the decision based on level of respondent participation (Table 21). This was for the item related to filling an administrative vacancy other than the presidency (item 17). Although the Tukey test did not show

PAGE 93

Table 20 Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Decision Maker for Development Area Items Based on Level of Respondent Participation in the Decision and the Resulting F Test ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Selected by Respondents as the Decision Maker ------------------------------------------------------------Academic Business Dean Develop ChairComputed Decision Item and Level of Respondent Participation Trust Pres Dean Off i cer Students Off i cer person Facu lt y Ot h er Mean F -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12. Fund raise project 45 b No participation (ll0)a 45 0 1 0 18 0 0 1 2. J c Provide information ( 8 3) 24 42 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 2 5 Recommend ( 5 6) 27 24 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1. 9 Make decision (33) 9 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3. 2 3.53 13. New building No participation ( 63) 50 10 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1. 4 Provide information ( 131) 111 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1. 2 Recommend (68) 57 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 2 Make decision (22) 17 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 2 14. Make investment 1.12 No participation (174) 48 33 0 74 0 12 0 0 7 3 1 Provide information ( 39) 14 6 0 15 0 0 0 0 4 3. l Recommend ( 3 2) 14 2 0 14 0 1 0 0 1 2.8 Make decision (31) 4 6 0 20 0 0 0 0 1 3. 4 0. 4 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------a Refers to the total number of respondent who perceived themselves as having n o part i c i p ation in the decision. b The trustees were selected 45 times as making the decision to begin a fund ra i s i ng pro j e ct by per s on s who reported they did not participate in making the decision. C Baaed on level in hierarchy (1-9)1 since the trustees were assigned a 1 the lo w e r the mean th e higher in the hierarchy the perceived decision making. <.05 co -.J

PAGE 94

Table 21 Number of Times Role Incumbents/Units Were Selected as Decisio n Maker for Administration Area Items Based on Level of Respondent Participation in the Decision and the Resulting F Test Decision Item and Level of Respondent Participation Trust Selected by Respondents as the Decision Maker --------------------------------------------Academic Business Dean Develop ChairPres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty O ther Mea n Computed F ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15. Long range plans No participation (38)a 17b Provide information (142) 46 Recommend (78) 24 Make decision (33) 13 16. Raise fees No participation (89) Provide information (89) Recommend (87) Make decision (22) 17. Administration vacancy No participation (97) Provide information (94) Recommend (58) Make decision (33) 18. Change purpose 54 66 62 14 34 24 19 4 No participation (38) 32 Provide information (151) 118 Recommend (72) 61 Make decision (23) 16 19. Change bylaws No participation (101) 94 Provide information (107) 98 Recommend (53) 47 Make decision (19) 17 18 86 41 18 24 20 21 6 61 70 36 24 4 25 5 4 4 5 2 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 l 0 l 1 1 1 1 l 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 10 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 2 0 1 3 1 1 5 4 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 1 l 2 0 3 3 1 0 1. 8 C 2. 0 2. 7 1. 7 1. 7 1. 4 1. 5 1.5 1. 7 1. 7 1. 9 2.5 1.4 1.5 1. 6 1. 9 1. 3 1. 3 1. 6 1. 4 0. 4 9 1.00 5 68* 0.5 7 0 .53 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a Refers to the total number of respondents who perceived themselves as having no participation in the dec isio n. b The trustees were selected 17 times as making the decision to make long range plans by persons who reported they did not participate in making the decision. C Based on level in hierarchy (1-9); since the truateea were assigned a 1, the lower the mean the hig he r in the hierarchy the perceived decision making. <.OS CD CD

PAGE 95

89 significant differences at the .05 level between the groups, there was some difference between the responses of those trustees who said that they made the decision (X = 2.5) and the respondents in the other categories (no participation, X = 1.7; provide information, X = 1.7; recommend, X = 1.9).

PAGE 96

CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION Summary The problem of the study was to determine perceptions of those involved about the locus of formal decision making in four basic areas for small church-related colleges. Specifically, answers to the following questions were sought: 1. To what extent are specific position incumbents and units perceived to participate in decision making in specific decision areas (i.e., academics, student affairs, development, and administration). 2. Are there differences by decision items within the four decision areas (academics, student affairs, development, and administration) in perceptions of the extent to which position incumbents and/or units are involved in making a decision and participate in making a decision based on the position held by the respondent (i.e., trustee, administrator, faculty/administrator, and faculty member). 3. A r e there differences by decision items within the four decision areas (academics, student affairs, development, and administration) in perceptions of 90

PAGE 97

91 the extent to which position incumbents and/or units are involved in making a decision based on the respondent's perceived involvement in the decision (makes decision, recommends decision, provides iniormation, or no participation). In order to provide the data necessary to answer the aformentioned questions, a decision point analysis instrument was developed (see Appendix B), and this instrument was provided to the 69 colleges which made up the Christian College Coalition. The instruments were to be distributed to a trustee, the president, the academic dean, the business officer, the dean of students, the development officer, a department chairperson, and a faculty member at each institution. Some usable responses were received from 59 of these institutions. The total number of instruments returned was 293 out of a possible 552. Given the number of returns it was felt that there might be a problem with generalization. To determine the extent of this problem the returns from the first set of mailings were compared by means of chi square with the returns from the second set and no significant difference at the .05 level was found on any of the instrument items. In order to answer the first question the data were analyzed by simple descriptive statistics. To answer the second and third questions two operational null hypotheses were projected and the technique for analysis was the single factor analysis of variance.

PAGE 98

92 In regard to the first question relating to who made decisions and who participated in making decisions, six major findings emerged: 1. The incumbents most frequently perceived to make the decision for each item were as follows: Academic area decisions (1) Add a course--faculty (40.3%) (2) Change the grade--faculty (74.2%) (3) Hire new faculty--president (42.3%) (4) Promote a faculty member--academic dean (32.9%) (5) Give a faculty raise--president (36.1%) Student Affairs area decisions (6) Change financial aid policy--president (35.3%) (7) Change parietal regulation--dean of students (51.8%) (8) New collegiate sport--president (39.8%) (9) Series of religious meetings--president (50.0%) (10) Disciplinary measure--dean of students (70.7%) (11) Change admission policy--president (31.8%) Development area decisions (12) Begin fund raising project--president (44.1%) (13) Build a new building--trustees (83.0%) (14) Place money in investment--business officer (44.7%) Administration area decisions (15) Make a long range plan--president (57.8%)

PAGE 99

(16) Raise tuition fees--trustees (68.5%) (17) Fill vacancy in administration--president (67.9%) 93 (18) Change purpose of college--trustees (79.7%) (19) Change bylaws--trustees (91.4%) As can be seen from the above, the trustees were most frequently seen as the decision makers in regard to ite~s 13, 16, 18, and l9; the presidents were most frequently seen as decision makers in regard to items 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 17; the academic deans in regard to item 4; the business officers relative to item 14; the dean of students in regard to items 7 and 10; and the faculty were most frequently seen as making the decision relative to items 1 and 2. The development officers and department chairpersons were not perceived as major decision make r s for any item. 2. The incumbents most frequently perceived to participate in making the decisions for each of the items were as follows: Academic area decisions (1) Add a course--department chairpersons (31.6%) (2) Change the grade--academic dean (39.3%) (3) Hire new faculty--department chairpersons (28.0) (4) Promote a faculty member--academic dean (25.1%) (5) Give a faculty raise--academic dean (24.2 % ) Student Affairs area decisions (6) Change financial aid policybusiness offic e r (21.4%)

PAGE 100

94 (7) Change parietal regulation--president (21.7%) (8) New collegiate sport--academic dean (17.1%) (9) Series of religious meetings--dean of students (24.2%) (10) Disciplinary measure--president (25.8%) (11) Change admission policy--academic dean (21.6%) Development area decisions (12) Begin fund raising project--development officer (27.2%) (13) Build a new building--president (21.2%) (14) Place money in investment--president (33.3%) Administration area decisions (15) Make a long range plan--academic dean (17.4%) (16) Raise tuition fees--business officer (21.7%) (17) Fill vacancy in administration--academic dean (18.0%) (18) Change purpose of college--president (19.1%) (19) Change bylaws--president (32.9%) From the above data it can be seen that the following were perceived most frequently to participate in making a decision: the presidents--items 7, 10, 13, 14, 18, and 19; the academic deans--items 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, and 17; the business officers--items 6 and 16; the dean of studentsitem 9; the development officers--item 12; and the department chairpersons--items 1, 3, and 4. The trustees and faculty were not perceived as most frequently participating in making a decision for any item.

PAGE 101

95 3. The greatest unanimity in the expressed opinions about who makes decisions was in regard to the trustees being the perceived decision makers relative to changing the college bylaws (item 19). In this instance 91.4% of the sample perceived them to be the decision makers. 4. The least unanimity shown about who makes decisions was relative to changing the admissions policy of the college (item 11). In this instance 31.8% of the respondents saw the president as the decision maker, 20.0% felt the academic dean made the decision, 17.1% indicated the "other" category as the decision makers, 12.1% thought the faculty made the decision, and the remaining five incumbents/units received the other 19% of the selections. 5. The decision item with the broadest base of perceived participation was for filling a vacancy in the administration other than the president (item 17). Six incumbents/units had participation percentages above 10% (trustees, 13.9%; presidents, 12.6%; academic deans, 18.0%; business officers, 15.7%; dean of students, 13.3%; and development officers, 12.1%). 6. The decision item with the most narrow base of participation was for changing a grade (item 2). Three incumbent/units had participation percentages above 10% (academic dean, 39.3%; department chairpersons, 29.4%; and faculty, 16.8%). In regard to the second question which related to differences in perceptions about who makes decisions and

PAGE 102

96 who participates in making decisions based on the position of the respondents, the four major findings were as follows: 1. There were six decision items where there were significant differences at the .05 level in the perceptions of the respondents based on their positions relative to who makes decisions. These were for the items related to adding a new course (item 1), changing a grade (item 2), changing admission policies (item 11), building a new building (item 13), changing the purpose of the college (item 18), and changing the bylaws (item 19). For these items the null hypothesis that no significant differences at the prescribed level would be found was rejected. While the Tukey test for multiple comparisons was done on each of the items where a significant Fat the .05 level was found, only the item concerned with adding a new course to the curriculum produced a significant difference at the .05 level between positions/units. In this case the differences were between the trustees and each of the other groups. 2. There were 15 decision items where there were significant differences at the .05 level in the perceptions of respondent groups about who participates in making the decision. These were for the items regarding the decision to add a new course (item 1), change a grade (item 2), promote faculty (item 4), give a faculty raise (item 5), change a financial aid policy (item 6), begin a new sport (item 8), act on a disciplinary measure (item 10), change an admissions policy (item 11), begin a fund raising project

PAGE 103

97 (item 12), build a new building (item 13), make an investment (item 14), make long range plans (item 15), fill an administration vacancy (item 17), change the purpose of the college (item 18), and change the bylaws (item 19). The null hypothesis was that no significant differences would be found at the prescribed level, and therefore, for the above 15 items the null hypothesis was rejected. The Tukey test showed a significant difference at the .05 level for the item concerned with adding a course to the curriculum. The differences were between the trustees and the faculty. 3. Examination of the item variance relative to the perceptions about who makes decisions based on the position of the respondent showed that the greatest diversity of opinion was for the academic area, and the least diversity was for the student affairs area. 4. Examination of the item variance relative to the perceptions about who participates in making the decisions based on the position of the respondent showed that the greatest diversity of opinion was for the development area, and the least diversity was for the student affairs area. In regard to the third question concerned with differences in perceptions about who makes decisions based on the perceived level of participation in the decision, there were two major findings: 1. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the perceptions of the respondents about who made the decision based on their self-reported level of participation

PAGE 104

98 in the decision in regard to adding a new course to the curriculum (item 1), beginning a new fund raising project (item 12), and filling an administrative vacancy other than the presidency (item 17). Again, the Tukey test was done on each of the three items where there was a significant F value at the .05 level. In no instance was there a significant difference found at the .05 level between any two groups. Therefore, for these three items the null hypothesis of no significant difference at the prescribed level would be found was rejected, and for the remaining 16 items the null hypothesis was accepted. 2. Examination of the item variance relative to the perceptions about who makes decisions based on the respondents' level of participation in the decision shows that the greatest diversity of opinion was for the academic area, and the least diversity was for the student affairs area. Conclusions The results of the investigation appear to justify five major conclusions: 1. There is considerable unanimity of opinion among the position incumbents about who makes decisions in the colleges of the Christian College Coalition. (Note the relative absence of significant Fs at the .05 level.) 2. Those administrators who are often thought to make decisions in their area of expertise tended to have the most total involvement in such decisions in the Christian College

PAGE 105

99 Coalition institutions. (For example, academic deans, chairpersons, and faculty tended to make and participate in academic decisions; deans of students in student affairs decisions; development officers and business officers in development decisions; and trustees and presidents in administration decisions.) 3. The unanimity expressed suggests that the most frequent decision makers in Christian College Coalition institutions are those persons at the top of the administrative hierarchy, particularly the trustees and the presidents. Furthermore, the trustees are the most frequent decision makers where there is to be a basic change in direction of the college (e.g., a change in purpose or bylaws) or there is a major financial decision to be made (e.g., build a new building or raise tuition/fees). Conversely, the incumbents/units least involved in the decision-making process were those in the lower level in the hierarchy (i.e., the chairpersons and faculty). 4. There are major differences among the respondents from the different governing positions/units about the breadth of participation in decision making within the decision-making areas. (Note the large number of significant Fs at the .05 level for the responses relative to participation in making decisions.) The trustees tended to perceive less participation than any other position/unit and the administrators as a group generally perceived wider participation than either the trustees,

PAGE 106

100 administrators/faculty (e.g., chairpersons), or the faculty. 5. Differences in perceptions about who makes the decisions in the Christian College Coalition institutions based on the respondents level of participation in the decision are minimal. (Note the low item F values, means, and relative lack of significant Fs at the .05 level when comparisons based on level of participation were made.) Discussion Since the present study was conducted using a survey approach, an obvious question may be raised about the validity of the findings and conclusions. There are obvious shortcomings iri the method generally and with the present study. Use of survey instruments such as the decision point analysis instrument have weaknesses: generally there is not a 100% return, directions are not understood by each participant in the same manner thereby producing differing meaning in the opinions expressed, designed items may not be equally important to all participants, and instrument validity may be in question, especially if elements are changed to meet the criteria of the research such as was done in the present study (Herriott, 1969). There are, however, some advantages which apply to surveys generally and to the present study. A large number of subjects were contacted economically by sending the instruments to one person who then sent them to the eventual respondents. Some of the items may have evoked more respondent thought without

PAGE 107

101 the time limitations sometimes involved with face-to-face interviews, and since the present survey approach provided that the responses of the person were anononymous, the respondents may have been more candid. Within the context of the foregoing, it seemed reasonable to believe that generalizing the results to the entire Christian College Coalition is not unreasonable. The returns represented 53% of the subject population, and represented usable returns from some respondents within 59 of the 69 colleges in the Coalition. However, no generalizations can be extended to colleges or universities beyond the Coalition. For the Coalition, the import of the study is probably in terms of what it might mean for future practice and research. Many Christian colleges pride themselves on decentralization of decisions. Although this may be true in some of the Coalition colleges, there was no evidence from the present study of such practices being widespread. In fact, studies such as those of Cohen and March (1974) and Baldridge (1971b) indicate that there may be wider decision making involvement of university faculties, especially through the established formal decision making structures, than was found in colleges of the Coalition. Perhaps the relative lack of decentralization in decision making which appeared to be evident in the findings of the present study may be explained in terms of the level of controversy in the colleges making up the Christian

PAGE 108

102 Coalition in comparison to the controversies in larger more complex institutions. A review of the literature contained in Chapter II leads to the generalization that there is considerable controversy in more complex colleges and universities. However, there is no indication that there is such level of controversy in the colleges making up the Christian Coalition. Perhaps those who choose to associate themselves with a certain institution do so because of their basic commitment to the institution, its ideals, purposes, and programs. Crowley (1980) made the point most succinctly when he noted that "the steadiest fires of controversy involves the proper relationship of professors, presidents, and trustees" (p. 199). Perhaps from Crowley's perspective the proper relationship is not present in the colleges of the Christian Coalition because the steady fires of controversy did not seem to be evident in Christian College Coalition institutions. Of special interest, because of the abundance of literature on the subject, was the decision-making influence attributed to the trustees by those involved in the present research. The trustees were generally perceived to be responsible for large monetary spending decisions such as building new buildings or changing tuition charges and for major changes in direction as indicated by changes in purpose and bylaws, and they were rather frequently perceived to be influential in some other decisions. However, their participation in decisions represented by the

PAGE 109

103 19 items was fairly limited. In contrast, a review of the lists of responsibilities and duties of trustees offered by the authorities and presented in Chapter II suggested that trustees of small colleges should be involved in practically all of the decisions represented by the 19 items contained on the decision point analysis instrument. Therefore, the findings from the present study are at variance from authoritative opinion about the involvement of trustees. Specifically, even though the trustees are most influential in major financial and policy items, they are not intimately involved in participating in a wide variety of decisions, at least in the colleges of the Christian Coalition. As the results of the present investigation are viewed in their totality, including the unsolicited remarks offered by the respondents, it becomes fairly evident that for the colleges in the Christian Coalition there is an essential core of administrative personnel who exercise influence broadly in regard to the four decision areas about which data were sought. Specifically, from the point of view of some of the respondents, even though they may have attributed a specific decision item as having been made by the president, the chief academic officer, or some other administrative officer, they often commented that even though these people were the official decision makers and made the decision, it was their perception that a group, which might be known as the administrative council, including representives from the academic, student affairs,

PAGE 110

104 development, and administrative interests of the college were involved in such decisions. Closely related was the frequent unsolicited mention made of respondents about the use of committees in the colleges of the Christian Coalition. As indicated earlier, the formal decision-making structures of institutions of higher learning, particularly large complex colleges and universities, often include extensive use of committees. However, a review of the literature related to small colleges did not suggest the same frequency of committee use in such institutions. Therefore, one of the unexpected findings of the present investigation related to the frequency with which committees were referred to, particularly as these related to decisions in the student affairs area. The foregoing suggests that a fruitful area for future research in regard to colleges of the Christian Coalition would be the extent to which committees are utilized within each of the four decision areas studied, and the relative influence that these committees by their formal actions may have. Finally, given the previous point related to the perception that the trustees are not as heavily involved in the several activities of the colleges of the Christian Coalition as the literature would suggest, there is perhaps the need for further research on the trustees as a single governing unit. Specifically, there are questions that may be raised about the characteristics of the trustees of such

PAGE 111

105 institutions, their interests, what do they actually do over and beyond being involved in making decisions in relation to purposes, bylaws, and the like. There have been such studies done on universities and community colleges, but no broad-based studies have been done in small colleges.

PAGE 112

APPENDIX A CHRISTIAN COLLEGE COALITION Anderson College Anderson, Indiana Asbury College Wilmore, Kentucky Azusa Pacific University Azusa, California Barrington College Barrington, Rhode Island Bartlesville Wesleyan College Bartlesville, Oklahoma Belhaven College Jackson, Mississippi Bethany Nazarene College Bethany, Oklahoma Bethel College North Newton, Kansas Bethel College St. Paul, Minnesota Biola University La Mirada, California Bryan College Dayton, Tennessee Calvin College Grand Rapids, Michigan Campbell University Buies Creek, North Carolina Campbellsville College Campbellsville, Kentucky Central Wesleyan College Central, South Carolina Covenant College Lookout Mountain, Tennessee Dordt College Sioux Center, Iowa Eastern College St. Davids, Pennsylvania Eastern Mennonite College Harrisonburg, Virginia Eastern Nazarene College Quincy, Maine Evangel College Springfield, Missouri Fresno Pacific College Fresno, California Friends University Wichita, Kansas Geneva College Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania George Fox College Newberg, Oregon Gordon College Wenham, Maine Grace College Winona Lake, Indiana Grand Canyon College Phoenix, Arizona Greenville College Greenville, Illinois Grove City College Grove City, Pennsylvania Houghton College Houghton, New York Huntington College Huntington, Indiana John Brown University Siloam Springs, Arizona Judson College Elgin, Illinois

PAGE 113

King College Bristol, Tennessee The King's College Briarcliff Manor, New York Lee College Cleveland, Tennessee Los Angeles Baptist College Newhall, California Malone College Canton, Ohio Marion College Marion, Indiana Messiah College Grantham, Pennsylvania Mid-America Nazarene College Olathe, Kansas Milligan College Milligan College, Tennessee Mississippi College Clinton, Mississippi North Park College Chicago, Illinois Northwest Christian College Eugene, Oregon Northwest Nazarene College Nampa, Idaho Northwestern College Orange City, Iowa Northwestern College Roseville, Minnesota Nyack College Nyack, New York Olivet Nazarene College Kankakee, Illinois Point Loma College San Diego, California 107 Roberts Wesleyan College Rochester, New York Seattle Pacific University Seattle, Washington Simpson College San Francisco, California Sioux Falls College Sioux Falls, South Dakota Southern California College Costa Mesa, California Spring Arbor College Spring Arbor, Michigan Sterling College Sterling, Kansas Tabor College Hillsboro, Kansas Taylor University Upland, Indiana Trevecca Nazarene College Nashville, Tennessee Trinity Christian College Palos Heights, Illinois Trinity College Deerfield, Illinois Westmont College Santa Barbara, California Wheaton College Wheaton, Illinois Whitworth College Spokane, Washington

PAGE 114

APPENDIX B DECISION POINT ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT In filling out this instrument you are urged to answer each question as it relates to your present position. The same three questions are asked in each decision item. Below are explanations of the questions about each statement. A. Who actually makes this decision? Choose the person or persons in your college who is or are primarily responsible for making this decision. Place an X in the appropriate box of the person who is the decision maker. If "other" box is chosen, please specify who makes the decision. B. What other persons participate in the making of the decision other than the ones already indicated? Place an O in appropriate box(s). C. What is the nature of your participation in making this decision? Select from among the four choices which best describes your participation in making this decision. Mark the appropriate statement. -=========================================================== ACADEMICS 1. The decision to add a new course to the curriculum. Trust A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean 108

PAGE 115

109 C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I provide information. No participation. I recommend the decision. 2. The decision to change the grade of a student. Trust A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Pres Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I provide information. No participation. I recommend the decision. 3. The decision to hire a new faculty member. Trust A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I recommend the decision. I provide information. No participation.

PAGE 116

110 4. The decision to promote a faculty member in rank. Trust A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I provide information. No participation. I recommend the decision. 5. The decision to give a faculty member a raise. Trust A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I recommend the decision. STUDENT AFFAIRS I provide information. No participation. 6. The decision to change a financial aid policy. A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an 0.)

PAGE 117

111 Bus Dean Devlop Depart Trust Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I provide information. No participation. I recommend the decision. 7. The decision to change a parietal regulation (such as curfew, dress, resident hall visitation rights). A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) Trust B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an 0.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I provide information. No participation. I recommend the decision. 8. The decision to participate in a new intercollegiate sport. Trust A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.) Acad Dean Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres

PAGE 118

112 C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I provide information. No participation. I recommend the decision. 9. The decision to have a series of religious meetings on campus. A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) Trust B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I provide information. No participation. I recommend the decision. 10. The decision to act on a serious disciplinary measure. Trust A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an 0.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement.

PAGE 119

113 I make the decision. I provide information. No participation. I recommend the decision. 11. The decision to change an admission policy. Trust A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I recommend the decision. DEVELOPMENT I provide information. No participation. 12. The decision to begin a new fund raising project. A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) Trust B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.) Acad Dean Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I recommend the decision. I provide information. No participation.

PAGE 120

114 13. The decision to build a new building. Trust A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Pres Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I provide information. No participation. I recommend the decision. 14. The decision to place money in a certain investment. Trust A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I recommend the decision. ADMINISTRATION I provide information. No participation. 15. The decision to add or make a long range plan for the college. A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.)

PAGE 121

Trust 115 B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Pres Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I provide information. No participation. I recommend the decision. 16. The decision to raise the tuition fees. Trust A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I recommend the decision. I provide information. No participation. 17. The decision to fill a vacancy in the administration (not the president). A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an O.)

PAGE 122

116 Bus Dean Devlop Depart Trust Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I provide information. No participation. I recommend the decision. 18. The decision to change the purpose or mission statement of the college. A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) Trust B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an 0.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. r make the decision. I provide information. No participation. I recommend the decision. 19. The decision to change the bylaws of the institution. Trust A. Who actually makes the decision? (Mark with an X.) B. Who else participates in making this decision? (Mark with an 0.) Bus Dean Devlop Depart Offer Sdnts Offer Chair Faculty Other Pres Acad Dean

PAGE 123

117 C. What is the nature of your participation in the making of this decision? Mark the appropriate statement. I make the decision. I recommend the decision. I provide information. No participation. Your present position at the college is ---------Co mm en ts

PAGE 124

APPENDIX C NUMBER OF "MAKE DECISION" AND "PARTICIPATES IN MAKING DECISION" RESPONSES BY ITEM AND RESPONDENTS

PAGE 125

1 To add a course to the curriculum. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents -----------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop Ch airIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Totals --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) l 0 l 0 l 2 0 1 0 6 (partic) 5 2 1 l 2 2 1 0 1 15 President (make) 7 0 l 3 0 2 l 0 0 14 (partic) 8 9 4 1 2 11 15 2 5 1 67 Acad Dean (make) 14 12 6 25 17 18 11 7 1 111 ( par tic) 8 18 30 11 21 15 20 20 1 1 44 Bus Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 2 l 0 4 l 3 0 0 0 11 Dean Stdnts (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) l 0 2 3 4 4 0 0 0 14 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) l 0 2 2 l 2 0 0 0 8 Chairperson (make) 0 3 2 l 3 l 6 2 0 18 (partic) 13 19 32 24 24 26 25 24 3 190 Faculty (make) l 18 25 7 17 10 18 20 0 1 16 (partic) 10 15 9 20 18 20 14 11 2 119 Other (make) 0 l 6 l 3 2 6 3 1 23 (partic) 3 6 4 0 5 0 11 5 0 34 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Totals (make) 23 34 41 37 41 35 4 2 33 2 288 (partic) 51 70 84 77 87 87 7 3 65 8 602 f--' f--' '-0

PAGE 126

2. To change the grade of a student. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents -----------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop C hairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Offi cer perso n F acu lt y Other Totals -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 President (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 0 0 0 2 0 l 1 l 0 5 Acad Dean (make) 7 5 8 12 7 9 7 2 0 57 (partic) 4 17 15 10 16 1 3 13 1 2 3 1 03 Bus Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dean Stdnts (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 0 0 0 0 6 2 1 0 0 9 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chairperson (make) 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 7 (partic) 10 11 9 9 11 11 11 4 1 77 Faculty (make) 14 26 30 17 31 24 33 3 0 2 207 (partic) 7 4 4 10 5 5 9 0 0 44 Other (make) 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 l 0 8 (partic) 0 4 4 1 6 2 4 3 0 2 4 czaccccaccc= --=---c-------------------------------------Totals (make) 23 34 39 32 41 33 4 2 33 2 27 9 (partic) 21 36 32 32 44 34 39 20 4 262 I-' I\.) 0

PAGE 127

3. To hire a new faculty member. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Devel op C ha i rIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Offi ce r p e rson Faculty Other Totals -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 5 9 10 7 3 6 7 6 0 53 (partic) 10 3 4 6 11 7 7 9 0 57 President (make) 7 17 23 17 11 1 2 17 15 2 1 2 1 (partic) 13 20 19 19 20 18 16 13 0 138 Acad Dean (make) 11 7 7 10 26 18 15 11 0 1 05 (partic) 12 26 33 27 15 16 2 4 18 2 1 73 Bus Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 2 l 3 7 3 3 1 1 1 22 Dean Stdnts (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 3 0 4 4 7 2 1 3 1 25 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) l 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 12 Chairperson (make) 0 l 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 (partic) 15 30 34 31 34 2 5 ) 5 2 4 1 2 29 Faculty (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 (partic) 7 23 23 14 21 9 22 21 l 1 4 1 Other (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 0 5 4 2 1 1 4 4 0 21 ~=-==-=====a -== ====-= ===== -= ==-== ===== = = = == = === ========== = == ====== ==== ====== = === = ============ Totals (make) 23 34 40 36 41 36 41 33 2 286 (partic) 63 108 126 11 2 114 8 3 1 10 9 5 7 81 8 .. f-' I'-.) f-'

PAGE 128

4. To promote a faculty member in rank -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop ChairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Totals ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 7 11 13 12 4 8 8 8 0 71 (partic) 6 3 6 7 4 9 5 9 0 49 President (make) 4 10 12 9 9 9 11 10 1 75 (partic) 17 19 23 18 13 20 16 12 0 138 Acad Dean (make) 12 10 6 13 19 11 13 6 0 9 0 (partic) 11 24 32 20 20 23 2 5 22 2 179 Bus Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 2 0 1 3 2 2 2 1 0 13 Dean Stdnts (make) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 (partic) 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 0 12 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 7 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 (partic) 16 22 29 23 24 21 2 3 20 1 179 Faculty (make) 0 1 5 0 2 6 5 4 0 23 (partic) 6 19 14 14 13 5 10 13 1 95 Other (make) 0 2 3 1 5 0 2 3 1 17 (partic) 2 6 8 2 6 2 10 3 1 4 0 ---c-============================================================ ==== = = =========================== Totals (make) 23 34 40 35 40 35 40 31 2 280 (partic) 62 94 116 92 85 84 92 82 5 712 ,_, N IV

PAGE 129

5. To give a faculty member a raise. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Dev e l o p C hairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Offi ce r person Faculty Oth e r Totals -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 9 13 17 8 9 9 17 8 1 91 (partic) 9 5 7 7 8 8 7 8 0 59 President (make) 10 11 18 12 12 1 5 11 11 1 101 (partic) 11 23 21 18 18 1 4 2 3 12 0 140 Acad Dean (make) 3 9 3 16 1 6 11 1 2 8 0 7 8 (partic) 17 20 30 2 0 20 1 7 2 4 16 l 16 5 Bus Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 1 0 l 0 0 2 (partic) 13 14 13 18 1 4 l J 9 8 0 102 Dean Stdnts (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 1 5 6 4 7 6 2 1 0 32 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 1 3 5 3 5 7 3 2 0 29 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 1 0 2 (partic) 8 10 11 16 13 11 8 9 0 86 Faculty (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 (partic) 2 8 3 6 6 4 6 4 0 3 9 Other (make) 0 1 2 0 2 l l 2 0 9 (partic) 0 4 3 2 6 3 4 l 0 23 sc-a=-=~z= ---=----== = ====---=== = = = ==== = ===== = ===== ======== ==== ======== = ===============-==-= Totals (make) 22 34 40 36 40 3 7 4 2 3 1 2 2 84 (partic) 62 92 99 94 97 SJ 86 61 1 675 f-' N w

PAGE 130

6. To change a financial aid policy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop ChairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Offi cer person Faculty Other Totals ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 7 6 1 2 5 3 6 7 0 37 (partic) 2 2 5 3 3 5 6 2 0 28 President (make) 6 16 20 15 11 16 8 6 1 99 (partic) 13 17 7 11 18 15 17 15 0 113 Acad Dean (make) 0 2 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 8 (partic) 10 15 23 19 22 20 20 13 1 143 Bus Officer (make) 4 2 4 6 7 5 6 4 1 39 (partic) 13 25 21 23 23 16 23 15 1 160 Dean Stdnts (make) 3 4 2 5 4 4 4 1 0 27 (partic) 7 13 17 16 23 13 15 17 1 122 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 4 (partic) 5 9 14 13 12 14 5 9 1 82 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 (partic) 1 0 2 0 0 3 4 2 0 12 Faculty (make) 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 0 8 (partic) 0 2 4 2 1 2 5 4 0 20 Other (make) 3 4 11 4 13 6 7 7 0 55 (partic) 2 13 12 13 12 10 3 4 0 69 ccc==-===:=z:= :======= -======== ============================ ========= == == =====================-= Totals (make) 23 34 38 35 41 36 39 30 2 278 ( partic) 53 96 105 100 114 98 98 81 4 749 I\.)

PAGE 131

7 To change a parietal regulation. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Devel op ChairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Office r person Faculty Other Totals ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 0 5 2 4 3 3 2 3 0 22 (partic) 8 4 2 3 5 5 12 5 l 45 President (make) 13 10 14 7 9 13 11 9 1 87 (partic) 7 21 16 20 20 15 19 13 1 132 Acad Dean (make) 0 0 1 1 0 0 l 1 0 4 (partic) 4 11 17 13 9 1 3 13 9 l 90 Bua Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 2 6 9 12 6 6 5 4 l 5 1 Dean Stdnts (make) 9 17 17 23 22 19 2 1 16 l 145 (partic) 13 15 19 13 18 16 17 13 l 125 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 l (partic) 2 5 9 10 5 7 2 3 l 44 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 0 1 3 0 1 l 3 0 0 9 Faculty (make) 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 5 (partic) 2 4 7 2 7 4 7 6 0 39 Other (make) 1 2 4 1 4 l l 3 0 17 (partic) 2 13 7 6 20 8 8 9 0 73 ==========~=~= ===== ==c= = === === = === --------===== ========== =========== ======================= Totals (make) 23 34 38 36 40 37 39 32 2 2 81 (partic) 40 80 89 79 91 75 86 6 2 6 608 f--' N V1

PAGE 132

8. To participate in a new intercollegiate sport. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop ChairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Totals -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 7 11 4 5 7 8 2 7 0 51 (partic) 4 1 2 2 4 6 0 4 0 31 Preaident (make) 12 10 17 17 18 1 3 15 5 1 108 (partic) 9 16 15 13 13 17 12 11 0 106 Acad Dean (make) 1 5 5 4 2 4 6 2 0 29 (partic) 10 17 20 22 20 18 15 8 1 131 Bua Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 (partic) 8 13 15 23 16 17 10 3 2 107 Dean Stdnts (make) 1 2 3 3 3 4 2 1 0 19 (partic) 9 17 16 18 20 14 13 10 1 118 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 2 0 0 1 l 0 0 4 (partic) 6 6 10 15 13 12 3 3 1 69 Chairperson (make) 1 1 1 2 3 0 2 2 0 12 (partic) 5 6 7 5 8 12 6 5 0 54 Faculty (make) 0 2 1 1 1 4 6 0 0 15 (partic) 8 13 11 7 9 5 12 10 l 76 Other (make) 1 2 5 4 7 2 5 7 1 34 (partic) 1 16 10 8 14 8 10 6 0 73 ss:~s====E=-E==~-==------=----==------------==------------------------------------= Total (make) 23 33 38 36 41 37 39 25 2 274 (partic) 60 105 106 113 117 109 89 60 6 765 I-' N CTI

PAGE 133

9. To have a series of religious meetings on campus. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop ChairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Totals -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 (partic) 2 0 1 1 0 3 4 1 0 12 President (make) 16 12 20 22 14 24 18 15 1 142 (partic) Acad Dean (make) 1 5 5 4 2 4 6 2 0 29 (partic) 10 17 20 22 20 18 15 8 1 131 Bus Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 (partic) 8 13 15 23 16 17 10 3 2 107 Dean Stdnts (make) 1 2 3 3 3 4 2 1 0 19 (partic) 9 17 16 18 20 14 13 10 1 118 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 (partic) 6 6 10 15 13 12 3 3 1 69 Chairperson (make) 1 1 1 2 3 0 2 2 0 12 (partic) 5 6 7 5 8 1 2 6 5 0 54 Faculty (make) 0 2 1 1 1 4 6 0 0 15 (partic) 8 13 11 7 9 5 12 10 1 76 Other (make) 1 2 5 4 7 2 5 7 1 34 (partic) 1 16 10 8 14 8 10 6 0 73 acazsccza===:~:=as~=~-ca-----------------------------------------------------------Totals (make) 23 33 38 36 41 37 39 25 2 274 (partic) 60 105 106 113 117 109 89 60 6 765 t--' N -.J

PAGE 134

10. To act on a serious disciplinary measure. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------Pos~n Academic Business Dean Develop ChairInc nt/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Totals -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 President (make) 7 2 9 12 4 12 6 9 0 61 (partic) 12 18 13 20 13 18 16 8 0 118 Acad Dean (make) 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 (partic) 5 8 10 11 6 q 8 11 0 70 Bua Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 2 0 3 4 3 4 2 1 0 19 Dean Stdnts (make) 15 31 26 24 32 21 30 19 2 200 (partic) 7 4 12 11 7 14 12 11 0 78 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 (partic) 2 0 3 2 3 5 0 1 0 16 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 9 Faculty (make) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 (partic) 3 6 7 3 8 3 9 13 2 54 Other (make) 0 1 2 0 4 2 4 4 0 17 (partic) 4 11 13 9 20 10 15 9 0 91 =s==-s==z-=--=-==---------=--------=-----------------------------------------------Totals (make) 23 34 38 36 41 36 41 32 2 283 (partic) 38 47 63 61 60 65 64 58 2 458 f--' I\.) CX)

PAGE 135

11. To change an admission policy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop ChairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Offi ce r person Faculty Other Totals -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 5 6 3 3 4 8 2 5 0 36 (partic) 3 5 1 2 7 3 6 3 0 30 President (make) 10 9 7 18 15 12 11 7 1 90 (partic) 11 18 14 12 18 17 16 14 0 120 Acad Dean (make) 7 5 7 7 3 7 13 6 1 56 (partic) 14 24 22 23 30 2 4 2 1 15 1 174 Bua Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 7 9 7 13 15 9 5 1 1 67 Dean Stdnts (make) 0 2 1 0 1 3 2 0 0 9 ( partic) 10 18 16 24 19 13 12 13 1 126 Devel Offer (make) 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 (partic) 5 10 9 14 16 10 5 3 1 73 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 (partic) 9 3 2 5 4 5 5 4 0 37 Faculty (make) 0 4 12 0 5 4 4 5 0 34 (partic) 7 10 9 17 16 6 22 11 0 98 Other (make) l 7 7 3 12 2 7 8 0 47 (partic) 5 11 9 10 18 10 11 5 1 80 =====c=~c=======2c=---=---=---=--------= ----~-----------------------------Totals (make) 23 34 37 33 41 36 41 32 2 280 (partic) 71 108 89 120 143 97 103 69 5 805 I-' N \.0

PAGE 136

12. To begin a new fund raising project. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop ChairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Totals -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 11 15 16 15 7 4 21 15 0 104 (partic) 8 9 4 7 16 5 9 7 0 65 President (make) 11 13 18 14 23 21 12 10 1 123 (partic) 12 21 20 20 17 16 24 21 1 152 Acad Dean (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 6 9 11 11 10 9 8 3 0 67 Bus Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 (partic) 13 14 20 21 18 9 18 15 0 128 Dean Stdnts (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 3 6 8 10 8 4 2 3 0 44 Devel Offer (make) l 6 3 5 9 12 7 7 1 51 (partic) 16 27 26 27 29 20 28 16 1 190 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 1 1 l 2 0 1 0 1 0 7 Faculty (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) l 3 l l 2 0 3 2 0 13 Other (make) 0 0 l 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 (partic) 2 7 5 2 2 7 5 3 0 33 cc:c=ssccc:csc======ac=============~======================= == ================================ Totals (make) 23 34 38 34 40 38 40 32 2 281 (partic) 62 97 96 101 102 71 97 71 2 699 ,_. w 0

PAGE 137

13. To build a new building. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------Position Acad~mic Busi~ess Dean D e v elo;:i C hairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Of!icer Stu d ents Officer per s on Faculty Other 'J otals -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 20 29 36 28 3 2 32 34 24 0 235 (partic) 2 5 4 9 6 5 6 1 39 President (make) 2 5 2 7 8 6 5 7 2 44 (pa.ttic) 20 29 35 29 29 30 35 22 0 229 Acad Dean (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 10 24 28 22 25 18 18 12 1 158 Bus Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 (partic) 15 26 26 29 30 25 26 19 1 197 Dean Stdnts (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 7 17 20 20 20 16 6 8 1 115 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 l (partic) 14 26 27 25 28 ? 2 21 17 2 192 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 6 3 7 l 5 6 3 5 1 37 Faculty (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 l (partic) 7 13 10 5 10 9 5 5 l 65 Other (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 l (partic) 2 10 8 5 6 7 4 5 l 65 scs=zazc=zss~sc=s:cz===================================== =====-=----------------------Totals (make) 22 34 38 35 40 38 41 33 2 283 (pa=tic) 83 153 162 140 162 149 123 99 9 1,0&0 f--' w f--'

PAGE 138

14. To place money in a certain investment. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop ChairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Totals -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 5 10 13 9 8 11 12 12 0 80 (partic) 6 9 7 8 9 8 13 6 0 66 President (make) 2 6 6 2 10 6 7 7 0 46 (partic) 11 21 22 17 18 22 24 16 1 152 Acad Dean (make) 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 l (partic) 2 2 l l 3 2 6 2 0 19 Bua Officer (make) 12 13 15 21 17 20 14 8 2 122 (partic) 9 18 17 10 16 13 17 13 0 113 Dean Stdnts (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) l l 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 11 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 2 0 5 0 4 2 0 13 (partic) 5 8 5 3 11 16 11 6 0 65 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Faculty (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other (make) 3 4 l 2 0 1 0 2 0 13 (partic) 5 6 3 4 3 5 1 l 0 28 =casccs=-cc=sc=rms-a:c----------=-c~----=~--= c------=---------------==c-cs&cc---=~~==-== Totals (JDAke) 22 33 37 35 40 38 37 31 2 275 (partic) 39 65 55 45 62 69 75 45 l 456 I--' w N

PAGE 139

15. To add or make a long range plan for the college. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop ChairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Totals -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 14 15 12 13 6 9 16 14 0 99 (partic) 6 14 12 15 17 l 2 15 11 1 103 President (make) 8 19 21 24 27 27 21 14 2 163 (partic) 14 14 16 14 12 9 18 17 0 114 Acad Dean (make) 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 6 (partic) 19 30 31 33 34 25 29 18 1 220 Bus Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 (partic) 15 27 27 34 30 25 19 14 1 192 Dean Stdnts (make) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 (partic) 9 24 28 32 30 22 17 10 1 173 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 16 25 33 32 19 18 2 200 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 8 14 16 9 12 5 12 9 1 86 Faculty (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 (partic) 9 17 20 16 15 7 17 13 1 115 Other (make) 0 0 3 0 4 l 1 2 0 11 (partic) 2 9 8 8 9 11 8 4 1 60 ccccc===========c=~c=ccc=c================ Totals (make) 22 34 38 38 39 37 39 33 2 282 (partic) 98 174 185 194 191 144 154 114 9 1,263 ...... w w

PAGE 140

16. To raise the tuition fees. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop ChairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Totals -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 16 26 29 25 25 25 28 21 l 196 (partic) 4 7 5 6 7 7 10 10 0 56 President (make) 3 7 7 9 13 10 10 10 l 70 (partic) 17 28 29 30 26 24 29 20 l 204 Acad Dean (make) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l (partic) 15 27 27 27 34 25 26 18 l 200 Bus Officer (make) 1 0 2 3 l 3 4 l 0 15 (partic) 19 32 29 31 32 30 31 25 2 231 Dean Stdnts (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 10 24 22 24 28 22 12 11 1 154 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 9 20 21 22 26 23 10 7 1 139 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 3 2 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 15 Faculty (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 4 5 1 l 3 l 3 3 0 21 Other (make) 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 (partic) 2 7 6 5 8 8 4 3 0 43 c=~===c:cc::c=cccaKccscccc;==~======~ssccc=====~============ ========= =============== ========= = Totals (make) 21 34 38 38 40 38 42 33 2 286 (partic) 83 152 142 148 167 143 125 97 6 1,063 .._. w A

PAGE 141

17. To fill a vacancy in the administration (not the presidency) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop ChairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Offic e r p e rson Faculty Other Totals ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 5 12 11 5 14 5 16 12 l 81 (partic) 10 9 11 14 10 10 17 13 0 94 President (make) 17 22 26 30 23 29 24 20 0 191 (partic) 5 12 12 6 16 6 13 12 3 85 Acad Dean (make) 0 0 1 0 l 0 0 0 1 3 (partic) 8 20 15 20 20 14 11 14 0 122 Bus Officer (make) 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 l (partic) 17 13 22 17 14 9 9 l 106 Dean Stdnts (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 2 15 13 18 15 13 4 1 0 0 90 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 l (partic) 3 13 11 14 14 15 5 7 0 82 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 1 (partic) 1 4 2 2 3 4 2 4 l 23 Faculty (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 1 4 6 l 6 l 6 6 0 31 Other (make) 0 0 0 1 l l 0 0 0 3 (partic) 5 7 5 3 10 7 4 2 0 43 ==czca~cgcgcc~=~cca~acaacucccscu=cccccmcc==~===== = ==~== = = = = ========= ============ == == = ====== = = Totals (make) 22 34 38 37 39 37 40 32 2 281 (partic) 39 101 88 100 111 84 71 77 5 676 ....... w lTl

PAGE 142

18. To change the purpose or mission statement of the college. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop ChairIncumbent/Unit Truat Pres Dean Officer Students Officer person Faculty Other Totals -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 20 29 31 28 31 31 32 22 2 226 (partic) 2 4 2 8 6 4 6 6 0 38 President (make) 2 3 3 9 7 4 5 5 0 38 (partic) 19 30 32 28 32 31 34 22 2 230 Acad Dean (make) 0 0 1 0 0 l 1 1 0 4 (partic) 17 26 30 30 31 25 27 16 1 203 Bua Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 8 20 18 26 26 24 11 8 1 142 Dean Stdnta (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 10 22 24 28 28 23 15 10 1 161 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 12 20 20 25 25 25 10 8 1 146 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 7 11 11 9 18 11 12 8 1 88 Faculty (make) 0 1 1 0 0 2 3 4 0 11 (partic) 11 22 22 13 19 15 19 14 1 136 Other (make) 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 (partic) 4 8 12 8 9 11 5 3 0 60 -c--ac=c=--------=------c-----------c--c--cc----c---c----Totals (make) 22 34 36 37 40 38 41 33 2 283 (partic) 90 163 171 175 194 169 139 95 8 1,204 .._. w 0\

PAGE 143

19. To change the bylaws of the institution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------Position Academic Business Dean Develop ChairIncumbent/Unit Trust Pres Dean Officer Students Offic e r person Faculty Other Totals -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trustee (make) 22 32 33 35 37 36 30 29 l 255 (partic) 1 2 2 2 2 l 9 2 0 21 President (mak e) 0 1 0 1 3 l 5 1 0 12 (partic) 22 33 32 37 34 33 32 25 l 249 Acad Dean (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 9 12 15 14 25 17 19 17 1 129 Bus Officer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 6 9 11 17 20 15 9 7 1 95 Dean Stdnts (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 4 8 10 12 18 12 10 8 l 83 Devel Offer (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 5 7 10 9 21 14 6 7 1 80 Chairperson (make) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (partic) 2 2 3 l 6 l 4 5 0 24 Fapulty (make) 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 5 (partic) 2 5 5 3 9 4 10 7 0 45 Other (make) 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 7 (partic) 2 5 4 1 5 5 4 4 0 30 ca c= ;cc ccQ : cs ~= c -a =: -----= --------------= -= = =s== --cc --= --Totals (make) 23 34 35 37 40 37 39 33 l 279 (partic) 53 83 92 96 140 102 103 82 5 756 l,J -J

PAGE 144

REFERENCES American Association for Higher Education. (1967). Faculty participation in academic governance. Washington, DC: National Education Association. American Association of University Professors. (1960). Committee T: faculty participation in college and university government. AAUP Bulletin, 46, 203-205. Armour, R. (1965). Going around in academic circles. New York: McGraw-Hill. Balderston, F. E. (1974). Managing today's university. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baldridge, J. V. (1971a). Power and conflict in the university. New York: John Wiley. Baldridge, J. V. (1971b). Academic governance. Berkeley: Mccutchan. Blake, R.R., Mouton, J. S., & Williams, M. S. (1981). The academic grid. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Burnett v. Barnes, 546 S. W. 2nd. 744 (MO. 1977). Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, C. S. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1973). The governance of higher education: six priorityproblems. New York: McGraw-Hill. Chambers, M. M. (1976). Keep higher education moving. Danville, IL: Interstate Printers. Christian college coalition information. (1979). Washington, DC: Christian College Coalition. Cleary, R. E. (1978). University decision making. The Educational Forum, 43, 89-98. Cohen, M. D. & March, J.C. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: the American college president. New York: McGraw-Hill. Conversations With Clark Kerr. (1973). Association of Governance Board Reports. 15(9). 138

PAGE 145

139 Cooke, M. L. (1910) Academic and industrial efficiency. New York: Carnegie Foundation. Cowley, W. H. (1980) Presidents, professors, and trustees. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dykes, A. R. (1968). Faculty participation in academic decision making. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Eye, G. G., Gregg, R. T., Francke, D. C., Lipham, J.M., & Netzer, L.A. (1966). Relationship between instructional change and the extent to which school administrators and teachers agree on the location of responsibilities for adminsitrative decisions (Cooperative Research Project No. 5-0443). Washington, DC: United States Office of Education. Fogarty, B. M. & Gregg R. T. (1966). Centralization of decision-making and selected characteristics of superintendents of schools. Education Administration Quarterly,~, 62-72. Fox, D. J. (1969). The research process in education. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Franzreb, A. C. (1978, January/February). Warning, trustees may be dangerous to your health. Fund Raising Management, 44-45, 52. Garbarino, J. W. (1974). Creeping unionism in the faculty labor market. In M. S. Gordon (Ed.), Higher education and the labor market. New York: McGraw-Hill. Goldschmidt, D. (1978). Power and decision making in higher education. Comparative Education Review, 22, 212-241. Griffith, D. E. (1959). Administrative theory. New York: Appleton. Griffith, D. E. (1969). Administrative theory. In R. L. Ebel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of educational research (pp. 1724). London: Macmillan. Gross, E. & Grambsch, P. V. (1968). University goals and academic power. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Gross, E. & Grambsch, P. V. (1974). Changes in university organization: 1964-1971. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hartnett, R. T. (1969). College and university trustees. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Heilbron, L. H. (1973). The college and university trustee. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

PAGE 146

140 Herbst, J. (1974). The first three American colleges: schools of the reformation. Perspectives in American History: Vol. 8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Herriott, R. E. (1969). Survey research method. In R. L. Ebel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (pp. 1400-1408). London: Macmillan. Herron, O. R. (1969). The role of the trustee. Scranton, PA: International Textbook Co. Holcombe, W. N. (1974). The locus of formal decision-making for curricular and instruction in selected multi-campus community colleges (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 637A. Hudson, B. J. (1973). Perceptions of post-bargaining changes in organizational structure and locus of institutional decision making in selected community colleges (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 7002A. Ikenberry, S. O. (1971). Restructuring college and university organization and governance. Journal of Higher Education, 42, 421-429. Kerlinger, F. N. (1968). Student participation in university educational decision making. The Record, 70, 45-51. Kaplin, (1978). The law of higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McCluskey, J. W. (1972). An investigation of the locus of formal decision-making for student personnel services in selected multi-unit community college districts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Messersmith, J.C. (1964). Church-related boards responsible for higher education. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Health Education and Welfare. Oppenheim, A. N. (1966). Questionaire design and attitude measurement. New York: Basic Books. Pake, G. E. (1971). Whither United States universities? Science, 172, 908-916. Pierson, G. E. (1952). Yale college, an educational history, 1871-1921. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

PAGE 147

141 Potter, G. E. (1976). Responsibility: enhancing trustee effectiveness. New Directions for Community Colleges, (3), 9-16. Rauh, M.A. (1969). The trusteeship of colleges and universities. New York: McGraw-Hill. Richardson, R. C. (1980). Decision making in the '80s: hard nosed pragmatists vs. participative involvers. Community and Junior College Journal, 51, 25-27. Richman, B. M. & Farmer, R. N. (1974). Leadership, goals, and power in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Rosenzweig, R. M. (1970). Who wants to govern the university? Educational Record, 51, pp. 267-272. Sammartino, P. (1954). The president of a small college. Rutherford NJ: Fairleigh Dickerson College Press. Scaggs, S. W. (1980). Decision-making processes involved in curriculum change as perceived by faculty and administrators in Florida community colleges (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 4468A. Special Trustee Committee. (1957). The role of the trustees of Columbia University. New York: New York Times. Stern v. Lucy Webb Hayes National Training School for Deconnesses and Missionaries, 381 F. Supp. 1003 (D. D. C. 1974). Tice, T. N. (1972). Faculty power: collective bargaining on campus. Ann Arbor: Institute of Continuing Legal Education. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat, 518 (U. s. 1819). Van Dusseldorp, R. A., Richardson, D. E., & Foley, W. J. (1971). Educational decision-making through operations research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Veblen, T. (1965, originally published, 1918). The higher learning in American. New York: Hill and Wang.

PAGE 148

142 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Wesley Lee Rouse was born on March 29, 1936, in Canton, Ohio. In 1954, upon graduation from Anderson High School in Anderson, Indiana, Mr. Rouse joined the United States Air Force where he served as base photographer at Lincoln Air Force Base in Nebraska. Upon completion of active duty he moved to Coral Gables, Florida, and matriculated at the University of Miami where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in biology in 1962 and his Master of Arts in biology in 1971. He worked as a Research Associate in biological and oceanographic research from 1962 to 1971 for the University of Miami. In 1971 he moved to Lake Wales, Florida, to teach biology in a newly established institution, Warner Southern College. Along with teaching duties he was appointed Dean of Students and in 1982 became Vice President for Student Affairs. In 1976 he entered the College of Education at the University of Florida to pursue the Doctor of Philosophy degree with a major in educational administration. Mr. Rouse is married to the former Rebecca Minix of Sweetwater, Texas, and has a son, Jay, and a daughter, Joy. 142

PAGE 149

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ~ IL-~71U Michael Y. Nunnery, Ch rman Professor of Educatio al Administration and S pervision I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ohn Nickens rofessor of Educational Administration and Supervision I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Docr, 'j r / of J!' ( il ophy __ I /l/1 : \ 7 I 'I_ Robert Soar Professor of Foundations of Education This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Educational Administration and Supervision in the College of Education and to the Graduate School, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December, 1983 Dean for Graduate Studies and Research

PAGE 150

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 111111111/I Ill I l l lll l l l l l l l I I IIIIII I III II III I IIIIII III I IIII Ill I I 3 1262 08556 8540