Citation
Role expectations for chairpersons of occupational therapy education programs

Material Information

Title:
Role expectations for chairpersons of occupational therapy education programs
Creator:
Miller, Rosalee Jane, 1944-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 127 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic departments ( jstor )
Allied health ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
Curriculum evaluation ( jstor )
Education ( jstor )
Educational administration ( jstor )
Educational evaluation ( jstor )
Occupational medicine ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Student evaluation ( jstor )
Departmental chairmen (Universities) ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Occupational therapy -- Study and teaching ( lcsh )
Role expectation ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 122-126.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Rosalee Jane Miller.

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:
022936002 ( ALEPH )
05317476 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR CHAIRPERSONS OF
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY EDUCATION PROGRAMS








By

Rosalee Jane Miller














A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1978














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


My most special thanks and appreciation to Dr. Michael Nunnery,

who chaired my committee. His basic decency and respectfulness together

with his great competence and high standards inspired both optimism and

productivity in our working relationship.

Dr. Lela Llorens has always given generously of her time and ex-

pertise. I appreciate her assistance in this study, and her example

in our profession.

I want to thank Dr. James Wattenbarger for his contribution to my

education and this study.

Dr. Margaret Morgan has shared her enthusiasm, experience and sup-

port in ways which have significantly influenced my learning. I greatly

appreciate her help and friendship.

Alice Ann Gill has given her loving support, inspiration, enlight-

enment and assistance in many ways, over many years. I can never thank

her enough.

My parents--Ralph and Adelaide Miller, have always shown their

unfailing faith in me. That--above all else outside myself--has brought

me to this point.

Finally, I want to thank a family of friends and supporters, and

to particularly acknowledge Linda Bassham, Gerry Green, Sallie Ann

Harrison, Pat Paul, and Linda Wilson for their significant assistance

in my finishing this dissertation.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .... ii

LIST OF TABLES .... .. .. v

ABSTRACT ......... ....... ........ .. vi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .... ... ....... 1
Background and Justification .. 1
The Problem ............. ..... 4
Definition of Terms . 6
Procedures .. .... 8
Organization of the Remainder of the Study ... 12

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ... 13
Development of Occupational Therapy Education ... 13
Role Theory ........ ... ... ...... 16
Department Chairperson Role .... 23
Literature As It Relates to Occupational Therapy Department
Chairperson's Role Expectations and Potential Areas of
Conflict .. ... 31
The Literature in Retrospect .... 32

CHAPTER III RESULTS OF THE STUDY .... 33
Profile of Subjects .... .. .34
Perceptions of the Chairperson Role .... 42
Perceived Difference About Chairperson Role ... 49
Chairperson Role Conflict .................. 60

CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION ... 64
Summary ............... ......... 64
Conclusions .... ...... 69
Discussion .. ...... 72










APPENDIX A LIST OF CHAIRPERSON ROLE EXPECTATIONS TAKEN FROM
THE LITERATURE .. 81

APPENDIX B ROLE EXPECTATION SECTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE .. 88

APPENDIX C DEAN/FACULTY DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION AND
CHAIRPERSON DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION SECTIONS 98

APPENDIX D CONFLICT AND JOB SATISFACTION SECTION OF
QUESTIONNAIRE . 100

APPENDIX E RANKING OF EACH OF THE 87 IDEALIZED ROLE
EXPECTATIONS FOR EACH RESPONDENT GROUP AND FOR
ALL GROUPS COMBINED ................ 103

APPENDIX F RANKING OF EACH OF THE 87 ACTUAL ROLE
EXPECTATIONS FOR EACH RESPONDENT GROUP AND FOR
ALL GROUPS COMBINED .... 114

REFERENCE LIST ........ .. .. ... .... 122

REFERENCE NOTES ....... ............ .. 126

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................... 127














LIST OF TABLES


Page

TABLE 1 AGE OF RESPONDENTS 35

TABLE 2 SEX OF RESPONDENTS .... 35

TABLE 3 GRADUATE DEGREES HELD BY THE RESPONDENTS ... 36

TABLE 4 DEGREE FIELDS OF THE RESPONDENTS .... 37

TABLE 5 OFFICIAL TITLES OF THE RESPONDENTS .. 39

TABLE 6 LENGTH OF TIME RESPONDENTS HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN
PRESENT POSITION .... 39

TABLE 7 DEPARTMENT SIZE BASED ON NUMBER OF FACULTY ...... 40

TABLE 8 DEPARTMENT SIZE BASED ON NUMBER OF STUDENTS .. 40

TABLE 9 POSITION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITHIN THE
INSTITUTION .. 41

TABLE 10 PERCEPTIONS OF THE IDEALIZED ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON 43

TABLE 11 PERCEPTIONS OF THE ACTUAL ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON 46

TABLE 12 SUM OF RANKINGS OF TASK AREAS BY RESPONDENT GROUPS
AND H VALUE FOR EACH INSTITUTION, BASED ON PERCEP-
TIONS OF IDEALIZED ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON .. 51

TABLE 13 SUM OF RANKINGS OF TASK AREAS BY RESPONDENT GROUPS
AND H VALUE FOR EACH INSTITUTION, BASED ON PERCEP-
TIONS OF ACTUAL ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON ... 53

TABLE 14 T-VALUES BY INSTITUTION FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
PERCEIVED IDEALIZED AND ACTUAL ROLE OF CHAIRPERSON
FOR DEANS, CHAIRPERSONS, AND FACULTY ... 55

TABLE 15 DIRECTION AND MAGNITUDE OF DIFFERENCES AMONG THE
THREE RESPONDENT GROUPS FOR THE 11 TASK AREAS 57

TABLE 16 CHAIRPERSON PERCEIVED CONFLICT, BY AREA ... 61













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of
the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR CHAIRPERSONS OF
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY EDUCATION PROGRAMS

By

Rosalee Jane Miller

December, 1978

Chairman: Michael Y. Nunnery, Ed.D.
Major Department: Educational Administration

There has been much theoretical writing about organizational roles,

but the empirical research examining that theory has been limited.

Particularly in a time of demands for accountability, an appropriate

area of research is to ascertain how a particular role is perceived,

ideally and actually, and to then examine the findings of that research

in the light of existing theory. This includes the need to study roles

in the administration of higher educational institutions. One often

overlooked administrative role in such institutions is that of the aca-

demic department chairoerson, particularly chairpersons in relatively

new fields such as occupational therapy. Chairpersons in this area

have the demands of accountability to outside accrediting bodies and

for the competent delivery of health care in addition to a chairperson's

usual accountability to the university/college administration and to

their particular academic discipline.








The purpose of this study was to determine and define role expec-

tations for chairpersons of occupational therapy education programs as

held by the role incumbents and those who border that role, to identify

possible areas of conflict arising from differences in those expecta-

tions, and to relate those findings to theoretical writings on role and

role conflict theory. The theoretical basis of this study was Getzels

and associates' work on administration as a social system.

Through the instrument developed for this study from the available

literature on chairperson role expectations, answers were sought to

questions about ideal and actual chairperson role expectations, per-

ceived role conflict, and the relationship of perceived ideal role to

the theoretical role found in the literature. Copies of the instrument

were mailed to the dean, chairperson, and a representative number of

faculty of 48 of the 49 professional education programs in occupational

therapy approved by the American Occupational Therapy Association.

Usable responses were received from a total of 32 deans, 38 chairper-

sons, and 127 faculty members. The data were analyzed by means of

frequency distributions and where comparisons were required the Kruskal-

Wallis-H test and the Wilcoxon T test were used.

Based on an analysis of the findings, the following conclusions

were drawn:

1. Ideally, the relevant reference groups to chairpersons of

occupational therapy education programs believe that the departmental

chairperson should place primary emphasis on the areas of "planning,"

"fiscal responsibility," and "leadership."

2. In actual practice the relevant reference groups perceive the

chairpersons to place primary emphasis on "curriculum," "evaluation,"

"fiscal responsibility," and "planning."

vii








3. The task areas of "evaluation" and "students" are least impor-

tant to the idealized role of the chairperson as perceived by deans,

chairpersons, and faculty.

4. In actual practice, the relevant reference groups perceive the

chairperson as placing least importance in the areas of "faculty devel-

opment" and "extra-departmental communication."

5. The relevant groups are in general agreement about the ideal-

ized role of the chairperson.

6. There are differences in perception among the relevant groups

about the way chairpersons actually behave.

7. There is a difference in the way each of the relevant groups

perceive the idealized and actual role of the department chairperson.

8. There is congruence between the perceived idealized role of

the department chairperson and the theoretical role contained in the

literature.

9. There is a lack of congruence between the perceived actual

role behavior of the chairperson and the theoretical role.

10. There is potential conflict between the departmental chair-

persons and their dean and/or faculty in those areas where there is a

lack of agreement about actual chairperson role expectations.













CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION



Background and Justification



Only a small number of studies have been conducted which deal

with the role of the department chairperson in an academic setting

(Doyle, 1953; Aldmon, 1959; Smith, 1970; Zucker, 1973; Davis, 1975;

Copeland, 1975; Franks, 1975; Carnegie; 1976; Gerwin, 1977; Volz,

1977). In addition, theoretical writings in administration have paid

small heed to this position, relegating it to only parts of a chapter

in books on academic administration and/or governance (e.g.,

Richardson, Blocker & Bender, 1972; Corson, 1975). Brann and Emmet,

editors of The Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex

Role (1972) presented the major exception. Charles Heimler, in 1968,

strongly recommended research into the following questions:

How do college departmental chairmen perceive their
role? How is their administrative role perceived by the
departmental faculty and the administration? What con-
flicts, if any, exist among these perspectives? (p. 163)

The limited coverage that there has been of the department chair-

person role has been addressed to the traditional academic areas of

humanities and arts and sciences, and in the 1970's, to chairpersons

in vocational education programs. No studies have been done to assay

the role of department chairperson in the more technical/clinical area

of professional allied health programs, and specifically, occupational








therapy. Ronald Gerwin did study the "Role of the Department Chair-

person in the Administration of Health Education Programs in Community

Colleges," in 1977, but this focused on two year programs, not profes-

sional level ones.

Morgan and Canfield (1972) produced the only publication to pro-

ject role-expectations for administrators in allied health education,

and this was not the result of an empirical investigation, but rather

the proceedings of a conference. There was only one other paper known

to the researcher in which the competencies for administration in

allied health education were addressed, and it was unpublished

(Dagenais, Note 1).

The study reported herein was proposed partially to fill this

void, and as a beginning effort to define the role of the chairperson

of the academic occupational therapy department.

That the outcome of such a study would be beneficial to the pro-

fession is evidenced by the high rate of turnover of chairpersons in

occupational therapy education departments, and in the difficulty of

recruiting qualified individuals into these positions. The American

Occupational Therapy Association listing of Occupational Therapy Educa-

tional Programs for 1975 showed five acting directors, out of the 48

basic professional programs. In the 1977-78 edition of this list, six

completely different programs listed their chairpersons as "acting."

Advertisements for individuals to fill several of these positions ran

continuously in the American Journal of Occupational Therapy and/or the

American Occupational Therapy Association Newspaper during 1977-78.

These numbers show a 23 percent turnover rate in a three year period.








One cause of this turnover may be that occupational therapy is an

applied area rather than an academic one, and the related continuing

disregard for the need to prepare individuals in professional education

for roles in faculty and administration of occupational therapy educa-

tion (Jantzen, 1974).

The practice of occupational therapy is the heart of
our field--the delivery of our particular kind of health
care services to patients or clients is the reason for the
existence of occupational therapy. I would like to
have you consider academic occupational therapy as a career
specialty in our field, grounded in the basic bodies of
knowledge required of clinical specialties, but requiring
additional knowledge for competent performance in the
academic setting. (p.74)

Carrying this point further, most persons who come to the chair-

person role have training and experience as clinicians, and many as

faculty; but almost none have experience or training as academic admin-

istrators. This may result in their being less confident of what

their role is in the academic setting. The better one understands the

role one plays in an organization and the more congruence which exists

between expectations for that role (of the chairperson) and those who

border it (deans and faculty), the less conflict there is apt to be

(Getzels, 1958, p. 160).

By using all the professional level occupational therapy education

programs accredited by the American Occupational Therapy Association as

the population for the study reported herein, the results can be gener-

alized and applied appropriately to examination of problems in any one,

or number of, these problems. The results of this study show where

areas of both agreement and disagreement exist about role-expectations

for chairpersons. Where disagreement exists, there is potential for

conflict (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek & Rosenthal, 1966, p. 278; Parsons

& Shils, 1951, p. 350; Blau & Scott, 1962, p. 195).








Such conflict is generally not productive, as stated by Kahn and

associates (1966) in the following:

When pressures from associates are especially strong
and directed toward changes in the behavior of the focal
person, or when they are contradictory to one another, the
experience is apt to be fraught with conflict and ambigu-
ity, and to evoke responses of tension, anger, or indeci-
sion. (p. 278)

In a more general sense, Parsons and Shils (1951) maintained that

the

.dynamic analysis of the role or role-constellation
where value pattern, social structure, and personality
come together. is, without a doubt, the most strategic
point at which to attempt to extend dynamic knowledge in
such a way that it will promise a maximum of fruitful gen-
eral results for the theory of action. (p. 243)

This, then, was further justification for this study.


The Problem


Statement of the Problem

The general focus of this study was to determine and define role

expectations held for chairpersons of occupational therapy education

programs by the role incumbents and those who border that role. As a

means of determining what these role-expectations were, answers were

sought to the following questions:

1. What is the idealized role of the chairperson as per-
ceived by a) the deans or equivalent administrators,
b) the chairpersons, c) a representative number of
faculty, and d) all groups combined?

2. What is the actual role behavior of the chairperson
as perceived by a the deans or equivalent administra-
tors, b) the chairpersons, c) a representative number
of faculty, and d) all groups combined?

3. Is there a difference in perception about idealized
chairperson role among dean, chairperson, and faculty
in each institution and for all institutions?








4. Is there a difference in perception about actual
chairperson role behavior among dean, chairperson,
and faculty in each institution and for all insti-
tutions?

5. Is there a difference between idealized and actual
chairperson role behavior as perceived by a) deans,
b) chairpersons, and c) faculty, for each institu-
tion and for all institutions?

6. How does the actual role behavior of chairpersons
as perceived by each of the aforementioned groups
compare with the theoretical role of department
chairpersons found in the literature?

7. What do chairpersons identify as areas of conflict,
and how do these results relate to possible areas
of conflict identified in the results of this study?


Delimitations and Limitations

This study was conducted on a national level, with cooperation

sought from every occupational therapy education department offering

at least a baccalaureate degree and/or a professional certificate pro-

gram in occupational therapy, and listed by the American Occupational

Therapy Association (AOTA) in their pamphlet, "Educational Programs in

Occupational Therapy" (AOTA, 1977). Forty-nine such departments were

listed in the September, 1977-78, version of this pamphlet. One, the

University of Florida program, was included in the test group used in

development of the instrument for this study, and was therefore not

included in the final study. Thus, 48 programs were surveyed by means

of questionnaires mailed to designated responsible individuals in each

program.

For each of these departments the dean or equivalent administrator

to whom the chairperson was accountable was asked to indicate through

the mailed instrument developed for this study, how she or he perceived

the ideal role and the actual role performance of the chairperson of








the occupational therapy program. The chairperson, and four faculty,

the two oldest and the two newest in length of service in the depart-

ment, were asked to do likewise, in each of the 48 departments included

in this study. Returns indicated that 21 of the 39 programs responding

had fewer than 4 full-time faculty.

In sum, using a researcher developed instrument, perceptions were

sought from 48 deans, 48 chairpersons, and 192 faculty members. Re-

sponses were received from 32 deans, 38 chairpersons, and 127 faculty.

A limitation of this study was the reality that full return on

mailed questionnaires is unlikely, and that the results were therefore

skewed by the percentage of non-returns. Also, because of their knowl-

edge that they were participating in a research investigation, the

respondents may have been influenced in their answers. In an attempt

to minimize this effect, respondents were assured of complete anonymity

and confidentiality.

Since the study encompasses 48 of the 49 accredited programs in

the United States and since the return rate from chairpersons was 79%,

deans was 67%, and faculty was 66%, it was believed that the general-

izability of this study was not seriously hampered and that there

therefore was still a reasonably high degree of external validity.


Definition of Terms


Allied health. Those professionals that are traditionally consid-

ered "allied" to medicine. Generally included are occupational ther-

apy, physical therapy, rehabilitation counseling, vocational








rehabilitation, medical technology, clinical and community dietetics,

communicative disorders, and sometimes clinical psychology, nursing,

and hospital administration.

Chairperson. The acknowledged administrative head of an academic

department.

Dean. The person holding the position in the academic hierarchy

to which department chairpersons are administratively responsible.

Department. The smallest organizational structure in the tradi-

tional academic setting. A collection of faculty organized around a

particular academic discipline.

Faculty. Those persons, considered experts in a particular field,

employed to work in academic departments to teach, conduct research,

and to publish.

Occupational therapy. The art and science of applying purpose-

ful activity to the maintenance or increase of function or to the

prevention of disability, in physical and/or mental health.

Role. A set of expectations applied to the position of chairper-

son of an occupational therapy education department.

Role-conflict. A situation in which a role incumbent must conform

simultaneously to a number of expectations which are mutually exclu-

sive, contradictory, or inconsistent so that the performance of one

set of duties makes performance of another set difficult or impossible.

Role-expectations. Those rights, duties, privileges, and obliga-

tions that delineate what a person should and should not do under var-

ious circumstances as the incumbent of a particular role.

Role-theory. Theory developed by "experts" and reported in the

literature, dealing with the concept of role.








Procedures



The investigation was national in scope. Questionnaires were

utilized as the means of gathering information. In the following para-

graphs, attention is given to the selection of participants, instrumen-

tation and data collection, and data analysis.


Selection of Participants

The participants for this study were drawn from all but one of the

baccalaureate and certificate degree programs listed by the American

Occupational Therapy Association in its pamphlet, "Educational Programs

in Occupational Therapy," (1977). The one exception was the University

of Florida which was used as a test group for the instrument and was

therefore not included in the population for the study itself. There-

fore, personnel associated with 48 professional programs were surveyed.

Three classes of participants were included from within each of

these programs:

1. The dean or equivalent administrator to whom the chairperson

of occupational therapy was administratively accountable (total--48).

2. The chairperson of the occupational therapy education depart-

ment (total--48).

3. Four faculty members in occupational therapy--the two oldest

and the two newest in terms of time in that department (total--192).

The chairpersons were asked to select and give questionnaires to these

individuals as it was considered that this was the best way to achieve

a representative sampling of faculty. (Chairperson responses to the

question about the number of full-time faculty indicated that of the

38 programs participating in this study, 21 had fewer than 4 full-time

faculty.)








Responses were received from 32 deans, 38 chairpersons, and 127

faculty. The return rate, then, was 67% of deans, 79% of chairpersons,

and 66% of faculty.


Instrumentation and Data Collection

The instrument used in collecting the data was a questionnaire

which the researcher developed based on a review of the literature and

testing with a panel of experts. These experts were the department

chairpersons, selected faculty, and the dean of the College of Health

Related Professions at the University of Florida. The second, and

major, part of this instrument was common to all respondents, and con-

sisted of the list of competency statements or role-expectations devel-

oped from the literature (See Appendix A). This list was divided into

11 major categories or task areas, each containing from 6-12 role-

expectations (Appendix B).

Each subject was asked to indicate on a 5-point scale, the impor-

tance they observed their chairperson actually giving to each behavior,

and, on another 5-point scale, the importance they thought their chair-

person ideally ought to be placing on the behavior. (If they had no

opinion or no knowledge of the behavior they were instructed to circle

0.) The faculty, the chairpersons, and the deans or equivalent admin-

istrators were asked to complete this part of the questionnaire.

Every respondent was asked to answer certain common descriptive

questions. These related to their gender, length of time in their

present position, degrees held beyond the bachelor's, official title,

and age. Additionally, chairpersons were asked about number of depart-

ment faculty and students, administrative location of department, and

whether or not faculty were unionized.







These questions were asked in order that as one examined the find-

inqs one might have some basis for hypothesizing about the reason cer-

tain patterns of response were present. For example: Lee reported that

the size of a department (in both number of students and number of

faculty) has been shown to be a significant factor effecting role-

expectation (Lee, 1972). Both the 5-question faculty/dean descriptive

section and the 10-question chairperson descriptive section are repro-

duced as Aopendix C.

The chairperson questionnaire included a third section in which

chairpersons were asked to indicate, on a scale of 1--no conflict, 2--

some conflict, 3--much conflict, the amount of conflict they experienced

with their dean and/or faculty in each of the 11 major categories in-

cluded in the role-expectations section. This information was then com-

pared with the returns from the deans and faculty to see if the chair-

person's perceptions of conflict areas were shared by others. (See

Appendix D.)

Finally, the chairpersons were asked to indicate their level of

overall satisfaction with their present job...from very satisfied to

very dissatisfied. Role conflict is directly related to job satisfac-

tion; as indicated by Kahn (p. 278) and by Getzels and associates (Get-

zels et al., 1968, p. 128), among others; and therefore to turnover rate.


Data Analysis

Much of the analysis of data for this study was by inspection and

simple nonparametric statistics. To illustrate, as a part of question

3 a comparison between deans' and chairpersons' perceptions of the

chairperson idealized role was proposed. Total idealized scores were

found for deans and for chairpersons, then the two were analyzed by








Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance test to see if the differ-

ences were significant.

The responses for each subject were tabulated for each of the 11

major role categories or task areas, and for the total instrument.

Thus, a "score" for each task area and for the total instrument was

determined. In this example, the total score of the deans' perceptions

of the idealized chairperson role was computed and compared with the

total score of chairpersons' perceptions. The same basic procedure was

repeated for all groups for questions 1 through 5. For questions 3 and

4 the Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance was used because it

is valid for three or more groups. These questions focused on the dif-

ferences among the groups. For question 5 the Wilcoxon T was used.

This test indicates magnitude and direction of differences within pairs.

In regard to questions 6 and 7, the responses were collected and

examined logically in relation to role theory, role conflict theory,

and role expectations of department chairpersons, for the purpose of

noting areas of agreement and difference.

Question 7, dealing with chairperson perception of conflict, was

additionally analyzed by comparing areas the chairperson identified as

areas of conflict with areas of potential conflict identified in the

central part of the questionnaire through means of the Kruskal-Wallis

Test.




12


Organization of the Remainder of the Study



Chapter Two which follows immediately is focused on a review of

the relevant literature which provides the theoretical framework in

context of which the present study was conducted. In Chapter Three the

findings obtained from the questionnaire are reported and results of

statistical tests are presented as they relate to the problem state-

ments in this study. The results are discussed, conclusions are made,

and the total study is summarized in Chapter Four.














CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE



The review of related literature for this study is divided into

three major sections. The first describes briefly the development of

occupational therapy education. This is important for an understanding

of the context within which occupational therapy chairpersons function.

The second section focuses on role theory and role-conflict theory. In

the third and final part the focus is on the theoretical literature and

research relative to chairperson roles.



Development of Occupational Therapy Education



In her article in the American Journal of Occupational Therapy in

1971, Harriet Heitlinger Woodside related that occupational therapy

emerged from two sources. The first was in the psychiatric milieu

where, in the late 1800's, "the therapeutic value of free, pleasant and

profitable occupation developed and the more advanced mental hospitals

began creating recreational and work programs" (p. 227).

Many of the founders of the profession of occupational
therapy were the doctors, nurses, and craftsmen engaged
in adventures in using activities to help mental patients
experience the feeling of productivity. These founders
became convinced that their endeavors speeded the patients'
recovery. (p. 227)

The second source from which occupational therapy sprang was the First

World War.







Our more concrete roots extend from the First World War,
when the country anticipated that with improved medical
and surgical techniques, large numbers of the wounded
would need an active rehabilitation program and that this
would require trained personnel. This led to Reconstruc-
tion Aides and a large war and postwar reconstruction pro-
gram of rehabilitation. On October 17, 1917, the
National Society for the Promotion of Occupational Therapy
was founded. (p. 227)

Woodside went on to delineate the development of occupational

therapy education:

The new profession was working during its early years to
establish educational standards. Until 1911, occupational
therapy programs were supervised by physicians and carried
out by craftsmen or untrained individuals because there
were no specific practitioners. In that year, Susan E.
Tracy, a nurse who had become convinced of the value of
patient activity, began a course in Invalid Occupations
for student nurses at the Massachusetts General Hospital.
(p. 228)

Immediately after the War the Surgeon General of the United States

Army encouraged the development of centers to train practitioners to

work with disabled soldiers. The first occupational therapy school

within an academic setting was established at Milwaukee-Downer College

in 1918.

Soon occupational therapy departments in hospitals came to
serve all patients, not just returning soldiers and the
mentally ill, and a second wave of professional schools
arose in response to the need for more personnel and more
diverse services. Shortly after the establishment of the
first professional schools, occupational therapy education
was improved and expanded. By 1922, the need for organiza-
tion of occupational therapy schools was recognized by the
national association and a chairman for the education com-
mittee of the national society was appointed. This created
the first direct link between occupational therapy educa-
tion and the professional association. In 1923, minimum
standards for education courses were published. The
1920's saw distinct improvements in our education because
several individuals with foresight worked hard for
change. All occupational therapy schools became affil-
iated with colleges and universities. Struggles over
what to teach resulted in the establishment of the educa-
tion committee and in the publication of the first set of
minimum essentials of education in 1923. However, the








issue of what to teach remained a heavily debated one...
and it wasn't until national registration began in 1929
that occupational therapy had a specific set of creden-
tials for their practitioners. (Woodside, 1971, p. 228-
29)

The minimum standards for education which Woodside mentioned were

developed in partnership with the American Medical Association, which

has retained co-control of occupational therapy education. Until 1974

the minimum standards for education declared that clinical subjects

should be formulated and conducted in collaboration with physicians.

This situation led Karen Diasio to declare, in 1971, "The American

Medical Association still controls occupational therapy curriculums"

(p. 240).

Occupational therapy departments, for the most part, were located

where there may be considerable input directly from the medical profes-

sion--either within medical schools, or in colleges of allied health or

health related professions which are largely controlled by the medical

education establishment. This relationship removes from the department

chairperson some of the power over curriculum content which is gener-

ally held by that position. The accrediting process through the Amer-

ican Medical Association and the American Occupational Therapy Associa-

tion puts the department chairperson in the position of accepting

directions from individuals who may or may not be qualified to make

the best judgements for the profession of occupational therapy.

The above delineated factors in the development of occupational

therapy education indicate that the administration of such departments

demand different knowledge and skills from those required of tradition-

al academic department chairpersons. For instance, as Alice Jantzen

stated in her Eleanor Clarke Slagle Lecture in 1973:








The practice of occupational therapy is the heart of our
field--the delivery of our particular kind of health care
services to patients or clients is the reason for the
existence of occupational therapy. (p. 74)

The administration of a department of occupational therapy then

requires accountability for the competent delivery of health care and

accountability to the accrediting bodies for the establishment and

maintenance of the program, as well as accountability to the university

administration.



Role Theory


Biddle and Thomas (1966) offered the following definitions of

role:

1. A behavioral repertoire characteristic of a person or
a position;

2. A set of standards, descriptions, norms, or concepts
held (by anyone) for the behaviors of a person or a
position;

3. A position. (pp. 11-12)

But Parsons and Shils (1951) offered the most precise definition of

role as it related to the subject of the study reported herein:

.the most significant unit of such point structures is not
the person but the role. The role is that organized sector
of an actor's orientation which constitutes and defines his
participation in an interactive process. It involves a set
of complementary expectations concerning his own actions
and those of others with whom he interacts. Both the actor
and those with whom he interacts possess these expectations.
Roles are institutionalized when they are fully congruous
with the prevailing culture patterns and are organized
around expectations of conformity with morally sanctioned
patterns of value-orientations shared by the members of the
collectivity in which the role functions. (p. 23)

They discussed the interaction between the role incumbent and the per-

son viewing that role in the following excerpt:







S. the contact surface of the personality and social
systems lies between need-dispositions of ego and role-
expectations of various alters. The essential element in
the role is the complementarity of expectations. The out-
come of ego's action, in terms of its significance to him
is contingent on alter's reaction to what he does. This
reaction in turn is not random but is organized relative
to alter's expectation concerning what is "proper" behav-
ior on ego's part.
Role-expectations are the definitions by both ego
and alter of what behavior is proper for each in the rela-
tionship and in the situation in question. Both role
expectations and sanctions are essential to the total
concept of a "role in the concrete sense of a segment of
the action of the individual. (pp. 153-54)

Parsons and Shils' book, Toward a General Theory of Action, (1951)

established them as experts and as classic theoreticians. Most all

scholarly efforts since 1951 in the field of roles acknowledges their

contribution in one way or another. One of the most well recognized

applications of their theory to the area of educational administration

is in the work of Getzels and his associates (Getzels, Lipham &

Campbell, 1968). Given the prominence of the model developed by

Getzels and associates, the details of their formulations are provided

in the paragraphs that follow.

Administration of a Social System

Getzels and associates conceived of administration as a social

process, and of its context as a social system. They content that

administration can be examined from the structural, the functional, and

the operational points of view. Structurally, they saw administration

as a hierarchy of superordinate-subordinate relationships. Function-

ally, they postulated that this hierarchy is the locus for the alloca-

tion and integration of roles and facilities to achieve the goals of

the system. And operationally, they saw administration happening in

person-to-person interaction. This third, operational, context implies








that no matter how well the first two are defined, people will not al-

ways agree or carry out their functions smoothly. This crucial opera-

tional aspect of administration is the one on which Getzels and asso-

ciates' social systems model focused (Getzels et al., 1968, p. 53).

For analysis of the administrative process, Getzels and associates

saw the social system as involving two basic groups of phenomena.

These groups are conceptually independent, but practically interactive,

These two groups are:

1) the institutions, with certain roles and expectations,
that will fulfill the goals of the system; and 2) the
individuals, with certain personalities and dispositions,
inhabiting the system, whose observed interactions com-
prise what we call social behavior. (p. 56)

The first of these groups they termed the normative dimension of

their model, which could be labeled a sociological perspective. The

second they called the personal dimension, which is analogous to a psy-

chological perspective. Along the normative dimension of this model,

they included institution, role, and expectations. Institutions were

seen as purposive, peopled, structural, normative, and sanction-bearing

(i.e., mete out praise, disapproval, punishment, awards). Role was

used by Getzels et al. as in Parsons and Shils' definition:

that organized sector of an actor's orientation which
constitutes and defines his participation in an interactive
process. It involves a set of complementary expectations
concerning his own actions and those of others with whom
he interacts. (p. 23)

Roles are defined in terms of role expectations, they are more or less

flexible, they are complementary (interdependent), and they vary in

scope from the functionally specific to the functionally diffuse

(Getzels et al., 1968, pp. 61-63). Expectations were described as

those prescriptions (rights, duties, etc.) "that delineate what a








person should and should not do under various circumstances as the in-

cumbent of a particular role in a social system" (Getzels et al.,

1968, p. 64).

The personal dimension in the model consists of the individual,

her/his personality, and her/his need-dispositions. They included this

dimension because it makes the system account for the fact that people

have different personalities and unique styles of dealing with their

roles. They contended that it is not enough to know the nature of the

normative dimension elements to understand a particular person's behav-

ior in a system. It is essential to also know about the person indi-

vidually, to understand the person's ways of perceiving and her/his

particular needs (p. 65).

Getzels and associates' definition of personality was a result of

borrowing from Allport and Parsons and inserting some of their own

interpretation: "Personality is the dynamic organization within the

individual of those need-dispositions that determine his unique inter-

actions with his environment (Getzels et al., 1968, p. 68).

Need-dispositions were seen as forces within the individual which

are goal-oriented. They determine the cognitive and perceptual styles

which a person brings to any role, they vary in specificity and they

are organized, both horizontally and vertically. This latter charac-

teristic means that the very gratification of one need (e.g., landing

a good job) may activate other needs (e.g., to innovate). Getzels and

associates urged that administrators must be aware of this so they do

not inadvertently foster dissatisfaction by putting an employee into a

role and then assuming all will be well (pp. 70-75).








Getzels and associates therefore maintained that behavior in a

social system is always the result of interaction between the person-

ality factors (personal dimension) and the role factors (normative

dimension). From their model they derived the equation B = f(RxP),

where B = observed behavior, R = the institutional role defined by its

attached expectations, and P = the personality of the role incumbent

defined by his need-dispositions (p. 80). This has great similarity

to Kurt Lewin's formula, B = f(P,E), where B = behavior, P = the per-

son, and E = the environment. The major difference, though, is that

Lewin contended that ". .. to understand or to predict behavior, the

person and his environment have to be considered as one constellation

of interdependent factors" (Lewin, 1951, p. 240). Environment is not

independent of the person (P) because it (E) is defined by the percep-

tion of the person. In Getzel and associates' formula, on the other

hand, R (E defined in terms of role expectations) is given by the in-

stitution, completely apart from the person's perception of it (p. 81).

The study reported herein focused on only the normative dimension

in the Getzels and associates model. This was based on the reality

that measurement of the personal dimension is considerably more diffi-

cult to achieve with any amount of accuracy, and is validated by the

following statement by Parsons and Shils:

When we recognize that roles rather than personal-
ities are the units of social structure, we can perceive
the necessity of an element of "looseness" in the rela-
tions between personality structure and the performance
of a role. (p. 23)

Role Conflict

One of the values of analyzing expectations held by different

individuals for the same role is the determination of where those








expectations do and do not overlap. Where there is disparity about

expectations there is potential for conflict.

When the perceptions of the expectations of partici-
pants in an administrative interaction overlap, the par-
ticipants feel satisfied with the work accomplished no
matter what the actual behavior or accomplishment: when
the perception of the expectations does not overlap, the
participants feel dissatisfied. (Getzels, 1958, p. 160)

In illustrating this point, Getzels related the results of a study

conducted in which a problem situation instrument was used with 180

administrators who had had consultant services, and with 46 consultants

who had provided that service. Each was asked to evaluate the outcome

of their consultation. Results showed that when the two agreed on ex-

pectations, they both rated the consultation favorably. But when they

disagreed on expectations they rated the consultation unfavorably.

This reinforced the view that the crucial aspect of successful adminis-

trative interaction was overlap in perception of expectations (p. 160).

When expectations for a role do not overlap, or are inconsistent,

the results may be experienced by the role-incumbent as conflict.

Mishler wrote that conflict may arise because of,

a) agreement within a single alter group upon several
behaviors which are mutually difficult to achieve, b)
disagreement within an alter group on the expectations
to be required of a role, or c) disagreement between
several alter groups of the expectations to be required
of a role. 1953, p. 123)

The first two types of conflict mentioned by Mishler were identi-

fied by Getzels and associates as intrareference group conflict. The

third, disagreement between alter groups, they classify as interrefer-

ence group conflict, as illustrated in the following example: Differ-

ent expectations of the teacher are made by the principal, by students,

by parents, and by the school board. These demands are often








contradictory, and create internal strain for the individual. Likewise,

a college professors' students expect a priority on teaching, where her/

his dean may expect a priority on research and publishing. Another

kind of role conflict occurs when the individual attempts to fill two

or more contradictory roles at one time (e.g., principal-counselor,

manager-leader) (Getzels, 1958, p. 161). It is necessary for adminis-

trators to facilitate clarification of role and expectations in order

to minimize potential role conflict.

Gross, Mason & McEachern (1958) added the perspective that role

conflict should be defined "according to incompatible expectations by

the actor" (p. 244), in addition to those held by the alter groups.

Thus, this definition of interrole conflict is that situation in which

the role incumbent perceives that others hold different expectations

for her/him as holder of two or more positions.

Kahn and associates (1966), addressed the matter of discovering

the degree of conflict in any given role set.

To understand the degree of conflict or ambiguity in
the role, the total pattern of [expectations of each role
sender and the nature of sent role pressures] must be con-
sidered. A thorough investigation into all the role ex-
pectations held at a given moment by all the members of
the role set should yield an indication of the potential
in the situation for conflict. The actual degree of ob-
jective role conflict will depend on the configuration
of role pressures actually exerted by role senders on the
focal person. His experience of this conflict will in
turn depend upon its objective magnitude and on certain
characteristics of the focal person himself. (p. 278)

The ways in which role incumbents cope with this conflict is

also influenced by four mechanisms listed by Blau and Scott (1962),

as follows:

There are several mechanisms that help to articu-
late. conflicting demands: 1) differences in the
importance and power of the various members of an








individual's role-set help to determine whose expectations
will govern his actions; 2) the fact that a person usually
does not have contact with all members of his role-set at
once enables him to live up to the expectations of some at
one time and to the conflicting expectations of others at
a different time; 3) when the others realize that they are
making conflicting demands. they will themselves often at-
tempt to resolve their differences; and 4) several indivi-
duals occupying the same social status can combine for
mutual support. (p. 195)

It is clear, from this presentation of role conflict theory, that

1) such conflict is common, and 2) the first step toward resolving it

is to recognize its existence. The present study was intended to de-

termine in part the source of possible role conflict for chairpersons

by determining where there is incongruence in expectations about chair-

person role between and among themselves and those who border that role

(i.e., deans and faculty). Additionally, chairpersons were asked to

identify what they perceived as areas of conflict between themselves

and those two alter groups.


Department Chairperson Role


This section is devoted to a) an overview of general literature

addressing the topic, b) a presentation of several related studies,

and c) the development of a list of chairperson role-expectations taken

from a number of sources and synthesized into the instrument for the

present study.

Overview

Joy Hastings Davis (1975) began discussion of this topic in her

dissertation with the following paragraph:

Perhaps the most accurate description of the role of
the university department chairman is ambivalent as there
exists a plethora of literature describing what the








chairman is and is not, what he should and should not be
... Unlike the foreman in industry, his job is usually
so ill-defined that at most colleges there is no written
description of his duties. At best he finds himself torn
by loyalty and responsibility among at least three groups
with tremendous differences in goals, attitudes, needs and
criteria for approval: his disciplinary colleagues, his
students, and the administrators above him. (p. 11)

And yet, as Mobley indicated (1971), the department chairperson

fills one of the most important positions in a university. The chair-

person holds line responsibility in the university and is therefore at

the point where the administration contacts the faculty. "The chairman

is the key to the success or failure of the departmental program"

(p. 321).

Roach (1976) noted:

The academic department chairperson shifts from being
a subject matter specialist to a developer of departmental
programs and a partner in shaping the educational mission
of the school.
Today the academic department is the key to the suc-
cessful achievement of the school's primary mission. The
chairperson functions as chief academic planner and re-
source allocator in his role as administrator of all as-
pects of the department. (p. 13)

The middleperson position is the cause of considerable role con-

flict for chairpersons, as pointed out by Corson (1975), Brann (1972),

and Lee (1972), among others. Lee presented the issue well:

The role. of the department chairman is an ex-
ceedingly difficult one. In his own eyes he is still
primarily a teacher who has assumed certain administrative
tasks and responsibilities. He has not, as it were,
"sold out" completely to the other side by becoming a
dean. He is, therefore, quite often in conflict as to
whether his role is one of spokesman for his colleagues
in the department, or whether it is one of an adminis-
trator who must make the decisions not only for the
welfare of his department, but for the welfare of the
college and university as a whole. What is difficult
of course is that he must balance both roles. (p. 54-
55)








In addition, the role of the chairperson will vary depending on

the particular department, the size of that department, its place and

importance within the total institution, and the time within the de-

partment's history that the chairperson is appointed (Lee, 1972, p. 55).

Little has been done, as Morgan and Canfield (1972) noted, to

single out competencies of the effective chairperson, particularly in

allied health (p. v). There are other factors, in addition to those

mentioned by Lee, which effect the role of a chairperson in allied

health. Howard Suzuki explored some of these issues from the viewpoint

of a dean of a college of health related professions:

.the governance of allied health units will vary, de-
pendent in part upon whether or not they are a) units asso-
ciated with university health centers, non-university affil-
iated medical centers or universities without health centers;
b) full-fledged college units or a division within another
health science college, such as medicine or nursing, c) units
able to offer different combinations of certificate, associ-
ate, baccalaureate, and/or graduate degrees in a wide variety
of programs. (1972, p. 1)

In relation to the relative newness of the allied health professions

he said:

The recency of the allied health units and their concomitant
fundamental unit, the department, does not allow for a great
deal of variability in the position of the departmental
chairman. In other more established professional colleges,
faculty members may rotate annually as chairman, and full
professors may yield more influence on educational policies
than the chairman. Furthermore, the purposes of the profes-
sional schools are more goal specific and, as a result, de-
partment heads may not be able to exercise as much latitude
and authority in policy matters as might be true in other
schools. (p. 4)

Suzuki went on to identify two other issues which made the organ-

ization of allied health education unique from most others. Those are

the necessity for clinical competence on the part of faculty (and

chairperson), and the acknowledgement that sexism may play a part.








Faculty members in allied health units have additional re-
sponsibilities not necessarily essential to those affili-
ated with arts and science departments. For example, our
faculty is expected to have competencies in the pragmatic
and relevant areas of patient or client care. (p. 4)

.the influence of departmental chairman among other
university colleagues may vary due to lack of the doctorate
and/or due to some chauvinistic prejudices against female
department chairman (sic) or faculty members. (p. 5)

In spite of all the aforementioned restraints and conflicts, the

chairperson is crucial to the strength or weakness of the department,

since she or he

.has a great deal of authority in selection of faculty,
teaching assignments, and curricular content, and serves
as the formal intermediary between the faculty and the ad-
ministration. (Suzuki, 1972, p. 6)


Related Studies

There are several major studies, one proceedings, and a paper

which are directly relevant to the present study. The earliest of

these was a dissertation done in 1953 by Doyle entitled The Status

and Functions of the Department Chairman. This was a study of 33

selected liberal arts colleges. He compiled descriptive information

on methods of selection of chairpersons; relationships between chair-

person and faculty, chairperson and administration, and chairperson

duties. He found the following duties of department chairpersons:

1) teaching and supervisory functions

2) administrative duties such as
a) preparation of department budget
b) responsibility for statement of department aims
and offerings
c) proper maintenance of a departmental library
d) maintenance of faculty records of department
e) maintenance of student academic and personnel records




LI


3) miscellaneous duties including representation of the
institution and department at educational meetings
and conferences as well as personal research and pro-
ductive scholarship. (pp. 34-35)

The second significant study was Smith's (1970). He developed an

extensive instrument, the major section of which contained 46 "acti-

vities of the department chairman." Three groups of respondents--

chairpersons, faculty, and "upper echelon administrators"--were asked

to indicate on a 6-point scale what each felt was the actual behavior

response of the chairperson for each activity, and what each felt was

the expected behavior response for each activity. The objective he was

seeking by this part of his questionnaire is related to the present

study. It was:

.to describe what community college department chair-
men, department faculty, and upper echelon administrators
believe should be the role of the community college chair-
man and to measure the extent to which chairmen are in fact
conforming to these expectations. (p. 6)

Smith used his questionnaire with all full-time faculty, depart-

ment heads, and upper echelon administrators in 12 public community

colleges in one midwestern state. In his discussion of results he

looked at differences of expectations within and among sample popula-

tions, and also within single departments:

The results support the conclusion that community
college faculty members on the average are in basic dis-
agreement with department chairmen and upper echelon
administrators over their expectations for and observa-
tions of the role behavior of incumbents of the community
college chairman's position. The examination of the con-
forming behavior of community college department chairmen
led to the conclusion that chairmen as a group are not
living up to either their own, their faculties', or their
supervisors' expectations for their role behavior. (p. 317)

The third related study was a 1973 dissertation by Zucker. He

developed a model for "determining the role perceptions of department








chairmen at a large university" (p. xiv). He constructed a question-

naire based on that model and administered it to all department chair-

persons at the University of Florida. Zucker's findings, limited by

their applicability to only one university, indicated that "the Uni-

versity of Florida department chairman saw his main tasks as those of

recruiting faculty, developing programs, improving instruction, evalu-

ating faculty and staff, and preparing the departmental budget"

(p. 6929A).

In 1976, Clyde Carnegie completed his dissertation on "Role Expec-

tations of Community Junior College Department Chairpersons." He sent

questionnaires, consisting of 35 administrative activities grouped

under 6 administrative functions, to departmental faculty, department

chairpersons, and upper echelon administrators in 10 community junior

colleges in Michigan. Respondents were asked to indicate both actual

and desired chairperson behaviors for each of the 35 administrative

activities listed. He found that there was no significant difference

in perception about chairperson role between the different responding

groups. He did find a significant difference between actual perceived

behavior (Tl) and desired behavior (T2) with p =.0001. Respondents

tended to agree that the 35 administrative activities listed were im-

portant tasks for departmental chairpersons.

Two dissertations dealing with different aspects of chairperson

role expectations were completed in 1977. Ruth Volz completed "An

Analysis of the Actual and Ideal Roles of Vocational Education Depart-

ment Heads as Perceived by Deans, Heads, and Faculty"; and Frances

Aguon investigated the "Status of Department Chairpersons as Perceived

by Academic College Deans, Department Chairpersons, and Faculty at

Western Michigan University."








Volz's purpose was to "assess and analyze the perceptions of deans

of education, vocational education department heads, and vocational

education faculty concerning the actual and ideal role of the depart-

ment head" (p. 4131-A). She used 10 vocational education departments

at major universities as her population. Using ANOVA, the Duncan's

multiple range test, and the correlated t test to analyze her date,

she found the following:

1. The greatest degree of congruency appeared to exist
with the college of education deans regarding the
actual and ideal performance of vocational education
department head's leader behavior. The least amount
of congruency existed with the faculty regarding
their perception of the actual and ideal leader be-
havior of vocational education department heads.

2. Incongruency existed for both department heads and
faculty in their perceptions of actual vs. ideal
leader behavior.

3. Congruency existed among all three reference groups
with regard to their perceptions of both the overall
ideal leader behavior as well as the ideal leader
behavior on each of the 12 subscales.

4. The deans, department heads, and faculty perceived
the actual leader behavior of the vocational educa-
tion department head congruently.
(p. 4131-A)

Aguon compared the perceptions of deans, department chairpersons,

and faculty about "qualifications for, methods of selection of, major

responsibilities of, and prerequisites of the department chair," on

both actual and ideal scales in a questionnaire consisting of 98 chair-

person task descriptions. From a sample of 861 persons at Western

Michigan University she received a 47 percent usable response, and

reported the following results:

1. There were 18 descriptions on which the groups dif-
fered significantly in their perceptions as to the
degree of importance that the descriptions had been
accorded in practice (real).







2. There were 24 descriptions on which the groups dif-
fered significantly in their perceptions as to the
degree of importance that the descriptions should
be accorded in the future (ideal).

3. There were perceived differences between the "real"
and the "ideal" for:
(a) 27 descriptions according to the academic college
deans,
(b) 44 descriptions according to the department
chairpersons, and
(c) 77 descriptions according to the faculty.
(p. 1755-A)

Tucker, at the Institute for Departmental Leadership at Florida

State University conducted a study of all departmental chairpersons in

the Florida University System. The purpose was to ascertain through

questionnaire areas in which chairpersons needed enhancement of their

planning, management, and leadership competencies (Note 2). Relevant

to this study, he found that 68 percent had no administrative experi-

ence prior to becoming chairpersons.

In 1972, a conference was held at the University of Florida in

which the speakers addressed themselves to the issue of competencies

for administrators in allied health education. One hundred and fifty

competency statements were identified, shared, discussed, and re-

written into a list of 52. These were organized under the headings of

administrator as 1) group leader, 2) resource developer, 3) communica-

tor, 4) educator, 5) health care supervisor, 6) fiscal officer, and

7) evaluator. These competencies and the remaining conference proceed-

ings were compiled and published by the Center for Allied Health In-

structional Personnel in 1972 (Morgan & Canfield, 1972).

Three years later, in 1975, Fred Dagenais from the University of

California, San Francisco, presented a paper at the American Society of

Allied Health Professions convention in which he gave a list of allied







health administrator competencies which had been developed in Califor-

nia. He surveyed a national sample of allied health administrators in

community colleges and in senior colleges, and presidents of community

colleges, and had each rate the usefulness of each of the California

developed competency statements. Most of the items were rated toward

the high or "useful" end of the scale, with the senior college adminis-

trators rating them highest. He also compared the California state-

ments with those developed at the University of Florida, and found

major overlap, with differences primarily in wording and in grouping

concept.


Literature As It Related to Occupational Therapy Department
Chairperson's Role Expectations and Potential Areas of Conflict


The proceedings and paper just mentioned formed the base for

the development of the list of role-expectations for the present study

since they both dealt specifically with allied health education. The

competencies, or role-expectations, identified in those two sources

were compared with department chairperson role-expectations enumerated

by other sources in educational administration, including Dilley (1972),

Doyle (1953), Euwena (1953), Heimler (1968), Lee (1972), Smith (1970),

Underwood (1972), and Miller (Note 3). All competencies were listed

in tabular form, with the allied health administrator competencies of

Morgan and Canfield forming the pattern into which all others were

organized (See Appendix A).








The Literature in Retrospect



The literature review for this study encompassed occupational

therapy education, role theory and role conflict theory, and theory

related to the chairperson role. When viewing the occupational therapy

literature, it can be seen that the chairperson role requires differ-

ent, and additional skills to those of chairpersons of traditional

academic areas. When this literature is viewed alongside that of role

and role conflict theory there is the question of whether there may be

potentially more or different role expectations for such chairpersons

and consequently more potential role conflicts.

The studies that have been conducted and the theory that has been

generated related to the role of chairpersons formed the basis of the

instrument used in this study to investigate the role expectations and

potential role conflicts among occupational therapy department chair-

persons, deans, and faculty.













CHAPTER III

RESULTS OF THE STUDY



Of the 288 questionnaires mailed for this study, 197, or 68%,

were returned with some usable data. This consisted of returns from

32, or 67%, of the deans; 38, or 79%, of the chairpersons; and 127,

or 66%, of the faculty. There were 27 programs (57%) from which ques-

tionnaires were received from the dean, the chairperson, and at least

one faculty member. The responses from the persons associated with

these 27 programs constituted the population used in answering prob-

lem questions 4 and 5. However, only 26 programs were used in answer-

ing question number 3 because the dean of one program failed to com-

plete the idealized portion of the questionnaire. Questions 1, 2, 6,

and 7 were analyzed on the basis of all questionnaires returned (197).

Twenty-one of the 38 responding chairpersons indicated that their

program had fewer than 4 full-time faculty members. There were some

instances in which respondents either left a question unanswered or

circled "O" on the scale. On no one question, however, was the number

of non-respondents or "O's" sufficient to skew the data.

This chapter is organized into six major sections. In the section

immediately following, background data about the subjects are presented,

along with information about the program. This provides the reader

with some basis for understanding the context in which the perceptions








of the role of the department chairperson for each of the groups of

respondents are reported. In the third section of the chapter the

focus is on the differences in perception among deans, chairpersons,

and faculty. In the fourth section differences between idealized and

actual role perceptions for each of the groups are described. The

fifth section of the chapter deals with the relationship between the

theoretical role and the perceptions of the respondents. Finally, in

the sixth section, conflict identified by chairpersons is reported and

related to that identifiable from the idealized and actual perceptions

of the respondents.


Profile of Subjects


Background data about the respondents are presented in a series

of tables. This information provides a basis of understanding from

which to view the responses of the three categories of subjects. Sev-

eral experts have noted the relevance of background, such as education

and field of study, to the way a person looks at role behaviors (e.g.,

Lee, 1972, p. 30). Although the present study was not intended to pro-

vide a basis for drawing definitive conclusions about the relationships

between the background of respondents and the way they view a particu-

lar role, that background is significant and therefore worth examining

for possible trends, and implications for further study.

As Table 1 shows, the age category containing the largest percent

of deans and chairpersons was 46-50. The age category with the great-

est percent of faculty was 31-35.








TABLE 1
AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS

Deans Chairpersons Faculty All
Age (n=32) % (n=30) % (n=127) % (n=197) %

20-25 3 2.3 3 1.5
26-30 1 2.7 26 20.5 27 13.8
31-35 3 7.9 27 21.4 30 15.2
36-40 7 22 5 13 24 19 36 18.3
41-45 7 22 9 24 12 9.4 28 14.2
46-50 8 12.5 11 29 14 11 33 16.8
51-55 4 12.5 4 10.5 9 7 17 8.6
56-60 4 6 3 7.9 9 7 16 8.1
61-65 2 2 5 2 1.6 6 3
66-70 1 .8 1 .5


Total


38


As can be seen from Table 2, over two-thirds of the deans were men,

Women comprised 86.8 percent of the chairpersons and 90.5 percent of

the faculty.


TABLE 2
SEX OF THE RESPONDENTS

Deans Chairpersons Faculty All
(n=32) % (n=38) % (n=127) % (n=197) %

Female 10 31.2 33 86.8 115 90.5 158 80.2

Male 22 68.6 5 13.2 12 9.5 39 19.8

Total 32 100 38 100 127 100 197 100







Twenty-nine of the deans had doctoral degrees (Ed.D., Ph.D., M.D.).

Seven doctoral degrees were held by chairpersons and four by faculty

(Table 3).


TABLE 3
GRADUATE DEGREES HELD BY THE RESPONDENTS*

Deans Chairpersons Faculty All
Degree (n=32) (n=38) (n=127) (n=197)

Ph.D. 18 7 4 29
M.D. 4 4
Ed.D. 7 7
Ph.D. Cand. 1 7 2 10
Ed.D. Cand. 1 1
Spec. Ed. 2 2
S.P.H. 1 1
M.O.T. 6 6
M.B.A. 1 1 2
M.P.H. 1 1 2 4
M.Ed. 1 2 15 18
M.P.O.T. 1 1
M.S. 4 15 33 52
M.A. 8 12 40 60

Total 45 47 105 197


*Some respondents indicated two


degrees beyond the bachelor's


As shown in Table 4, the deans received the largest number of

their degrees in physical sciences and administration. The majority

of chairpersons and faculty held graduate degrees in occupational ther-

apy and education.








TABLE 4
DEGREE FIELDS OF THE RESPONDENTS*

Deans Chairpersons Faculty All
Field (n=32) (n=38) (n=127) (n=197)

Occupational Therapy 11 26 38
Education,
Counseling, Guidance 3 13 41 57
Allied Health,
Health, Phys. Ed. 3 3 14 20
Economics, Business 2 1 3
English, History,
PolySci., Anthro. 5 3 4 12
Science 9 3 4 16
Hospital Admin. 3 1 4
Educational Admin. 8 5 1 14
Psychology 3 4 7
Other 1 1 2 3

Total 34 44 96 174

*Some respondents indicated two graduate degrees


Table 5 shows that of the two women deans, half were interim or

acting deans. Only one male had such a temporary title. The greatest

number of faculty held either assistant professor or instructor/

lecturer positions.








TABLE 5
OFFICIAL TITLES OF THE RESPONDENTS

Deans Chairpersons Faculty All
Title (n=32) (n=38) (n=124) (n=194)

Dean,
Vice President 20 (3)* 20
Associate or Assistant
Dean, Division Head 3 (2) 3
Director, Professor, 3 (0) 33 (29) 36
Chairperson ) 33
Interim, Acting 6 (5) 5 (4) 11
Associate Professor 15 (13) 15
Assistant Professor 66 (60) 66
Associate, Specialist 3 (2) 3
Instructor, Lecturer 35 (32) 35
Field Work Coordinator,
Grant Director

Total 32 (10) 38 (33) 124(107) 194


*Figures in parentheses


indicate the


number of women


As can be seen from Table 6, the largest number of both deans and

chairpersons responding had been employed in their present position

for one to two years. The next greatest number of deans had been in

that position three to four years, where the next greatest number of

chairpersons had been in that position less than one year. The great-

est number of faculty had been in the job they held when participating

in this study for under one year. No chairperson among the respondents

had been employed in that position more than 12 years, while 4 deans

and 12 faculty had held their position at the time of this study for

over that length of time.









LENGTH OF TIME


TABLE 6
RESPONDENTS HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED


IN PRESENT POSITION


Deans Chairpersons Faculty All
Years (n=31) (n=33) (n=124) (n=188)

Under 1 year 4 8 41 53
1-2 8 9 16 33
3-4 7 4 25 36
5-6 4 5 15 24
7-8 2 2 9 13
9-10 1 2 2 5
11-12 1 3 4 8
Over 12 years 4 12 16

Total 31 33 124 188


From Table 7 it can be seen that of the 36 chairpersons answering

the question, the greatest number (11) indicated that their program had

5-6 full-time faculty members, and 1-2 part-time faculty. One depart-

ment employed over 16 full-time faculty.








TABLE 7
DEPARTMENT SIZE BASED ON NUMBER OF FACULTY

Number of Number of Depts. Number of Depts.
Faculty (Full-time Faculty) (Part-time Faculty)

1-2 3 12
3-4 7 7
5-6 11 4
7-8 7 2
9-10 3
11-12 4
13-14
15-16
Over 16 1

Total 36 25



As can be seen in Table 8, the majority of programs have from 40

to 79 students. Two programs have over 180 students.


TABLE 8
DEPARTMENT SIZE BASED ON NUMBER OF STUDENTS*

Number of 20- 40- 60- 80- 100- 120- 140- 160- 180-
Students 39 59 79 99 119 139 159 179 199

Number of
Departments 6 9 9 4 1 1 1 1 2

*Includes juniors, seniors, certificate, and basic master's students








From Table 9, it can be seen that most programs were in depart-

ments within a school or college of health related or allied health

professions. The next largest number were departments or divisions in

a college of medicine.


TABLE 9
POSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS
WITHIN THE INSTITUTION

Number of
Position Departments

Department in a school/college of health 20
related or allied health professions

Department/division in a college of medicine 6

A separate school within a university

A department in a private or state college 4

Moving--uncertain 1

Program within a division or department of a 4
state college or university

Department in a school of education, health, 1
nursing and arts professions

Department in a college of health 1







Perceptions of the Chairperson Role


The answer to the first five problem questions of the present

study were determined through analyzing subject responses to the

second section of the questionnaire. Subjects were asked to indicate

on a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (highest importance) the impor-

tance which they felt their chairperson actually placed on each of the

87 role behaviors listed (with 0 option included for no opinion/ no

knowledge); and, in a second column with the same scale, the importance

they each felt the chairperson should ideally be placing on each of

those role behaviors.


Respondents' Perceptions of the Idealized Role of the Chairperson

The first problem question was:

What is the idealized role of the chairperson as perceived
by a) deans, b) chairpersons, c) a representative number
of faculty, and d) all groups combined?

Answers to this question were found by taking the mean of re-

sponses from the 32 deans, 38 chairpersons, and 127 faculty responding

(less the number who marked 0). Appendix D presents these data in

full, with each of the 87 role behaviors ranked for each category of

respondent and all subjects together, from the most important (#87) to

the least important (#1). These 87 role behaviors are divided into 11

task areas which are shown in Table 10, ranked from high (11) to low

(1) in importance.








TABLE 10
PERCEPTIONS OF THE IDEALIZED ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON

Deans Chairpersons Faculty All
(n=31) (n=38) (n=127) (n=196)
Task Area Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean

Planning 9 4.23 11 4.49 10 4.23 11 4.32
Fiscal
R nsibility 11 4.32 9.5 4.37 8 4.17 10 4.29
Leadership 7 4.08 9.5 4.37 9 4.20 9 4.22
Instruction 10 4.24 7.5 4.28 6 4.12 8 4.21
Curriculum 6 4.03 7.5 4.28 11 4.24 7 4.18
Inter- mental 8 4.14 5 4.18 7 4.14 6 4.15
Communication
Climate Setting 5 4.02 6 4.25 5 4.07 5 4.11
Faculty
Development 2 3.93 4 4.11 4 4.03 4 4.02
Extra-departmental 1 3.81 3 4.00 3 3.94 3 3.92
Communication
Students 4 4.01 2 3.94 2 3.77 2 3.91
Evaluation 3 3.94 1 3.60 1 3.59 1 3.71



As can be seen from Table 10, the most important task area for

"all groups combined" was Planning. This was followed by Fiscal Re-

sponsibility, Leadership, Instruction, Curriculum, Inter-departmental

Communication, Climate Setting, Faculty Development, Extra-departmental

Communication, Students, and Evaluation respectively.

The deans, when considering the idealized role of the chairperson,

placed the task area of Fiscal Responsibility first, followed in

descending order by Instruction, Planning, Inter-departmental Communi-

cation, Leadership, Curriculum, Climate Setting, Students, Evaluation,

Faculty Development, and Extra-departmental Communication.








The chairperson rankings agreed most closely with that for "all

groups combined." They considered Planning to be the ideally most im-

portant task area, followed by a tie between Fiscal Responsibility and

Leadership, another tie between Instruction and Curriculum, the Climate

Setting, Inter-departmental Communication, Faculty Development, Extra-

departmental Communication, Students, and Evaluation.

Faculty considered Curriculum to be the most important task area,

and indicated Planning as second. They then ranked in descending order

Leadership, Fiscal Responsibility, Inter-departmental Communication,

Instruction, Climate Setting, Faculty Development, Extra-departmental

Communication, Students, and Evaluation.

As previously noted, each of the aforementioned task areas was

composed of individual items which are shown in Appendix E. As can be

seen from Appendix E, the highest ranked individual item for all groups

combined was number 19, in the area of Fiscal Responsibility. It

reads, "Preparing and administering a departmental budget." This was

followed by "Developing plans to achieve long and short range objec-

tives," both in the area of Planning.

The highest ranked individual item for deans was "Preparing and

administering a department budget," followed by "Developing plans to

achieve long and short range objectives," and "Determining departmental

class size policies."

Chairpersons ranked "Preparing and administering a departmental

budget" highest of the individual items. They ranked "Exerting influ-

ence where needed" second highest, followed by a tie between "Reducing

duplication and overlap in activities and expenditures" and "Presenting

departmental needs to the dean."







Faculty also considered "Preparing and administering a departmental

budget" to be ideally of highest importance. They ranked "Presenting

departmental needs to the dean" second and "Developing new courses"

third.

Turning again to Appendix E one can see what the lowest ranked

individual items were. For "all groups combined" these included "Eval-

uating faculty and staff effectiveness," "Reviewing occupational trends

and identifying implications for curriculum," and "Formulating policies

relating to faculty use of materials, equipment, and other tangibles."

The deans considered the three lowest ranked individual items to

be "Reviewing occupational trends and identifying implications for cur-

riculum," "Evaluating faculty and staff effectiveness," and "Maintain-

ing a capable support staff."

Chairpersons agreed with the other two groups on two of the three

least important, including "Evaluating faculty and staff effectiveness,"

and "Reviewing occupational trends and identifying implications for

curriculum." Their third lowest ranked item, however, differed from

the other groups'. It was "Evaluating college education and adminis-

tration policies and/or procedures, for the purpose of recommending

needed changes." This item was ranked #70 by deans, #43 by faculty,

and #26 by all groups combined.

Faculty ranked "Evaluating faculty and staff effectiveness" low-

est, followed by "Formulating policies relating to faculty use of

materials, equipment, and other tangibles," and "Reviewing occupational

trends and identifying implications for curriculum."







Respondents' Perceptions of Actual Role Behavior of Chairpersons

The second problem question addressed in this research was,

What is the actual role behavior of the chairperson as
perceived by a) deans, b) chairpersons, c) a representa-
tive number of faculty, and d) all groups combined?

As with the preceding question, answers were found to this ques-

tion by taking the mean responses from the three categories of respond-

ents and for "all groups combined." The perceptions relative to the

actual role behavior of chairpersons are shown in full in Appendix F.

The rankings and means by area for the deans, chairpersons, faculty,

and all groups combined are presented in Table 11. Again, the ranking

is from highest (11), to lowest (1) in importance.


TABLE 11
PERCEPTIONS OF THE ACTUAL ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON

Deans Chairpersons Faculty All
(n=32) (n=38) (n=127) (n=197)
Task Areas Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean

Curriculum 8 3.81 11 4.05 8.5 3.39 11 3.75
Planning 4.5 3.66 9 4.01 10 3.46 9 3.71
Fiscal
Responsibility 7 3.76 10 4.02 5.5 3.34 9 3.71
Evaluation 11 3.97 4 3.68 11 3.48 9 3.71
Inter-departmental
Communication 9 3.82 8 3.95 3.5 3.32 7 3.70

Students 10 3.84 5 3.73 5.5 3.44 5.5 3.67
Leadership 3 3.64 3 3.65 8.5 3.39 5.5 3.67
Climate Setting 4.5 3.66 7 3.82 3.5 3.32 4 3.60
Instruction 6 3.70 6 3.79 2 3.15 3 3.55
Extra-departmental
Communication 2 3.58 2 3.63 7 3.37 2 3.53

Faculty
Development 1 3.50 1 3.61 1 3.05 1 3.39







As can be seen from Table 11, "all groups combined" saw Curriculum

as the task area on which they perceived the chairperson actually plac-

ing most importance. This was followed by a tie among Planning, Fiscal

Responsibility, and Evaluation (which was ranked lowest in idealized

importance.) The remaining task areas in descending order of impor-

tance were Inter-departmental Communication, Students and Leadership

(tied), Climate Setting, Instruction, Extra-departmental Communication,

and Faculty Development.

Deans ranked Evaluation as the task area on which they saw the

chairperson placing greatest importance. This was followed by Students,

Inter-departmental Communication, Curriculum, Fiscal Responsibility,

Instruction, Planning and Climate Setting (tied), Leadership, Extra-

departmental Communication, and Faculty Development.

Chairpersons saw themselves placing greatest actual importance on

the area of Curriculum (which they ranked fourth in ideal importance).

They considered Fiscal Responsibility next, followed by Planning,

Inter-departmental Communication, Climate Setting, Instruction, Stu-

dents, Evaluation, Leadership, Extra-departmental Communication, and

Faculty Development.

Faculty agreed with deans in their perception that chairpersons

placed greatest actual importance on the task area of Evaluation

chairpersonss saw themselves placing this area fourth from the bottom

in actual importance). Faculty perceived chairpersons placing next

greatest importance in the areas of Leadership and Curriculum, followed

by Extra-departmental Communication, a tie between Fiscal Responsibil-

ity and Students, then another tie between Inter-departmental Communi-

cation and Climate Setting, and finally Instruction, and Faculty

Development.




40


From Appendix E it can be seen that "all groups combined" consid-

ered the chairpersons to place greatest actual importance on the indi-

vidual item "Preparing and administering a department budget," followed

by "Presenting departmental needs to the dean," and "Participating in

the development of department admissions standards."

Deans saw chairpersons placing greatest actual importance on "Main-

taining a departmental library," then "Preparing and administering a

departmental budget," and "Interpreting salary schedules and payroll

procedures for faculty and staff."

The chairpersons saw themselves placing most importance on "Prepar-

ing and administering a departmental budget," then on "Fighting for the

department," and third on "Encouraging faculty to participate in con-

ventions, conferences, and meetings."

The faculty who participated in this study perceived their chair-

persons to place greatest actual importance on "Presenting departmental

needs to the dean." They ranked "Presenting departmental accomplish-

ments to the dean" next in importance, then "Striving to balance needs

and goals for the department."

The individual items on which "all groups combined" saw the chair-

persons placing least actual importance were "Defining teaching loads

for faculty," "Providing a rewarding environment including opportuni-

ties for mobility within the department," and "Reviewing occupational

trends and identifying implications for curriculum."

Deans considered chairpersons to place least importance on "Attempt-

ing to minimize barriers to maximum departmental efficiency," then on

"Preparing quality articles and communiques," and thirdly on "Reviewing

occupational trends and identifying implications for curriculum."







The chairpersons saw themselves as placing least importance on

"Reviewing occupational trends and identifying implications for curric-

ulum." This was followed by "Attempting to influence legislation which

affects allied health education and health care delivery," and "Evalu-

ating faculty and staff effectiveness."

The faculty ranked "Defining teaching loads for faculty" lowest in

importance as they saw their chairperson's actual behavior. They con-

sidered "Providing a rewarding environment including opportunities for

mobility within the department" next lowest, followed by "Seeking a

larger share of college funds for the department."


Perceived Differences About Chairperson Role


The population for questions 3, 4, and 5 consisted of the 27 occu-

pational therapy education programs from which responses were received

from at least the dean, the chairperson, and one faculty member. How-

ever, only 26 programs were included in the analysis of question 3

because one dean did not fill out the ideal portion of the question-

naire. In only two of these programs was there only one faculty member

response. The remaining 25 were represented by responses from 2 (5

programs), 3 (10 programs) or 4 (10 programs) faculty members. In

these 25 programs the responses to each item from all faculty members

were combined and a mean computed to represent the "faculty" response

to each item for that program.

To determine whether significant differences in perception existed

within each institution, (questions 3 and 4), the Kruskal-Wallis One-

Way Analysis of Variance was used with the .05 level used to reject the







hypothesis of no significant difference. As Seigel (1956), has noted,

the Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance Test is useful for de-

ciding whether K independent samples are from different populations,

or whether differences among samples just represent chance variations

"such as are to be expected among several random samples from the same

population" (p. 184).


Differences in Perception About Idealized Chairperson Role

The third problem question of this study was:

Is there a difference in perception about idealized
chairperson role among dean, chairperson, and faculty
in each institution and for all institutions?

Table 12 shows the sum of the rankings for the 11 task areas for

the dean, the chairperson, and the faculty for each of the 26 programs

which were analyzed in relation to this question. (As mentioned pre-

viously, one dean did not complete the idealized portion of the ques-

tionnaire.) As can be seen from this table, in 20 of the 26 programs

analyzed there was significant difference among the dean, chairperson,

and faculty in the way the idealized role of the chairperson was per-

ceived. When all 26 institutions were considered together, however, no

significant difference appeared among deans, chairpersons, and faculty

(H = 2.41).







TABLE 12
SUM OF RANKINGS OF TASK AREAS BY RESPONDENT GROUPS AND H VALUE FOR EACH
INSTITUTION, BASED ON PERCEPTIONS OF IDEALIZED ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON


Institution** Dean Chairperson Faculty H Value Significant at
I I.05 level


A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
.11 combined


*154.5
272
155
139
152.5
175
68
221
108
136.5
92
299.5
147.5
157.5
127.5
188
223.5
299
167.5
81.5
275
179
217.5
228.5
193
216
194.5


281.5
193
290.5
177
237
292.5
295
168.5
297
144
305.5
115
208.5
121
287
302
87.5
119
253.5
220
216
159.5
110
98
131
269.5
149


125
96
115.5
245
171.5
93.5
198
171.5
156
280.5
163.5
146.5
205
282.5
146.5
71
250
143
140
259.5
70
222.5
233.5
234.5
237
75.5
217.5


13.51
15.27
16.49
5.67
3.88
19.58
25.53
1.34
18.83
12.85
23.07
19.56
2.34
14.02
14.84
27.00
14.86
18.65
6.89
17.06
25.14
2.07
8.84
11.65
5.58
20.00
2.41


*Refers to the total of the rankings assigned to the
**Institutions are arranged in random Drder


11 task areas




52


Differences in Perception About Actual Chairperson Role

The fourth problem question was:

Is there a difference in perception about actual chair-
person role behavior among dean, chairperson, and faculty
in each institution and for all institutions?

The sum of the rankings for the 11 task areas for the dean, chair-

person, and faculty for each of the 27 programs which were analyzed in

relation to this question are presented in Table 13. The results show

that there was a significant difference in perception about actual

chairperson role in 21 of the 27 programs included in this analysis,

and for all institutions combined.








TABLE 13
SUM OF RANKINGS OF TASK AREAS BY RESPONDENT GROUPS AND H VALUE FOR EACH
INSTITUTION, BASED ON PERCEPTIONS OF ACTUAL ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON


Institution** Dean Chairperson Faculty H Value i.0 Le at
I_1___.05 __an


A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
ZZ
All combined


*Refers to the total of the rankings assigned
**Institutions are arranged in random order


*248
264.5
2.415
243.5
199.5
171
86
218.5
164.5
130
101.5
237.5
217
162.5
102.5
241
251.5
271.5
228
171.5
232.5
266.5
227
254.5
188.5
171
308
162


240
163.5
170.5
245
241
295
298.5
96.5
307.5
210.5
308
146.5
235
153
293.5
235
201.5
184
197.5
253.5
271.5
156.5
221
220.5
118
304
184
99


73
133
176
72.5
120.5
95
176.5
246
89
220.5
151.5
177
109
245.5
165
85
108
105.5
135.5
136
87
138
113
86
254.5
86
69
295.5


19.08 yes
9.28 yes
1.16 no
19.21 yes
7.35 yes
19.88 yes
22.22 yes
103.03 yes
24.04 yes
4.86 no
22.68 yes
4.22 no
9.10 yes
5.09 no
18.52 yes
15.28 yes
10.39 yes
13.47 yes
4.38 no
7.11 yes
14.71 yes
9.44 yes
8.06 yes
15.52 yes
9.14 yes
23.67 yes
28.02 yes
18.01 yes

to the 11 task areas








Difference Perceived Between Idealized and Actual Chairperson Role

Problem question five was:

Is there a difference between idealized and actual chair-
person role behavior as perceived by a) deans, b)chair-
persons, and c) faculty, for each institution, and for
all institutions?

Data from the 27 "full-response" programs was again used to an-

swer this question. The Wilcoxon Matched Pairs, Signed-Ranks Test was

used to analyze the data in context of this question, as it tests both

the direction and magnitude of differences between pairs from the same

population. For example, the same 27 chairpersons were tested for dif-

ferences they indicated between what they perceived to be the actual

and the idealized role behavior of chairpersons.

In this test, each category of respondent for each program was

analyzed separately. The mean response for each of the 11 role areas

in the idealized column was matched with the corresponding mean re-

sponse for each area in the actual column. The difference between the

ideal and actual mean response for each area was computed, and affixed

with the appropriate positive (+) or negative (-) sign. These differ-

ences were then ranked, and the ranks of the sign appearing least often

were added to obtain "T". Since ties are not included in this test,

the "n" varies according to the number of areas left after tie scores

are discarded, as therefore does the level of significance. The re-

sults of this test for the above question are presented in Table 14.








TABLE 14
T-VALUES BY INSTITUTION FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCEIVED IDEALIZED
AND ACTUAL ROLE OF CHAIRPERSON FOR DEANS, CHAIRPERSONS AND FACULTY

Instit n Deans Chairpersons Faculty
InstitutionT Value Significant? T Value Significant? T Value Significant?


A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
ZZ
All combined


28
0
6
all ties
0
0
O
23.5
7
0
0
0
0
1ll ties
o
1



0
0
0
0
0




0
2
1
6
9


0








A significant difference in dean perception of idealized and

actual chairperson role behavior was found in 21 of the 26 programs

used in this analysis. Chairpersons yielded a significant difference

in perception about this question in 21 of 27 programs; and faculty

showed a significant difference in 26 of the 27 programs.

When responses from all deans, all chairpersons, and all faculty

were analyzed, a significant difference was seen in each group between

the way they perceived idealized and actual chairperson role behavior.

Another way of looking at the responses in the content of this

question is to compare the data in Tables 10 and 11. These tables use

the responses, ranked by areas, from all 197 subjects. The data from

these two tables are presented together in Table 15, which makes it

possible to see in concise form the direction and magnitude of differ-

ences for all respondents.








TABLE 15
DIRECTION AND MAGNITUDE OF DIFFERENCES AMONG THE THREE RESPONDENT GROUPS FOR THE 11 TASK AREAS

Task Areas Deans Chairpersons Faculty All
*I(Rank)A** I(Mean)A I(Rank)A I(Mean)A I(Rank)A I(Mean)A I(Rank)A I(Mean)A

Planning 9 4.5 4.23 3.66 11 9 4.49 4.01 10 10 4.23 3.46 11 9 4.32 3.71

Fiscal
Responsibility 11 7 4.32 3.76 9.5 10 4.37 4.02 8 5.5 4.17 3.34 10 9 4.29 3.71

Leadership 7 3 4.08 3.64 9.5 3 4.37 3.65 9 8.5 4.20 3.39 9 5.5 4.22 3.67

Instruction 10 6 4.24 3.70 7.5 6 4.28 3.79 6 2 4.12 3.15 8 3 4.21 3.55

Curriculum 6 8 4.03 3.81 7.5 11 4.28 4.05 11 8.5 4.24 3.39 7 11 4.18 3.75

Inter-departmental
Communication 8 9 4.14 3.83 5 8 4.18 3.95 7 3.5 4.14 3.32 6 7 4.15 3.70

Climate Setting 5 4.5 4.02 3.66 6 7 4.25 3.82 5 3.5 4.07 3.32 5 4 4.11 3.60

Faculty
Development 2 1 3.93 3.50 4 1 4.11 3.61 4 1 4.03 3.05 4 1 4.02 3.39

Extra-departmental
Communication 1 2 3.81 3.58 3 2 4.00 3.63 3 7 3.94 3.37 3 2 3.92 3.53

Students 4 10 4.01 3.84 2 5 3.94 3.73 2 5.5 3.77 3.44 2 5.5 3.91 3.67

Evaluation 3 11 3.94 3.97 1 4 3.60 3.68 1 11 3.59 3.48 1 9 3.71 3.71

*Idealized
**Actual








Differences in perception about actual and idealized chairperson

role are again significant for each category of respondents and for

all respondents combined. The area of Evaluation is seen by both deans

and chairpersons as being given more importance in actual behavior than

in idealized. This is the only area of the 11 in which that was the

case.


Actual Chairperson Role Identified in the Study Compared to the
Theoretical Role

Problem question 6 was:

How does the actual role behavior of chairpersons, as
perceived by each of the aforementioned groups, compare
with the theoretical role of department chairpersons
found in the literature?

The questionnaire for the present study was developed from the

theoretical role of the department chairperson found in the literature

(see Appendix A). The respondents in the present study verified the

validity of that theoretical role by marking 85 of the 87 individual

items contained therein as ideally important, very important, or of

the highest importance (3, 4, and 5 respectively on the numerical

scale in the questionnaire). The two individual items one or more of

the respondent groups considered ideally of "low importance" in the

role of the chairperson were #30, "Evaluating faculty and staff effec-

tiveness," and #36, "Reviewing occupational trends and identifying

implications for curriculum."

Relating this to perceived actual behavior of departmental chair-

persons it was found that when data for all the groups were combined

the result was that nine individual items were perceived as being of

"low importance" in actual chairperson role behavior. These were #9,

"Attempting to influence legislation which effects allied health







education and health care delivery"; #42, "Defining teaching loads for

faculty"; #56, "Developing in-service education for new faculty"; #57,

"Recruiting faculty"; #58, "Providing a rewarding environment including

opportunities for mobility within the department"; #61, "Keeping the

institution and public informed of health developments"; and #62,

"Preparing quality articles and communiques." The two items perceived

as ideally of "low importance," which were #30, "Evaluating faculty and

staff effectiveness"; and #36, "Reviewing occupational trends and iden-

tifying implications for curriculum" are the other two items.

When each group of respondents was considered alone, it was found

that the faculty group marked 18 individual items as being of low or

no actual importance to their chairpersons. In comparison, seven such

items were so marked by the chairpersons, and four by the deans.

As can be seen from Appendix E, these 18 items marked by the

faculty included 8 of the 9 items perceived by "all groups combined"

as being of "low importance"; plus #24, "Seeking a larger share of

college funds for the department," and 2 items in Instruction, 1 in

Climate Setting, 2 additional in Faculty Development (making a total

of 5 out of the 9 items in that task area considered of "low importance"

by faculty); 2 in Extra-departmental Communication, and 2 in Inter-

departmental Communication.

The 7 items perceived by chairpersons to reflect "low importance"

in their actual behavior include 6 of the 9 so marked by "all groups

combined," plus 1 in the area of Instruction, which is the same as 1 of

the 2 in that area rated low by faculty ("Defining teaching loads for

faculty").








Three of the four items marked of "low importance" by deans are

included in the nine so marked by "all groups combined." The one

unique item deans rated of "low importance" was #6, "Collecting, ana-

lyzing, and interpreting data related to administrative problems."

In sum, when actual behavior is compared to the theory one must

note that from the perspective of "all groups combined", in 76 of 85

cases there is a high degree of congruence between what ought to be

done (idealized rankings), and what is actually being done. However,

this differs from the perspective of the faculty, chairpersons, and

deans themselves.



Chairperson Role Conflict


Question number 7 was as follows:

What do chairpersons identify as areas of conflict and
how do these relate to possible areas of conflict iden-
tified in the results of this study?

In order to ascertain conflict perceived by chairpersons between

themselves and their dean and/or faculty they were asked to complete

a third section of the questionnaire which was not included in those

sent to the other two categories of respondents. This section con-

sisted of two parts. In the first they were asked to indicate for each

of the 11 areas of role behaviors the amount of conflict (none, some,

or much) they felt existed between themselves and their dean and/or

faculty. In the second part, using a 5-point scale, they were re-

quested to indicate the level of overall satisfaction they had with

their present job. Thirty-five chairpersons answered the conflict

part of the questionnaire. Their responses are presented in Table 16.







TABLE 16
CHAIRPERSON PERCEIVED CONFLICT, BY AREA
(n = 35)

No Conflict Some Conflict Much Conflict
reas Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Planning 25 71 6 17 4 11

Leadership 21 60 12 34 2 6

Fiscal
Responsibility 26 74 8 23 1 3

Evaluation 23 66 10 29 2 6

Curriculum 26 74 8 23 1 3

Instruction 29 83 5 14 1 3

Climate Setting 19 54 13 37 3 9

Faculty 27 77 7 20 1 3
Development

Extra-departmental 28 80 5 14 2 6
Communication

Inter-departmental 26 74 8 23 1 3
Communication

Students 28 80 7 20 -


As can be seen by examination, in 7 of

or a fourth, of the department chairpersons


the 11 instances over 25%,

reported some or much con-


flict with either faculty or dean relative to the task area in question.

In order to determine if this related to differences in perception of

idealized or actual role, it was worthwhile to compare the data in

Table 15 with each of these seven areas. For example, in the case of

Planning, where 28% of chairpersons reported some conflict, it can be

seen from Table 15 that, in terms of idealized perception of the Plan-

ning area, the deans ranked it 9, chairpersons 11, and faculty 10.








The Kruskal-Wallis-H test showed that a significant difference did

exist in actual perception of the chairperson Planning role (H = 7.03).

Forty percent of chairpersons indicated feeling conflict in the

area of Leadership. Again, the Kruskal-Wallis-H showed no significant

difference in idealized perception about chairperson role in this area,

but did show a significant difference (H = 7.05) among the three groups

in their perception of the importance the chairperson actually placed

on this task area.

In the area of Fiscal Responsibility, 26% of chairpersons per-

ceived some or much conflict with the dean and/or faculty. No signi-

ficant difference was indicated by the Kruskal-Wallis-H test on the

idealized rankings of these three groups for this task area, but a

significant difference (H = 7.70) was found for the actual perceptions

about this area.

Conflict was perceived by 35% of chairpersons in the area of

Evaluation. Again, the statistical test showed no significant differ-

ence in idealized perceptions about this area, but did show a signifi-

cant difference (H = 20.69) in perceptions of actual behavior, among

deans, chairpersons, and faculty.

Twenty-six percent of chairpersons indicated feeling conflict

with the dean and/or faculty in the area of Curriculum. The difference

among the three groups was not significant in the idealized rankings,

but was significant in the actual rankings (H = 8.45).

Nearly half of the chairpersons (46%) indicated feeling conflict

with their dean and/or faculty about Climate Setting. However, no sig-

nificant difference was found among these three groups in either ideal-

ized or actual perceptions of this task area.








The last area in which over 25% of the chairpersons indicated

feeling conflict with dean and/or faculty was in Inter-departmental

Communication, where 26% indicated conflict. No statistically signifi-

cant difference was found in idealized perception among the three

respondent groups. However, the perceptions about the actual impor-

tance the chairperson places on this area were significantly different

(H = 10.98).

A further way of examining whether or not there is a relationship

between potential conflict and perceived conflict from the point of

view of the chairperson is to look at the other places where potential

conflict is indicated by differences in perceptions of idealized and/or

actual importance, even though it may not have been so indicated by

over 25% of the chairpersons. There was only one instance in which

this occurred. Though only 20% of chairpersons indicated perceiving

conflict in the task area of Students, a statistically significant

difference was found among the perceptions of the three respondent

groups about the actual importance given this area by chairpersons

(H = 6.38). No significant difference was found among idealized per-

ceptions about Students.

Finally, 36 chairpersons answered the question about their level

of overall satisfaction with their present job. Fifteen stated that

they were "very satisfied," and 15 marked "satisfied." This represents

86% of chairpersons responding to this question. Of the remaining six

chairpersons, two indicated they felt "neutral" about job satisfaction,

three checked "dissatisfied," and one marked "very dissatisfied."

Thus, although more than one fourth of chairpersons indicated experienc-

ing conflict with dean and/or faculty in 7 out of 11 task areas, only

14% were less than satisfied with their present position.














CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION



Summary



The general focus of this study was to determine and define role

expectations for chairpersons of occupational therapy education pro-

grams as held by the role incumbents and those who border that role.

As a means of determining what these role expectations were, answers

were sought to the following questions:

1. What is the idealized role of the chairperson as
perceived by a the deans or equivalent adminis-
trators, b) the chairpersons, c) a representative
number of faculty, and d) all groups combined?

2. What is the actual role behavior of the chairperson
as perceived by a) the deans or equivalent admin-
istrators, b) the chairpersons, c) a representative
number of faculty, and d) all groups combined?

3. Is there a difference in perception about idealized
chairperson role among dean, chairperson, and fac-
ulty in each institution and for all institutions?

4. Is there a difference in perception about actual
chairperson role behavior among dean, chairperson,
and faculty in each institution and for all insti-
tutions?

5. Is there a difference between idealized and actual
chairperson role behavior as perceived by a) deans,
b) chairpersons, c) faculty, for each institution
and for all institutions?

6. How does the actual role behavior of chairpersons
as perceived by each of the aforementioned groups
compare with the theoretical role of department
chairpersons found in the literature?








7. What do chairpersons identify as areas of conflict,
and how do these relate to possible areas of conflict
identified in the results of this study?

As a first step toward answering the problem questions it was

necessary to develop an instrument of role expectations for departmen-

tal chairpersons. This was done by exhaustive review of the literature

from which role expectation statements were derived based on the writ-

ings of theoreticians in the area. These role statements were then

used as a basis of developing a questionnaire which was the principal

means of gathering the data. The questionnaire contained 87 role ex-

pectation statements, plus demographic information items, and, for

chairpersons, items relative to perceived conflict and role satisfac-

tion.

Copies of this instrument were mailed to the dean, chairperson,

and faculty of 48 of the 49 professional education programs in occupa-

tional therapy approved by the American Occupational Therapy Associa-

tion. Responses were received from a total of 32 deans, 38 chairper-

sons, and 127 faculty members. Usable data were received from 27

complete programs (where responses were received from the dean, the

chairpersons, and at least one faculty member). All responses were

used for answering problem questions 1, 2, 6, and 7. The responses

from the 27 complete programs were used in answering questions 3, 4,

and 5. The data were analyzed by means of frequency distributions.

Where comparisons were required two techniques were used, the Kruskal-

Wallis-H, and the Wilcoxon T. Logical analysis was used to answer the

question relating to conflict.







Based on the data analysis the following results were obtained:

1. The deans perceived the idealized role of the chairperson to

consist of 86 of the 87 individual role expectations identified in the

literature and included in the questionnaire for this study. Their

idealized perceptions were combined into 11 task areas and ranked in

descending order of importance. First in importance was Fiscal Respon-

sibility, followed by Instruction, Planning, Inter-departmental Commun-

ication, Leadership, Curriculum, Climate Setting, Students, Evaluation,

Faculty Development, and Extra-departmental Communication.

2. The chairpersons perceived their idealized role to include 86

of the 87 role expectations contained in the questionnaire. From the

importance placed on each item, it was determined that the chairpersons

ordered the 11 task areas as follows: Planning, Leadership and Fiscal

Responsibility (tied), Curriculum and Instruction (tied), Climate Set-

ting, Inter-departmental Communication, Faculty Development, Extra-

departmental Communication, Students, and Evaluation.

3. In their perception of the idealized role of the chairperson,

the faculty considered 86 of the 87 individual role expectations to be

important. When these items were organized into task areas the follow-

ina ranking of faculty perception emerged: Curriculum, Planning,

Leadership, Fiscal Responsibility, Inter-departmental Communication,

Instruction, Climate Setting, Faculty Development, Extra-departmental

Communication, Students, and Evaluation.

4. The chairpersons saw themselves placing importance on 80 of

the 87 individual role expectations, in their actual behavior. When

these 87 items were organized into the 11 task areas, the following

descending order emerged. Curriculum, Fiscal Responsibility, Planning,

Inter-departmental Communication, Climate Setting, Instruction,







Students, Evaluation, Leadership, Extra-departmental Communication,

and Faculty Development.

7. Faculty members perceived their chairpersons placing actual

importance on 69 of the 87 individual role expectation items. When the

items were organized into the 11 task areas, the following perception

of actual chairperson role behavior emerged. Faculty agreed with deans

in their perception that chairpersons place highest actual importance

on Evaluation, (which chairpersons see themselves placing fourth from

the bottom in actual importance). This was followed in descending

order by Planning, a tie between Leadership and Curriculum, Extra-

departmental Communication, Fiscal Responsibility and Students (tied),

Climate Setting and Inter-departmental Communication (tied), Instruc-

tion, and Faculty Development.

8. When data from all groups were combined, it was found that 78

of the 87 individual items were considered to be important in the

actual behavior of the chairperson. The importance, in descending

order, of the 11 task areas for "all groups combined" was as follows:

Curriculum; a tie among Planning, Leadership, and Evaluation; Inter-

departmental Communication, Leadership and Students (tied); Climate

Setting; Instruction; Extra-departmental Communication; and Faculty

Development.

9. In 20 of the 26 programs analyzed there was significant dif-

ference in perception among the dean, chairperson and faculty in regard

to the idealized role of the chairperson.

10. When all 26 programs were considered together no significant

difference was found among the way the deans, chairpersons, and faculty

perceived the ideal role of the chairperson.








11. A significant difference in perception about actual chairper-

son role behavior was found in 21 of the 27 programs analyzed.

12. Results of analysis show a significant difference in percep-

tion about actual chairperson role behavior among deans, chairpersons,

and faculty for all 27 programs combined.

13. A significant difference in the dean's perception of ideal-

ized and actual chairperson role behavior was found in 21 of the 26

programs included in this analysis.

14. A significant difference was found in the way chairpersons

perceived their actual and their idealized role behavior in 21 of the

27 programs analyzed.

15. A significant difference was found in 26 of 27 programs in

the way faculty perceived the chairperson's actual and idealized role

behavior.

16. When responses from all deans, all chairpersons, and all

faculty were analyzed, a significant difference was found in each group

between the way they perceived actual and idealized chairperson role

behavior.

17. Analysis of the data from all groups of respondents combined

showed that the respondents considered 85 of the 87 individual role

behaviors identified in the literature and used in the questionnaire

to be important, very important, or of the highest importance, to the

idealized role behavior of the chairperson.

18. Deans perceived chairpersons actually placing importance on

83 of those 87 items.

19. Chairpersons saw themselves giving actual importance to 80

of the 87 individual role behaviors.








20. Faculty perceived their chairpersons as placing actual impor-

tance on 69 of the 87 role behavior items.

21. When data from all groups were combined it was found that

chairpersons were perceived as placing actual importance on 78 of the

87 individual role behaviors.

22. Over 25% of the chairpersons indicated feeling some or much

conflict with their dean and/or faculty in 7 of the 11 task areas.

These areas were Planning, Leadership, Fiscal Responsibility, Evalua-

tion, Curriculum, Climate Setting, and Inter-departmental Communication.

23. In each of the 7 task areas in which over 25% of chairpersons

indicated feeling some conflict, a significant difference was found in

the way deans, chairpersons, and faculty perceived the actual role

behavior of the chairpersons.

24. There was only one task area (Students) where significant

difference was found among the actual perceptions of the three respondent

groups but where conflict was not perceived by over 25% of chairpersons.


Conclusions


Based on the foregoing data, the following conclusions were deemed

warranted:

1. Ideally, the relevant reference groups to chairpersons of

occupational therapy education programs believe that the departmental

chairperson should place primary emphasis on the areas of Planning,

Fiscal Responsibility, and Leadership. This conclusion seems supported

by the fact that "all groups combined" ranked Planning at the top of

their priority order (11); the deans ranked it 9, chairpersons 11, and







faculty 10. Fiscal Responsibility was ranked 10 by "all groups com-

bined", 11 by deans, 9.5 by chairpersons, and 8 by faculty. "All

groups combined" ranked Leadership 9, deans ranked it 7, chairpersons

9.5, and faculty 9.

2. In actual practice the relevant reference groups perceive the

chairpersons to place primary emphasis on Curriculum, Evaluation, Fis-

cal Responsibility, and Planning. Support of this conclusion is found

in that "all groups combined" ranked curriculum 11 (highest), deans

ranked it 8, chairpersons 11, and faculty ranked 8.5. "All groups

combined" ranked Evaluation, Fiscal Responsibility, and Planning 9,

tied for second most important area in perception of actual role behav-

ior of the chairpersons. Deans ranked these areas 11, 7, and 4.5 re-

spectively. Chairpersons ranked these three task areas 4, 10, and 9

respectively in terms of their actual role behavior. Faculty ranked

these areas 11, 5.5, and 10 in terms of the actual role behavior of

their chairpersons.

3. The task areas of Evaluation and Students were least impor-

tant to the idealized role of the chairperson as perceived by deans,

chairpersons, and faculty. In this study "all groups combined" ranked

those areas 1 (lowest) and 2 respectively. Deans ranked Evaluation 3

and Students 4, while both chairperson and faculty ranked these areas

like "all groups combined."

4. In actual practice, the relevant reference groups perceive the

chairpersons as placing least importance in the areas of Faculty Devel-

opment and Extra-departmental Communication. The results showed both

the dean and chairperson groups ranking these two areas last. The

faculty groups also placed Faculty Development lowest on the list of

task areas and ranked Extra-departmental Communication 7.








5. The relevant groups are in general agreement about the ideal-

ized role of the chairperson. This conclusion is supported by the fact

that when the responses from all deans, all chairpersons and all faculty

were compared no significant difference was found in regard to the

idealized perceptions in any of the 11 task areas.

6. There are differences in perceptions among the relevant groups

about the way chairpersons actually behave. This is supported by the

fact that significant difference was found among the three groups in

regard to perception of actual chairperson behaviors in 8 of the 11

task areas.

7. There is a difference in the way each of the relevant groups

perceive the idealized and the actual role of the department chairper-

son. This is evidenced by the fact that when responses from all deans,

all chairpersons, and all faculty were analyzed, a significant differ-

ence was found in each case between their idealized and their actual

perceptions of the chairperson role.

8. There is congruence between the perceived idealized role of

the department chairperson and the theoretical role contained in the

literature. However, there is a lack of congruence between the per-

ceived actual role behavior of the chairperson and the theoretical role.

This is shown by the fact that of the 87 role expectations identified

through a review of the literature, 85 were considered ideally impor-

tant by all three categories of respondent and by "all groups combined."

Yet, in the comparison of the perception of actual chairperson role be-

havior with the idealized role expectations there were significant dif-

ferences for each of the three groups of respondents.








9. There is potential conflict between the departmental chairper-

son and their dean and/or faculty in those areas where there is a lack

of agreement about actual chairperson role behavior. This seems sup-

ported by the fact that of the 8 task areas in which a significant dif-

ference was found in perception of actual chairperson role behavior 7

of these areas were identified by over 25% of chairpersons as areas

where they felt some degree of conflict with their dean and/or faculty.



Discussion



As was mentioned in Chapter I, there are several reasons the pre-

sent study was important and timely. For example, at the time of the

study there was a high turn-over rate among chairpersons in occupation-

al therapy education programs. Also, no prior studies had been done to

ascertain the role of the chairperson in such programs. The results of

the present study showed areas of agreement and of disagreement among

the respondent groups about the chairperson's role. Because of this,

areas of potential conflict can be identified. Forty-eight of the 49

approved occupational therapy education programs in the United States

were included in the study and returns were received from a majority of

these. Thus, a case can be made that the results are generalizable and

can be used to examine problems of the total population of programs.

The appropriate question at this point is, how can some of the findings

and conclusions be explained, what do they mean in terms of the depart-

mental chairperson's role, and needed further research in the area?

As was noted in Chapter III, certain demographic data about the

respondents were gathered, along with other data about the programs

included in the study. Is it possible that certain patterns seen in








the results of the study can be explained on the basis of demographic

data collected? For instance, even though it was not statistically

significant, the faculty perceived the idealized role of the chairper-

son more closely to the way chairpersons themselves perceived their

idealized role than did deans. On the other hand, the faculty percep-

tions of their chairpersons' actual role behavior was further from the

chairpersons' perceptions of their actual behavior than was the deans'.

Do the demographic data collected shed any light on this puzzling find-

ing? As the demographic data show, chairpersons and faculty have much

more in common in their background than either group has with deans.

For instance, nearly all chairpersons and faculty were women, and most

deans were men. All chairpersons and faculty, with one exception,

shared the same professional background in occupational therapy, where-

as it appeared that none of the deans were occupational therapists.

The greatest number of both chairpersons and faculty graduate degrees

were in the areas of occupational therapy and education, whereas the

largest number of deans had degrees in the physical sciences and admin-

istration. The only demographic items chairpersons shared more with

deans than with faculty were age (the greatest percent of both deans

and chairpersons were 46-50, and the largest percent of faculty were

in the 31-35 age group), and length of time employed in their present

position (the largest percent of deans and chairpersons were in the 1-2

year category, and among faculty the greatest number were in the under

1 year group).

The demographic data, then, do not seem to provide a substantive

rationale for the difference in faculty perception of the idealized

and actual chairperson role, relative to how the other two groups view







that role. It can be suggested, however, that the similarity in back-

grounds of chairpersons and faculty provides a basis for the similarity

in idealized perceptions about chairperson role. It can be further

suggested that the divergence in perception of actual chairperson be-

havior may be the result of a lack of understanding on the part of

faculty about the demands placed on the chairpersons in their role as

"middle-managers." The deans, as administrators, may be more likely

than faculty to understand the pressures the chairpersons experience in

the actual performance of their role. Thus, the deans may appraise the

chairpersons more realistically relative to how the chairpersons per-

ceived themselves actually functioning.

The findings of the study partially support what Smith (1970)

found in his study of community college chairpersons:

The results support the conclusion that community
college faculty members on the average are in basic dis-
agreement with department chairmen and upper echelon
administrators over their expectations for and observa-
tions of the role behavior of incumbents of the community
college chairman's position. (p. 317)

According to Lee (1972), there are other variables apart from role

itself and personal demographics which effect that role, including size

of department (in both number of faculty and number of students), place

of department in the institution, type of department, and the time in

the department's history the chairperson is appointed. In the present

study the six largest departments in terms of number of faculty and/or

students included three of the four departments where no significant

differences about actual chairperson behavior were found among the

three respondent groups, and three of the six programs where no signi-

ficant differences were found in idealized behavior. This is the only

such association which seems logical.








It is obvious from some of the conclusions drawn that the poten-

tial for conflict is present in the programs included in this study.

Much has been written about the problems which result from lack of

agreement about role expectations. Parsons and Shils (1951) define the

relationship between the role incumbent, or ego (chairperson in this

case) and those who border that role, or alters (deans and faculty in

the present study) as follows:

The essential element in the role is the complementarity
of expectations. The outcome of ego's action, in terms of
its significance to him is contingent on alter's reaction
to what he does. This reaction in turn is not random but
is organized relative to alter's expectation concerning
what is "proper" behavior on ego's part. (p. 154)

In the present study, "complementarity of expectations," particu-

larly in actual practice, was infrequent. Even though for the total

responding groups there was general agreement relative to what was

ideal, as the results of statistical tests showed in 20 of the 26 indi-

vidual programs included a significant difference existed among the

three respondent groups in their perception of the idealized role of

the chairperson. Also, for the total of responding groups, and in 22

of the 27 individual programs, a significant difference was found in

perception of the actual role behavior of the chairperson.

Getzels (1958) said that the better one understands the role one

plays in an organization and the more congruence which exists between

expectations for that role (of the chairperson in this study) and those

who border it (deans and faculty), the less conflict there is apt to be.

He is supported in this generalization by other theoreticians who have

shown that where disagreement exists about role expectations for the

chairperson, there is potential for conflict (Kahn, 1966, p. 278;

Parson and Shils, 1951, p. 350; Blau and Scott, 1962, p. 195).








The areas of conflict identified in the present research were in

actual perceptions about role behavior in the areas of Planning, Leader-

ship, Fiscal Responsibility, Evaluation, Curriculum, Climate Setting,

and Inter-departmental Communication. The task areas in which deans

differed most from chairpersons in the importance they saw the chair-

person actually placing on them were Planning, Evaluation, Students,

Fiscal Responsibility and Curriculum. The faculty respondents perceived

their chairpersons as placing the greatest actual importance in the area

of Evaluation, whereas the chairpersons saw themselves placing it fourth

from the bottom in importance. The faculty saw Planning, Leadership,

and Curriculum as the next areas in actual importance to their chair-

persons, whereas chairpersons saw themselves as putting little impor-

tance on Leadership. The faculty saw Curriculum as the ideally most

important area, but saw chairpersons actually giving it less importance.

The deans and chairpersons on the other hand, both considered the chair-

persons to be placing more actual importance on Curriculum than they

ideally should. In the areas of Instruction and Inter-departmental

Communication the faculty saw their chairpersons actually ranking these

areas much lower than did deans or chairpersons themselves. In both

the idealized and actual perceptions the means for all the chairpersons

were higher than the other two groups of respondents in 9 of the 11

task areas. Though the mean scores for all deans and all faculty were

fairly consistent when considering the idealized role of the chairper-

son, the faculty means were the lowest in all 11 task areas based on

the perceived importance the chairperson actually placed on those role

expectations.







The above observations seem to suggest that individuals going into

a position of chairperson should be aware of possible conflict in these

areas identified and be particularly mindful of the need to communicate

in these areas. There seems to be a special need to communicate with

faculty about the fiscal and administrative demands of the position,

and with deans about the particular needs and demands of the program,

profession, and faculty.

It would be desirable and useful to compare the results of the

present study with the findings from a similar study with a 100% re-

sponse rate. However, such a return rate seems unrealistic and to ex-

pend the necessary energy in attempting such a study would be wasteful.

There are more fruitful areas which need exploration.

One fruitful area of further investigation would be to try to de-

termine why the three respondent groups considered Planning, for in-

stance, to be the ideally most important area for chairpersons, Fiscal

Responsibility next in importance, and so on. Another area to investi-

gate further would be to determine, in an age of growing accountability

and of increasing concern with students, why the areas of Evaluation

and Students were the task areas rated the lowest in terms of idealized

importance by each group of respondents.

In addition, what is the significance, in a time of increasing

government regulation and intervention in health care, of the fact that

each group of respondents saw the chairpersons placing little or no im-

portance, both ideally and actually, on items such as "Attempting to

influence legislation which effects allied health education and health

care delivery," and "Reviewing occupational trends and identifying im-

plications for curriculum?"




78


Another type of research which would be a fruitful outgrowth of

this study is of a quasi-experimental nature. If there is, in fact, a

lack of adequate communication at the basis of the differences identi-

fied in the study, it might be productive to determine whether one can

lower the degree of potential conflict and achieve greater congruence

in role expectations by undertaking certain specified patterns of com-

munication.






























APPENDICES




























APPENDIX A



LIST OF CHAIRPERSON ROLE EXPECTATIONS
TAKEN FROM THE LITERATURE








LIST OF ROLE EXPECTATIONS TAKEN FROM THE LITERATURE

Author 1. Group Leader

Morgan and 1. Formulate long-range plans and objectives.
Canfield 2. Understand and implement organizational policy.
3. Identify priorities.
4. Apply democratic ideals.
5. Provide rewarding environment including opportun-
ities for mobility.
6. Define and delegate authority.

Dilley 1. Provide ideas and innovations.
2. Influence.
3. Be a problem-solver.

Lee Take responsibility for governance.

Underwood Be a planner.

Miller 1. Be a leader...among peers, as superior, as subordin-
ate.
2. Program development.
3. Climate setting (maintenance of a positive milieu).
4. Planning.

Smith 1. Involve faculty in decision making.
2. Involve students in decision making.
3. Participate in developing departmental admissions
standards.
4. Seek to have department represented on college
committees.
5. Develop long-range goals and objectives.
6. Review trends in student characteristics and identi-
fy implications for departmental programs.
7. Review occupational trends and identify implications
for departmental programs.
8. Review new developments in departmental subject.
9. Resolve conflicts between faculty and central admin-
istrator.
10. Resolve conflicts among departmental faculty.
11. Resolve conflicts between students and faculty.

Dagenais 1. Engage in systematic planning and decision-making.
2. Identify central issues in administrative problems.
3. Define and clarify organizational goals and objec-
tives.
4. Develop plans to achieve long and short range objec-
tives.
5. Establish priority rankings among administrative
problems.
6. Motivate faculty, students, and peers to increase
cooperation and job satisfaction.
7. Recognize the general legal principles that affect
program administration (legal responsibilities,
liability, etc.)









Author 2. Resource Developer

Morgan and 1. Maintain capable staff.
Canfield 2. Recognize and utilize skills
3. Assign work rationally.
4. Balance needs and goals.
5. Educate public.
6. Utilize lay and professional advisory committee for
objectives and evaluation.
7. Identify government resources and directions where
appropriate.
8. Identify and procure supplemental funding.

Dilley 1. Faculty development.
2. Be a fighter.

Doyle Maintain records.

Euwema Responsible for selection of new personnel.

Heimler 1. Recruit faculty.
2. Improve instruction.
3. Prepare semester schedules.
4. Maintain department records.
5. Make faculty schedules.

Lee 1. Recruit faculty.
2. Make recommendations for promotion and tenure.

Underwood Be an organizer.

Miller I. Faculty recruitment, selection, and development.
2. Grantspersonship.

Smith 1. Assign work space and facilities to faculty.
2. Assign faculty to teaching schedules.
3. Define teaching loads for faculty.
4. Orientate new faculty.
5. Be responsible for maintenance and repair of lab and
classroom equipment and other tangibles.
6. Formulate policies relating to faculty use of mater-
ials and equipment.
7. Participate in faculty recruitment.
8. Maintain liaison with community agencies and organ-
izations.
9. Encourage faculty to participate in conventions,
conferences, etc.
10. Seek outside funds for the department.
11. Plan for long range department equipment needs.
12. Determine department class size policies.










Author 2. Resource Developer (cont'd)

Dagenais 1. Manage personnel.
2. Utilize recruiting and selection procedures.
3. Describe job responsibilities for self and subor-
dinates.
4. Plan and execute personnel evaluations.
5. Consider the relationship between school, community,
and government in decisions which affect program
administration.
6. Attempt to influence legislation which influences
allied health education and health care delivery.


3. Communicator

Morgan and 1. Be open.
Canfield 2. Effectively communicate organizational goals,
problems, etc.
3. Keep organization and public informed of health
developments.
4. Prepare effective presentations.
5. Prepare proper articles, etc.
6. Conduct meetings in a democratic manner.
7. Be well educated about language of areas for which
have responsibility.
8. Utilize illustrative techniques in presentations.

Dilley Interpret.

Doyle 1. State department aims and offerings.
2. Represent department.
3. Maintain department.

Heimler 1. Respond to on and off campus inquiries.
2. Attend meetings and conferences.
3. Requisition texts and library materials.

Lee Present departmental needs to the dean.

Underwood Be responsible for curriculum.

Miller Communicate--one-way, two-way, with groups.

Smith 1. Represent department in community service projects.
2. Prepare departmental public relations program with
program brochures, etc.
3. Report departmental accomplishments to dean.









Author 3. Communicator (cont'd)

Dagenais 1. Maintain a receptivity and accessibility to others
through a knowledge of human behavior.
2. Utilize knowledge and techniques of group processes
to facilitate interaction with faculty, students,
peers, and supervisors.
3. Organize presentations which effectively convey
ideas.
4. Conduct effective conferences and meetings.


4. Educator

Morgan and 1. Be competent.
Canfield 2. Be leader to faculty.
3. Evaluate and encourage revision of curriculum.
4. Evaluate student applicants.
5. Understand job market needs.
6. Evaluate program effectiveness.
7. Encourage publication.
8. Encourage faculty growth.

Dilley Supervise curriculum.

Doyle 1. Assume teaching and supervisory functions.
2. Engage in personal research and scholarship.

Euwema Develop a sound curriculum.

Heimler 1. Be responsible for departmental correspondence.
2. Develop and revise courses.
3. Review student petitions.
4. Develop programs.
5. Write student recommendations for employment and
graduate school.

Lee 1. Teach.
2. Be responsible for curriculum development.
3. Do and encourage research.

Miller 1. Teach.
2. Be involved in student recruitment and selection.

Smith 1. Teach one or more classes each term.
2. Conduct research projects.
3. Counsel and advise students.
4. Implement in-service education for faculty.
5. Recruit students.
6. Participate in job placement of students.
7. Plan curriculum changes with faculty for two or
more years in advance.
(continued...)










Author 4. Educator (cont'd)

Smith 8. Determine which department courses and/or sections
(cont'd) will be offered, added, or canceled each term.
9. Approve additional class cards for department
course or section enrollments.

Dagenais Consider the implications of alternative models of
allied health education in terms of their ultimate
effects on health delivery.


5. Fiscal Officer

Morgan and 1. Understand budget system.
Canfield 2. Use cost/benefit effectiveness.
3. Communicate budget needs.
4. Relate objectives to costs.
5. Reduce overlap.

Doyle Prepare a departmental budget.

Heimler Prepare a departmental budget and administer it.

Miller Administer a budget.

Smith 1. Approve departmental purchase requests.
2. Seek larger share of college funds for department.
3. Prepare department's budget for submission to cen-
tral administrator.
4. Oversee internal allocation of budget funds.

Dagenais 1. Utilize knowledge of financial aspects of adminis-
tration.
2. Utilize knowledge of public and private funding
bases to secure financial support.
3. Utilize principles of accounting in the management
of a departmental or program budget.
4. Interpret salary schedules and payroll procedures.









Author 6. Evaluator

Morgan and 1. Evaluate faculty effectiveness.
Canfield 2. Develop evaluation of department input and output.
3. Use consumer input to improve program.
4. Objectively evaluate organizational effectiveness.
5. Use evaluation information to improve system.

Dilley Evaluate faculty and program.

Euwema Periodically evaluate all personnel.

Heimler Evaluate faculty and staff.

Underwood Be an evaluator.

Smith 1. Evaluate faculty.
2. Implement procedures for reviewing faculty com-
plaints.
3. Evaluate college education and administrative pol-
icies and/or procedures for purpose of recommending
needed changes.
4. Review statistical data to evaluate department
effectiveness.

Dagenais 1. Utilize techniques for systematic planning and
implementation, e.g. PERT, PPBS, Task Analysis, etc.
2. Collect, analyze, and interpret data related to
administrative problems.




























APPENDIX B



ROLE EXPECTATION SECTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE








ROLE-EXPECTATIONS FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS: IMPORTANCE SCALE



Directions:

The items in this questionnaire are behavioral competencies or
role-expectations which have been identified in the literature as
parts of the job of academic chairpersons. As there is occasional
overlap in specific tasks which appear within different categories,
please read over the entire questionnaire before filling it out.

You are asked to rate the importance of each task in two different
ways. First, rate the importance you think is actually being placed on
this task by the chairperson of the department of occupational therapy;
and second, rate the importance you think the chairperson of the occu-
pational therapy department should ideally be placing on this task.
In each case record your two responses by drawing circles around the
"importance scales" to the right of each task. If you have no know-
ledge of a task, draw a circle around the first zero. If you have no
opinion about a task, draw a circle around the second zero.

Let us apply this scale to the first task (task number 1). The
task states, "Defining and clarifying long-range goals and objectives."
If you think that the chairperson of your department places no importance
on this task, or does not consider it her/his responsibility, you should
circle number 1 in the first set of numbers to the right of the task.
Assume you think this chairperson ideally should place the highest im-
portance on this task. You should circle the number 5 in the second
set of numbers to the right of the task. Suppose that you have no
knowledge about this task. Circle the first zero to the right of the
task. If you have no opinion about the task, draw a circle around the
second zero to the right of the task.







Rating Scale
Highest importance Circl
Very important Circl
Average importance Circl
Low importance Circl
Unimportant Circl
No opinion/Knowledge Circl




PLArmNNrirl
1. Defining and clarifying
long-range goals and ob-
jectives.


e 5
e4
e3
e2
el
e 0
Actual
Importance
No
Low Hih Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 0


2. Considering the implica- 1 2 3 4 5 0
tions of alternative models
of allied health education
in terms of their ultimate
effects on health delivery
3. Developing plans to achieve 1 2 3 4 5 0
long and short range objec-
tives
4. Understanding and imple- 1 2 3 4 5 0
menting organizational
policy.
5. Reviewing long-range goals 1 2 3 4 5 0
and objectives periodically
6. Collecting, analyzing and 1 2 3 4 5 0
interpreting data related
to administrative problems
7. Recognizing the general 1 2 3 4 5 0
legal principles that af-
fect program administration
such as legal responsibility
and liability


LEADERSHIP
Making decisions
Attempting to influence
legislation which effects
allied health education and
health care delivery
Delegating authority
Applying democratic ideas
in the directing of the
department


1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0



1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0


Ideal
Importance
No
Low High Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0






1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0



1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0








Rating Scale
Highest importance
Very important
Average importance
Low importance
Unimportant
No opinion/knowledge


Actual
Importance


(LEADERSHIP) Low High
5. Motivating faculty, stu- 1 2 3 4 5
dents, and peers to in-
crease cooperation and job
satisfaction
6. Describing job responsibil- 1 2 3 4 5
ities for self and faculty/
staff
7. Formulating policies relat- 1 2 3 4 5
ing to faculty use of mater-
ials, equipment, and other
tangibles
8. Fighting for the department 1 2 3 4 5
9. Exerting influence where 1 2 3 4 5
needed

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
1. Relating objects to costs 1 2 3 4 5
through cost benefit analy-
sis
2. Utilizing knowledge of pub- 1 2 3 4 5
lic and private funding
bases to secure supplemen-
tal funding
3. Preparing and administer- 1 2 3 4 5
ing a departmental budget
4. Interpreting salary sched- 1 2 3 4 5
ules and payroll procedures
for faculty and staff
5. Reducing duplication and 1 2 3 4 5
overlap in activities and
expenditures
6. Communicating budget needs 1 2 3 4 5
to staff and higher admin-
istration


No
Knowledge


0


0



0

0


0


0


Ideal
Importance
No
High Opinion
345 0


12345 0


1 2 3 4 5 0



1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
12345




1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0



1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0


Circle 5
Circle 4
Circle 3
Circle 2
Circle 1
Circle 0








Rating Scale
Highest importance
Very important
Average importance
Low importance
Unimportant
No opinion/Knowledge


Circle 5
Circle 4
Circle 3
Circle 2
Circle 1
Circle 0


(FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY)
7. Approving departmental
purchase requests
8. Seeking a larger share of
college funds for depart-
ment


Actual
Importance
No
Low High Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0


EVALUATION
1. Developing and utilizing a 1 2 3 4 5
system for curriculum eval-
uation
2. Evaluating college educa- 1 2 3 4 5
tion and administration
policies and/or procedures,
for the purpose of recom-
mending needed changes
3. Utilizing lay and profes- 1 2 3 4 5
sional advisory committees
for program evaluation and
improvement


4. Reviewing statistical data
to evaluate departmental
effectiveness
5. Developing a system for
evaluation of departmental
output and input
6. Evaluating faculty and
staff effectiveness

CURRICULUM
1. Developing new courses
2. Revising courses based on
evaluation
3. Encouraging development of
a sound curriculum


1 2 3 4 5 0


1. 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0




1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0


Ideal
Importance
No
Low High Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0




1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0




1 2 3 4 5 0



1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0




1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0








Rating Scale
Highest importance
Very important
Average importance
Low importance
Unimportant
No opinion/Knowledge


(CURRICULUM)
4. Displaying competence in
the field
5. Identifying implications
for curriculum of new de-
velopments in the field
6. Reviewing occupational
trends and identifying im-
plications for curriculum
7. Planning curricular
changes with the faculty
for two or more years in
advance

INSTRUCTION
1. Working with faculty to
improve instruction


Actual
Importance
No
Low High Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0





1 2 3 4 5 0


2. Assigning faculty to teach- 1 2 3 4 5
ing schedules
3. Participating in develop- 1 2 3 4 5
ment of departmental admis-
sions standards


4. Determining departmental
class size policies
5. Defining teaching loads
for faculty
6. Assigning work space and
facilities to faculty
7. Taking responsibility for
maintenance and repair of
lab and classroom equipment


1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0


Ideal
Importance
No
Low High Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0





1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0


1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0


Circle 5
Circle 4
Circle 3
Circle 2
Circle 1
Circle 0




Full Text
3) miscellaneous duties including representation of the
institution and department at educational meetings
and conferences as well as personal research and pro
ductive scholarship, (pp. 34-35)
The second significant study was Smith's (1970). He developed an
extensive instrument, the major section of which contained 46 "acti
vities of the department chairman." Three groups of respondents--
chairpersons, faculty, and "upper echelon administrators"--were asked
to indicate on a 6-point scale what each felt was the actual behavior
response of the chairperson for each activity, and what each felt was
the expected behavior response for each activity. The objective he was
seeking by this part of his questionnaire is related to the present
study. It was:
... to describe what community college department chair
men, department faculty, and upper echelon administrators
believe should be the role of the community college chair
man and to measure the extent to which chairmen are in fact
conforming to these expectations, (p. 6)
Smith used his questionnaire with all full-time faculty, depart
ment heads, and upper echelon administrators in 12 public community
colleges in one midwestern state. In his discussion of results he
looked at differences of expectations within and among sample popula
tions, and also within single departments:
The results support the conclusion that community
college faculty members on the average are in basic dis
agreement with department chairmen and upper echelon
administrators over their expectations for and observa
tions of the role behavior of incumbents of the community
college chairman's position. The examination of the con
forming behavior of community college department chairmen
led to the conclusion that chairmen as a group are not
living up to either their own, their faculties', or their
supervisors' expectations for their role behavior, (p. 317)
The third related study was a 1973 dissertation by Zucker, He
developed a model for "determining the role perceptions of department


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background and Justification
Only a small number of studies have been conducted which deal
with the role of the department chairperson in an academic setting
(Doyle, 1953; Aldmon, 1959; Smith, 1970; Zucker, 1973; Davis, 1975;
Copeland, 1975; Franks, 1975; Carnegie; 1976; Gerwin, 1977; Volz,
1977). In addition, theoretical writings in administration have paid
small heed to this position, relegating it to only parts of a chapter
in books on academic administration and/or governance (e.g.,
Richardson, Blocker & Bender, 1972; Corson, 1975). Brann and Emmet,
editors of The Academic Department or Division Chairman: A Complex
Role (1972) presented the major exception. Charles Heimler, in 1968,
strongly recommended research into the following questions:
How do college departmental chairmen perceive their
role? How is their administrative role perceived by the
departmental faculty and the administration? What con
flicts, if any, exist among these perspectives? (p. 163)
The limited coverage that there has been of the department chair
person role has been addressed to the traditional academic areas of
humanities and arts and sciences, and in the 1970's, to chairpersons
in vocational education programs. No studies have been done to assay
the role of department chairperson in the more technical/clinical area
of professional allied health programs, and specifically, occupational
1


It
Our more concrete roots extend from the First World War,
when the country anticipated that with improved medical
and surgical techniques, large numbers of the wounded
would need an active rehabilitation program and that this
would require trained personnel. This led to Reconstruc
tion Aides and a large war and postwar reconstruction pro
gram of rehabilitation. ... On October 17, 1917, the
National Society for the Promotion of Occupational Therapy
was founded, (p. 227)
Woodside went on to delineate the development of occupational
therapy education:
The new profession was working during its early years to
establish educational standards. Until 1911, occupational
therapy programs were supervised by physicians and carried
out by craftsmen or untrained individuals because there
were no specific practitioners. In that year, Susan E.
Tracy, a nurse who had become convinced of the value of
patient activity, began a course in Invalid Occupations
for student nurses at the Massachusetts General Hospital.
(p. 228)
Immediately after the War the Surgeon General of the United States
Army encouraged the development of centers to train practitioners to
work with disabled soldiers. The first occupational therapy school
within an academic setting was established at Milwaukee-Downer College
in 1918.
Soon occupational therapy departments in hospitals came to
serve all patients, not just returning soldiers and the
mentally ill, and a second wave of professional schools
arose in response to the need for more personnel and more
diverse services. Shortly after the establishment of the
first professional schools, occupational therapy education
was improved and expanded. By 1922, the need for organiza
tion of occupational therapy schools was recognized by the
national association and a chairman for the education com
mittee of the national society was appointed. This created
the first direct link between occupational therapy educa
tion and the professional association. In 1923, minimum
standards for education courses were published. . The
1920's saw distinct improvements in our education because
several individuals with foresight worked hard for
change. All occupational therapy schools became affil
iated with colleges and universities. Struggles over
what to teach resulted in the establishment of the educa
tion committee and in the publication of the first set of
minimum essentials of education in 1923. . However, the


69
20. Faculty perceived their chairpersons as placing actual impor
tance on 69 of the 87 role behavior items.
21. When data from all groups were combined it was found that
chairpersons were perceived as placing actual importance on 78 of the
87 individual role behaviors.
22. Over 25% of the chairpersons indicated feeling some or much
conflict with their dean and/or faculty in 7 of the 11 task areas.
These areas were Planning, Leadership, Fiscal Responsibility, Evalua
tion, Curriculum, Climate Setting, and Inter-departmental Communication.
23. In each of the 7 task areas in which over 25% of chairpersons
indicated feeling some conflict, a significant difference was found in
the way deans, chairpersons, and faculty perceived the actual role
behavior of the chairpersons.
24. There was only one task area (Students) where significant
difference was found among the actual perceptions of the three respondent
groups but where conflict was not perceived by over 25% of chairpersons.
Conclusions
Based on the foregoing data, the following conclusions were deemed
warranted:
1. Ideally, the relevant reference groups to chairpersons of
occupational therapy education programs believe that the departmental
chairperson should place primary emphasis on the areas of Planning,
Fiscal Responsibility, and Leadership. This conclusion seems supported
by the fact that "all groups combined" ranked Planning at the top of
their priority order (11); the deans ranked it 9, chairpersons 11, and


ROLE-EXPECTATIONS FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS: IMPORTANCE SCALE
Directions:
The items in this questionnaire are behavioral competencies or
role-expectations which have been identified in the literature as
parts of the job of academic chairpersons. As there is occasional
overlap in specific tasks which appear within different categories,
please read over the entire questionnaire before filling it out.
You are asked to rate the importance of each task in two different
ways. First, rate the importance you think is actually being placed on
this task by the chairperson of the department of occupational therapy;
and second, rate the importance you think the chairperson of the occu
pational therapy department should ideally be placing on this task.
In each case record your two responses by drawing circles around the
"importance scales" to the right of each task. If you have no know
ledge of a task, draw a circle around the first zero. If you have no
opinion about a task, draw a circle around the second zero.
Let us apply this scale to the first task (task number 1). The
task states, "Defining and clarifying long-range goals and objectives."
If you think that the chairperson of your department places no importance
on this task, or does not consider it her/his responsibility, you should
circle number 1 in the first set of numbers to the right of the task.
Assume you think this chairperson ideally should place the highest im
portance on this task. You should circle the number 5 in the second
set of numbers to the right of the task. Suppose that you have no
knowledge about this task. Circle the first zero to the right of the
task. If you have no opinion about the task, draw a circle around the
second zero to the right of the task.
88


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULTY
Rank
Mean
ALL COMBINED
Rank Mean
STUDENTS (contd)
82. Evaluating student applications
40
4.07
4
3.46
17.5
3.73
13.5
3.75
83. Involving students in decision
making
14
3.68
25.5
4.00
21
3.76
16.5
3.81
84. Reviewing student petitions
36
4.03
18.5
3.91
26
3.83
29
3.92
85. Counseling and advising students
68.5
4.32
33
4.09
29
3.88
42.5
4.10
86. Teaching students
74.5
4.39
16
3.77
10
3.60
29
3.92
87. Writing student recommendations
for employment and graduate
school
18
3.79
18.5
3.91
5.5
3.46
10.5
3.72


34
of the role of the department chairperson for each of the groups of
respondents are reported. In the third section of the chapter the
focus is on the differences in perception among deans, chairpersons,
and faculty. In the fourth section differences between idealized and
actual role perceptions for each of the groups are described. The
fifth section of the chapter deals with the relationship between the
theoretical role and the perceptions of the respondents. Finally, in
the sixth section, conflict identified by chairpersons is reported and
related to that identifiable from the idealized and actual perceptions
of the respondents.
Profile of Subjects
Background data about the respondents are presented in a series
of tables. This information provides a basis of understanding from
which to view the responses of the three categories of subjects. Sev
eral experts have noted the relevance of background, such as education
and field of study, to the way a person looks at role behaviors (.g.,
Lee, 1972, p. 30). Although the present study was not intended to pro
vide a basis for drawing definitive conclusions about the relationships
between the background of respondents and the way they view a particu
lar role, that background is significant and therefore worth examining
for possible trends, and implications for further study.
As Table 1 shows, the age category containing the largest percent
of deans and chairpersons was 46-50. The age category with the great
est percent of faculty was 31-35.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES v
ABSTRACT vl
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
Background and Justification 1
The Problem 4
Definition of Terms 6
Procedures 8
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 12
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE 13
Development of Occupational Therapy Education 13
Role Theory 16
Department Chairperson Role 23
Literature As It Relates to Occupational Therapy Department
Chairperson's Role Expectations and Potential Areas of
Conflict 31
The Literature in Retrospect 32
CHAPTER III RESULTS OF THE STUDY 33
Profile of Subjects 34
Perceptions of the Chairperson Role 42
Perceived Difference About Chairperson Role 49
Chairperson Role Conflict 60
CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION 64
Summary 64
Conclusions 69
Discussion 72
i i i


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULTY
Rank Mean
ALL COMBINED
Rank Mean
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
8
4.14
5
4.18
7
4.14
6
4.15
71. Maintaining a receptivity and
accessibility to others
56
4.20
65
4.49
79
4.48
69.5
4.39
72. Learning the language (common
terminology) of areas for which
has responsibility
37
4.04
33
4.09
45
4.11
39.5
4.08
73. Organizing presentations which
effectively convey ideas
41
4.07
36
4.12
41.5
4.04
39.5
4.08
74. Striving to resolve conflicts
between faculty and central
administrators
42
4.08
27
4.03
50.5
4.19
42.5
4.10
75. Helping to resolve conflicts
among departmental faculty
73
4.38
40.5
4.17
54
4.22
55.5
4.26
76. Maintaining departmental records
31
3.97
23.5
3.97
24.5
3.82
29
3.92
77. Conducting meetings in a manner
to encourage involvement of all
44
4.T1
65
4.49
71.5
4.41
63.5
4.34
78. Implementing procedures for
reviewing faculty complaints
49
4.14
33
4.09
32
3.91
36
4.05
79. Striving to resolve conflicts
between students and faculty
64
4.29
44
4.21
39.5
4.02
46
4.17
STUDENTS
4
4.01
2
3.94
2
3.77
2
3.91
80. Reviewing trends in student
characteristics
20.5
3.81
43
4.20
20
3.75
29
3.92
81. Identifying implications of
changing student characteristics
for departmental programs
31
3.97
42
4.19
48
4.17
44
4.11


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULTV
Rank
Mean
ALL
Rank
COMBINED
Mean
EXTRA-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
1
3.81
3
4.00
3
3.94
3
3.92
60. Attending meetings and
conferences
16
3.74
21
3.94
38
4.01
24
3.90
61. Keeping the institution and pub
lic informed of health develop
ments
9.5
3.60
9
3.63
12
3.63
7
3.62
62. Preparing quality articles and
communiques
23.5
3.83
29
4.06
24.5
3.82
24
3.90
63. Effectively communicating organ
izational goals and problems to
other departments and agencies
13
3.67
48
4.26
44
4.10
35
4.01
64. Maintaining liaison with commun
ity agencies and organizations
51
4.16
40.5
4.14
33.5
3.95
41
4.09
65. Taking responsibility for
departmental correspondence
26
3,90
29
4.06
19
3.74
24
3.90
66. Presenting departmental accom
plishments to the dean
54
4.19
65
4.49
73.5
4.43
67
4.37
67. Representing the department in
community service projects
5
3.52
8
3.63
5.5
3.46
4
3.54
68. Seeking to have the department
represented on college committees
7.5
3.53
33
4.09
33.5
3.95
20.5
3.86
69. Preparing departmental public
relations programs with bro
chures and other publicity
5
3.52
11.5
3.65
8
3.55
6
3.57
70. Presenting departmental needs
to the dean
64
4.29
84.5
4.74
86
4.64
84
4.56


TABLE 15
DIRECTION AND MAGNITUDE OF DIFFERENCES AMONG THE THREE RESPONDENT GROUPS FOR THE 11 TASK AREAS
Task Areas
Deans
*1(Rank)A** I(Mean)A
Chairpersons
I(Rank)A I(Mean)A
Faculty
I(Rank)A I(Mean)A
All
I(Rank)A I(Mean)A
Planning
9
4.5
4.23
3.66
11
9
4.49
4.01
10
10
4.23
3.46
11
9
4.32
3.71
Fiscal
Responsibility
11
7
4.32
3.76
9.5
10
4.37
4.02
8
5.5
4.17
3.34
10
9
4.29
3.71
Leadership
7
3
4.08
3.64
9.5
3
4.37
3.65
9
8.5
4.20
3.39
9
5.5
4.22
3.67
Instruction
10
6
4.24
3.70
7.5
6
4.28
3.79
6
2
4.12
3.15
8
3
4.21
3.55
Curriculum
6
8
4.03
3.81
7.5
11
4.28
4.05
11
8.5
4.24
3.39
7
11
4.18
3.75
Inter-departmental
Communication
8
9
4.14
3.83
5
8
4.18
3.95
7
3.5
4.14
3.32
6
7
4.15
3.70
Climate Setting
5
4.5
4.02
3.66
6
7
4.25
3.82
5
3.5
4.07
3.32
5
4
4.11
3.60
Faculty
Development
2
1
3.93
3.50
4
1
4.11
3.61
4
1
4.03
3.05
4
1
4.02
3.39
Extra-departmental
Communication
1
2
3.81
3.58
3
2
4.00
3.63
3
7
3.94
3.37
3
2
3.92
3.53
Students
4
10
4.01
3.84
2
5
3.94
3.73
2
5.5
3.77
3.44
2
5.5
3.91
3.67
Evaluation
3
11
3.94
3.97
1
4
3.60
3.68
1
11
3.59
3.48
1
9
3.71
3.71
*Idealized
**Actual


37
TABLE 4
DEGREE FIELDS OF THE RESPONDENTS*
Field
Deans
(n= 32)
Chairpersons
(n=38)
Faculty
(n=127)
All
(n=l97)
Occupational Therapy
11
26
38
Education,
Counseling, Guidance
3
13
41
57
Allied Health,
Health, Phys. Ed.
3
3
14
20
Economics, Business
2
1
3
English, History,
PolySci., Anthro.
5
3
4
12
Science
9
3
4
16
Hospital Admin.
3
1
4
Educational Admin.
8
5
1
14
Psychology
3
4
7
Other
1
1
2
3
Total
34
44
96
174
*Some respondents indicated two graduate degrees
Table 5 shows that of the two women deans, half were interim or
acting deans. Only one male had such a temporary title. The greatest
number of faculty held either assistant professor or instructor/
lecturer positions.


92
Rating Scale
Highest importance Circle 5
Very important Circle 4
Average importance Circle 3
Low importance Circle 2
Unimportant Circle 1
No opinion/Knowledge Circle 0
Actual
Importance
No
(CURRICULUM) Low High Knowledge
4. Displaying competence in 12345
the field
5. Identifying implications 12345
for curriculum of new de
velopments in the field
6. Reviewing occupational 12345
trends and identifying im
plications for curriculum
7. Planning curricular 12345
changes with the faculty
for two or more years in
advance
0
0
0
0
Ideal
Importance
No
Low High Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
INSTRUCTION
1. Working with faculty to 12345
improve instruction
2. Assigning faculty to teach- 12345
ing schedules
3. Participating in develop- 12345
ment of departmental admis
sions standards
4. Determining departmental 12345
class size policies
5. Defining teaching loads 12345
for faculty
6. Assigning work space and 12345
facilities to faculty
7. Taking responsibility for 12345
maintenance and repair of
lab and classroom eguipment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULTY
Rank Mean
ALL COMBINED
Rank Mean
EVALUATION (cont'd)
29. Developing a system for evalua
tion of departmental output and
input
64.5
4.00
18
3.47
45.5
3.39
38.5
3.62
30. Evaluating faculty and staff
effectiveness
26
3.47
3
2.68
5
2.47
6
2.87
CURRICULUM
8
3.81
11
4.05
8.5
3.39
11
3.75
31. Developing new courses
47.5
3.81
79
4.41
40.5
3.26
55
3.83
32. Revising courses based on
evaluation
38
3.67
69.5
4.30
25
3.06
43.5
3.68
33. Encouraging development of a
sound curriculum
60.5
3.97
79
4.41
54
3.57
68
3.98
34. Displaying competence in the
field
74
4.13
65
4.25
59.5
3.66
72.5
4.01
35. Identifying implications for
curriculum of new developments
in the field
69
4.06
82.5
4.43
51.5
3.52
70.5
4.00
36. Reviewing occupational trends
and identifying implications
for curriculum
3
2.90
1
2.55
22
3.03
3
2.83
37. Planning curricular changes
with the faculty for two or
more years in advance
77
4.16
56.5
4.03
57
3.64
64.5
3.94


REFERENCE NOTES
1. Dagenais, F. Competencies for educational administrators in the
allied health fields. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Society of Allied Health Professions, Philadelphia,
November, 1975.
2. Tucker, A. A proposal to design and test a model for planned
changes in higher education through enhancing the planning,
management and leadership competencies of department chair
persons within a state university system. Tallahassee, Fla.:
Institute for Departmental Leadership, 1977.
3. Miller, R.J. A study in administrative style and responsibility.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, 1974.
126


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULTY
Rank Mean
ALL COMBINED
Rank Mean
CLISATE SETTING (cont'd)
49. Maintaining a capable support
staff
3
3.52
6
3.61
7
3.51
5
3.55
50. Maintaining a departmental library
35
4.03
51
4.30
30.5
3.89
37.5
4.07
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
2
3.93
4
4.11
4
4.03
4
4.02
51. Encouraging faculty to participate
in conventions, conferences, and
meetings
56
4.20
71
4.56
80
4.49
72.5
4.42
52. Leading the faculty in establish
ing goals for growth
25
3.87
21
3.94
13
3.65
18
3.82
53. Encouraging research and publica
tion
5
3.43
33
4.09
65
4.33
32.5
3.95
54. Making recommendations for pro
motion and tenure
59.5
4.23
68.5
4.53
56.5
4.24
63.5
4.33
55. Orienting new faculty
7.5
3.53
25.5
4.00
37
3.99
19
3.84
56. Developing in-service education
for new faculty
23.5
3.83
11.5
3.65
22
3.77
13.5
3.75
57. Recruiting faculty
22
3.82
21
3.94
23
3.81
20.5
3.86
58. Providing a rewarding environ
ment including opportunities for
mobility within the department
27.5
3.93
15
3.74
14
3.67
15
3.78
59. Involving faculty in decision
making
83.5
4.55
71
4.56
62
4.30
78.5
4.47


20
Getzels and associates therefore maintained that behavior in a
social system is always the result of interaction between the person
ality factors (personal dimension) and the role factors (normative
dimension). From their model they derived the equation B = f(RxP),
where B = observed behavior, R = the institutional role defined by its
attached expectations, and P = the personality of the role incumbent
defined by his need-dispositions (p. 80). This has great similarity
to Kurt Lewin's formula, B = f(P,E), where B = behavior, P = the per
son, and E = the environment. The major difference, though, is that
Lewin contended that ". . to understand or to predict behavior, the
person and his environment have to be considered as one constellation
of interdependent factors" (Lewin, 1951, p. 240). Environment is not
independent of the person (P) because it (E) is defined by the percep
tion of the person. In Getzel and associates' formula, on the other
hand, R (E defined in terms of role expectations) is given by the in
stitution, completely apart from the person's perception of it (p. 81).
The study reported herein focused on only the normative dimension
in the Getzels and associates model. This was based on the reality
that measurement of the personal dimension is considerably more diffi
cult to achieve with any amount of accuracy, and is validated by the
following statement by Parsons and Shils:
When we recognize that roles rather than personal
ities are the units of social structure, we can perceive
the necessity of an element of "looseness" in the rela
tions between personality structure and the performance
of a role. (p. 23)
Role Conflict
One of the values of analyzing expectations held by different
individuals for the same role is the determination of where those


RANKINGS FOR EACH OF THE 87 IDEAL ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR EACH RESPONDENT GROUP AND FOR ALL GROUPS COMBINED
ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
In=3T)
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
[=38]
Rank Mean
FACULTY
(n=127)
Rank Mean
ALL
(n
Rank
COMBINED
= 196)
Mean
PLANNING
9
4.23
11
4.49
10
4.23
n
4.32
1. Defining and clarifying long-
range goals and objectives
83.5
4.55
83
4.73
81
4.50
85
4.59
2. Considering the implications of
alternative models of allied
health education in terms of
their ultimate effects on health
delivery
18
3.79
38.5
4.15
36
3.98
34
3.97
3. Developing plans to achieve long
and short range objectives
86
4.77
82
4.71
82
4.52
86
4.67
4. Understanding and implementing
organizational policy
71
4.35
73.5
4.57
48
4.17
65
4.36
5. Reviewing long-range goals and
objectives periodically
76
4.40
79
4.66
60.5
4.29
76.5
4.45
6. Collecting, analyzing and
interpreting data related to
administrative problems
11
3.63
45
4.23
30.5
3.89
29
3.92
7. Recognizing the general legal
principles that affect program
administration such as legal
responsibility and liability
46.5
4.13
56.5
4.39
55
4.23
52.5
4.25
LEADERSHIP
7
4.08
9.5
4.37
9
4.20
9
4.22
8. Making decisions
80.5
4.52
77.5
4.63
77.5
4.46
82
4.54


9
Responses were received from 32 deans, 38 chairpersons, and 127
faculty. The return rate, then, was 677. of deans, 797 of chairpersons,
and 667 of faculty.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The instrument used in collecting the data was a questionnaire
which the researcher developed based on a review of the literature and
testing with a panel of experts. These experts were the department
chairpersons, selected faculty, and the dean of the College of Health
Related Professions at the University of Florida. The second, and
major, part of this instrument was common to all respondents, and con
sisted of the list of competency statements or role-expectations devel
oped from the literature (See Appendix A). This list was divided into
11 major categories or task areas, each containing from 6-12 role-
expectations (Appendix B).
Each subject was asked to indicate on a 5-point scale, the impor
tance they observed their chairperson actually giving to each behavior,
and, on another 5-point scale, the importance they thought their chair
person ideally ought to be placing on the behavior. (If they had no
opinion or no knowledge of the behavior they were instructed to circle
0.) The faculty, the chairpersons, and the deans or equivalent admin
istrators were asked to complete this part of the questionnaire.
Every respondent was asked to answer certain common descriptive
questions. These related to their gender, length of time in their
present position, degrees held beyond the bachelor's, official title,
and age. Additionally, chairpersons were asked about number of depart
ment faculty and students, administrative location of department, and
whether or not faculty were unionized.


46
Respondents' Perceptions of Actual Role Behavior of Chairpersons
The second problem question addressed in this research was,
What is the actual role behavior of the chairperson as
perceived by a) deans, b) chairpersons, c) a representa
tive number of faculty, and d) all groups combined?
As with the preceding question, answers were found to this ques
tion by taking the mean responses from the three categories of respond
ents and for "all groups combined." The perceptions relative to the
actual role behavior of chairpersons are shown in full in Appendix F.
The rankings and means by area for the deans, chairpersons, faculty,
and all groups combined are presented in Table 11. Again, the ranking
is from highest (11), to lowest (1) in importance.
TABLE 11
PERCEPTIONS OF THE ACTUAL ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON
Task Areas
Deans
(n=32)
Rank Mean
Chairpersons
(n=38)
Rank Mean
Faculty
(n=l 27)
Rank Mean
(n
Rank
All
= 197)
Mean
Curriculurn
8
3.81
11
4.05
8.5
3.39
11
3.75
Planning
4.5
3.66
9
4.01
10
3.46
9
3.71
Fiscal
Responsibility
7
3.76
10
4.02
5.5
3.34
9
3.71
Evaluation
11
3.97
4
3.68
11
3.48
9
3.71
Inter-departmental
Communication
9
3.82
8
3.95
3.5
3.32
7
3.70
Students
10
3.84
5
3.73
5.5
3.44
5.5
3.67
Leadership
3
3.64
3
3.65
8.5
3.39
5.5
3.67
Climate Setting
4.5
3.66
7
3.82
3.5
3.32
4
3.60
Instruction
6
3.70
6
3.79
2
3.15
3
3.55
Extra-departmental
Communication
2
3.58
2
3.63
7
3.37
2
3.53
Faculty
Development
1
3.50
1
3.61
1
3.05
1
3.39


The chairpersons saw themselves as placing least importance on
"Reviewing occupational trends and identifying implications for curric
ulum." This was followed by "Attempting to influence legislation which
affects allied health education and health care delivery," and "Evalu
ating faculty and staff effectiveness."
The faculty ranked "Defining teaching loads for faculty" lowest in
importance as they saw their chairperson's actual behavior. They con
sidered "Providing a rewarding environment including opportunities for
mobility within the department" next lowest, followed by "Seeking a
larger share of college funds for the department."
Perceived Differences About Chairperson Role
The population for questions 3, 4, and 5 consisted of the 27 occu
pational therapy education programs from which responses were received
from at least the dean, the chairperson, and one faculty member. How
ever, only 26 programs were included in the analysis of question 3
because one dean did not fill out the ideal portion of the question
naire. In only two of these programs was there only one faculty member
response. The remaining 25 were represented by responses from 2 (5
programs), 3 (10 programs) or 4 (10 programs) faculty members. In
these 25 programs the responses to each item from all faculty members
were combined and a mean computed to represent the "faculty" response
to each item for that program.
To determine whether significant differences in perception existed
within each institution, (questions 3 and 4), the Kruskal-Wallis One-
Way Analysis of Variance was used with the .05 level used to reject the


35
TABLE 1
AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS
Age
Deans
(n=32)
%
Chairpersons
(n= 30)
%
Faculty
(n=l27)
%
All
(n=197)
%
20-25
3
2.3
3
1.5
26-30
1
2.7
26
20.5
27
13.8
31-35
3
7.9
27
21.4
30
15.2
36-40
7
22
5
13
24
19
36
18.3
41-45
7
22
9
24
12
9.4
28
14.2
46-50
8
12.5
11
29
14
11
33
16.8
51-55
4
12.5
4
10.5
9
7
17
8.6
56-60
4
6
3
7.9
9
7
16
8.1
61-65
2
2
5
2
1.6
6
3
66-70
1
.8
1
.5
Total
32
100
38
100
127
100
197
100
As can be seen from Table 2, over two-thirds of the deans were men.
Women comprised 86.8 percent of the chairpersons and 90.5 percent of
the faculty.
TABLE 2
SEX OF THE RESPONDENTS
Deans
(n=32)
%
Chairpersons
(n=38)
%
Faculty
(n=l27)
%
All
(n=197)
%
Female
10
31.2
33
86.8
115
90.5
158
80.2
Male
22
68.6
5
13.2
12
9.5
39
19.8
Total
32
100
38
100
127
100
197
100


71
5. The relevant groups are in general agreement about the ideal
ized role of the chairperson. This conclusion is supported by the fact
that when the responses from all deans, all chairpersons and all faculty
were compared no significant difference was found in regard to the
idealized perceptions in any of the 11 task areas.
6. There are differences in perceptions among the relevant groups
about the way chairpersons actually behave. This is supported by the
fact that significant difference was found among the three groups in
regard to perception of actual chairperson behaviors in 8 of the 11
task areas.
7. There is a difference in the way each of the relevant groups
perceive the idealized and the actual role of the department chairper
son. This is evidenced by the fact that when responses from all deans,
all chairpersons, and all faculty were analyzed, a significant differ
ence was found in each case between their idealized and their actual
perceptions of the chairperson role.
8. There is congruence between the perceived idealized role of
the department chairperson and the theoretical role contained in the
literature. However, there is a lack of congruence between the per
ceived actual role behavior of the chairperson and the theoretical role.
This is shown by the fact that of the 87 role expectations identified
through a review of the literature, 85 were considered ideally impor
tant by al 1 three categories of respondent and by "all groups combined."
Yet, in the comparison of the perception of actual chairperson role be
havior with the idealized role expectations there were significant dif
ferences for each of the three groups of respondents.


76
The areas of conflict identified in the present research were in
actual perceptions about role behavior in the areas of Planning, leader
ship, Fiscal Responsibility, Evaluation, Curriculum, Climate Setting,
and Inter-departmental Communication. The task areas in which deans
differed most from chairpersons in the importance they saw the chair
person actually placing on them were Planning, Evaluation, Students,
Fiscal Responsibility and Curriculum. The faculty respondents perceived
their chairpersons as placing the greatest actual importance in the area
of Evaluation, whereas the chairpersons saw themselves placing it fourth
from the bottom in importance. The faculty saw Planning, Leadership,
and Curriculum as the next areas in actual importance to their chair
persons, whereas chairpersons saw themselves as putting little impor
tance on Leadership. The faculty saw Curriculum as the ideally most
important area, but saw chairpersons actually giving it less importance.
The deans and chairpersons on the other hand, both considered the chair
persons to be placing more actual importance on Curriculum than they
ideally should. In the areas of Instruction and Inter-departmental
Communication the faculty saw their chairpersons actually ranking these
areas much lower than did deans or chairpersons themselves. In both
the idealized and actual perceptions the means for all the chairpersons
were higher than the other two groups of respondents in 9 of the 11
task areas. Though the mean scores for all deans and all faculty were
fairly consistent when considering the idealized role of the chairper
son, the faculty means were the lowest in all 11 task areas based on
the perceived importance the chairperson actually placed on those role
expectations.


APPENDICES


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of
the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR CHAIRPERSONS OF
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY EDUCATION PROGRAMS
By
Rosalee Jane Miller
December, 1978
Chairman: Michael Y. Nunnery, Ed.D.
Major Department: Educational Administration
There has been much theoretical writing about organizational roles,
but the empirical research examining that theory has been limited.
Particularly in a time of demands for accountability, an appropriate
area of research is to ascertain how a particular role is perceived,
ideally and actually, and to then examine the findings of that research
in the light of existing theory. This includes the need to study roles
in the administration of higher educational institutions. One often
overlooked administrative role in such institutions is that of the aca
demic department chairoerson, particularly chairpersons in relatively
new fields such as occupational therapy. Chairpersons in this area
have the demands of accountability to outside accrediting bodies and
for the competent delivery of health care in addition to a chairperson's
usual accountability to the university/college administration and to
their particular academic discipline.
vi


ID
These questions were asked in order that as one examined the find-
inqs one might have some basis for hypothesizing about the reason cer
tain patterns of response were present. For example: Lee reported that
the size of a department (in both number of students and number of
faculty) has been shown to be a significant factor effecting role-
expectation (Lee, 1972). Both the 5-question faculty/dean descriptive
section and the 10-question chairperson descriptive section are repro
duced as Appendix C.
The chairperson questionnaire included a third section in which
chairpersons were asked to indicate, on a scale of 1no conflict, 2
some conflict, 3much conflict, the amount of conflict they experienced
with their dean and/or faculty in each of the 11 major categories in
cluded in the role-expectations section. This information was then com
pared with the returns from the deans and faculty to see if the chair
person's perceptions of conflict areas were shared by others. (See
Appendix D.)
Finally, the chairpersons were asked to indicate their level of
overall satisfaction with their present job...from very satisfied to
very dissatisfied. Role conflict is directly related to job satisfac
tion; as indicated by Kahn (p. 278) and by Getzels and associates (Get-
zels et al., 1968, p. 128), among others; and therefore to turnover rate.
Data Analysis
Much of the analysis of data for this study was by inspection and
simple nonparametric statistics. To illustrate, as a part of question
3 a comparison between deans' and chairpersons' perceptions of the
chairperson idealized role was proposed. Total idealized scores were
found for deans and for chairpersons, then the two were analyzed by


65
7. What do chairpersons identify as areas of conflict,
and how do these relate to possible areas of conflict
identified in the results of this study?
As a first step toward answering the problem questions it was
necessary to develop an instrument of role expectations for departmen
tal chairpersons. This was done by exhaustive review of the literature
from which role expectation statements were derived based on the writ
ings of theoreticians in the area. These role statements were then
used as a basis of developing a questionnaire which was the principal
means of gathering the data. The questionnaire contained 87 role ex
pectation statements, plus demographic information items, and, for
chairpersons, items relative to perceived conflict and role satisfac
tion.
Copies of this instrument were mailed to the dean, chairperson,
and faculty of 48 of the 49 professional education programs in occupa
tional therapy approved by the American Occupational Therapy Associa
tion. Responses were received from a total of 32 deans, 38 chairper
sons, and 127 faculty members. Usable data were received from 27
complete programs (where responses were received from the dean, the
chairpersons, and at least one faculty member). All responses were
used for answering problem questions 1, 2, 6, and 7. The responses
from the 27 complete programs were used in answering questions 3, 4,
and 5. The data were analyzed by means of frequency distributions.
Where comparisons were required two techniques were used, the Kruskal-
Wallis-H, and the Wilcoxon T. Logical analysis was used to answer the
question relating to conflict.


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Rosalee Miller was born in Elyria, Ohio, on June 6, 1944. She
attended the Wellington Public Schools and graduated from Wellington
High School in 1962.
Her undergraduate work was completed at Doane College in Crete,
Nebraska, and Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana. She graduated from
Earlham College in 1966 with a major in human relations and psychology,
and a minor in biology. She received her Certificate of Proficiency in
occupational therapy from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968 and
passed the National Registering Examination to become a Registered Oc
cupational Therapist that same year. In August, 1972, she received a
Master of Science degree in occupational therapy and community health
from Boston University.
She has been employed as an occupational therapist at the State
Psychiatric Hospital in Trenton, New Jersey; as Director of Career
Development for the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine at Columbia
University; and as Director of Occupational Therapy at Hunterdon Com
munity Mental Health Center in Flemington, New Jersey. Her professional
and scholastic affiliations include the American Occupational Therapy
Association, Phi Delta Kappa, and Alpha Lambda Delta and Cardinal Key
honorary societies.
127


101
Chairpersons: please answer the following two questions:
A. Indicate, using the scale to the right, the amount of conflict
which you feel exists between you and your dean and/or faculty
over your role in each of the following areas:
_ Planning 1 = no conflict
_ Leadershio 2 = some conflict
_ Fiscal Responsibility 3 = much conflict
_ Evaluation
_ Curriculum
_ Instruction
Climate setting
_ Faculty development
_ Extra-departmental communication
_ Inter-departmental communication
Students
B. Check the space which indicates your level of overall satisfaction
with your present job:
_ Very satisfied
_ Satisfied
_ Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
_ Please send an abstract of the completed study to:
Name:
Address:


125
Suzuki, H.K. A dean's expectations of department chairmen in an educa
tional institution for health professionals. In M. Morgan and
A. Canfield (Eds.) Administrative competencies in education and
the allied health professions. Gainesville, Florida: Center for
Allied Health Instructional Personnel, 1972.
Underwood, D. The chairman as academic planner. In J. Brann and T.A.
Emmet (Eds.) The academic department or division chairman: A
complex role. Detroit: Belamp Publishing, 1972.
Volz, R.W. An analysis of the actual and ideal roles of vocational
education department heads as perceived by deans, heads, and
faculty (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1977).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1978, 38, 4131-A. (Univer-
sity Microfilms No. 77-27,693).
Woodside, H.H. The development of occupational therapy, 1910-1929.
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1971 25, 226-30.
Zucker, J.D. A model for determining the role perceptions of depart
ment chairman at a large university (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts Interna
tional 1974, 34, 6929-A. (University Microfilms No. 74-10,100).


91
Rating Scale
Highest importance Circle 5
Very important Circle 4
Average importance Circle 3
Low importance Circle 2
Unimportant Circle 1
No opinion/Knowledge Circle 0
Actual
Importance
No
(FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY) Low High Knowledge
7. Approving departmental 12345 0
purchase requests
8. Seeking a larger share of 12345 0
college funds for depart
ment
Ideal
Importance
No
Low High Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
EVALUATION
1. Developing and utilizing a 12345
system for curriculum eval
uation
2. Evaluating college educa- 12345
tion and administration
policies and/or procedures,
for the purpose of recom
mending needed changes
3. Utilizing lay and profes- 12345
sional advisory committees
for program evaluation and
improvement
4. Reviewing statistical data 12345
to evaluate departmental
effectiveness
5. Developing a system for 1. 2 3 4 5
evaluation of departmental
output and input
6. Evaluating faculty and 12345
staff effectiveness
0
0
0
0
0
0
CURRICULUM
1. Developing new courses 12345 0
2. Revising courses based on 12345 0
evaluation
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
3.Encouraging development of 12345
a sound curriculum
0
1 2 3 4 5 0


APPENDIX A
LIST OF CHAIRPERSON ROLE EXPECTATIONS
TAKEN FROM THE LITERATURE


3. The task areas of "evaluation" and "students" are least impor
tant to the idealized role of the chairperson as perceived by deans,
chairpersons, and faculty.
4. In actual practice, the relevant reference groups perceive the
chairperson as placing least importance in the areas of "faculty devel
opment" and "extra-departmental communication."
5. The relevant groups are in general agreement about the ideal
ized role of the chairperson.
6. There are differences in perception among the relevant groups
about the way chairpersons actually behave.
7. There is a difference in the way each of the relevant groups
perceive the idealized and actual role of the department chairperson.
8. There is congruence between the perceived idealized role of
the department chairperson and the theoretical role contained in the
literature.
9. There is a lack of congruence between the perceived actual
role behavior of the chairperson and the theoretical role.
10. There is potential conflict between the departmental chair
persons and their dean and/or faculty in those areas where there is a
lack of agreement about actual chairperson role expectations.
viii


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
Rank
Mean
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY (cont'd)
20. Interpreting salary schedules
and payroll procedures for
faculty and staff
85.5
4.35
21. Reducing duplication and overlap
in activities and expenditures
43
3.74
22. Communicating budget needs to
staff and higher administration
42
3.73
23. Aproving departmental purchase
requests
15
3.30
24. Seeking a larger share of college
funds for department
24
3.42
EVALUATION
11
3.97
25. Developing and utilizing a system
for curriculum evaluation
74
4.13
26. Evaluating college education and
administration policies and/or
procedures, for the purpose of
recommending needed changes
83
4.30
27. Utilizing lay and professional
advisory committees for program
evaluation and improvement
64.5
4.00
28. Reviewing statistical data to
evaluate departmental effective
ness
55.5
3.90
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULTY
Rank Mean
ALL COMBINED
Rank Mean
51.5
3.97
72.5
3.73
74.5
4.02
67
4.27
49
3.44
52.5
3.82
48.5
3.95
38
3.21
40
3.63
58
4.05
37
3.19
33
3.51
25.5
3.64
3
2.41
13
3.16
4
3.68
11
3.48
9
3.71
44.5
3.92
63
3.68
61.5
3.91
61.5
4.14
80
3.96
80
4.13
51.5
3.97
63
3.68
59
3.88
44.5
3.92
63
3.68
55
3.83


94
Rating Scale
Highest importance Circle 5
Very important Circle 4
Average importance Circle 3
Low importance Circle 2
Unimportant Circle 1
No opinion/Knowledge Circle 0
EXTRA-DEPARTMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
1. Attending meetings and
conferences
2. Keeping the institution
and public informed of
health developments
3. Preparing quality articles
and communiques
4. Effectively communicating
organizational goals and
problems to other depart
ments and agencies
5. Maintaining liaison with
community agancies and
organizations
6. Taking responsibility for
departmental correspondence
7. Presenting departmental
accomplishments to the dean
8. Representing the depart
ment in community service
projects
9. Seeking to have the de
partment represented on
college committees
10. Preparing departmental
public relations programs
with brochures and other
publicity
11. Presenting departmental
needs to the dean
Actual
Importance
No
Low High Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
Ideal
Importance
No
Low High Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0


APPENDIX C
DEAN/FACULTY DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION
AND CHAIRPERSON DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION SECTIONS


25
In addition, the role of the chairperson will vary depending on
the particular department, the size of that department, its place and
importance within the total institution, and the time within the de
partment's history that the chairperson is appointed (Lee, 1972, p. 55).
Little has been done, as Morgan and Canfield (1972) noted, to
single out competencies of the effective chairperson, particularly in
allied health (p. v). There are other factors, in addition to those
mentioned by Lee, which effect the role of a chairperson in allied
health. Howard Suzuki explored some of these issues from the viewpoint
of a dean of a college of health related professions:
. . the governance of allied health units will vary, de
pendent in part upon whether or not they are a) units asso
ciated with university health centers, non-university affil
iated medical centers or universities without health centers;
b) full-fledged college units or a division within another
health science college, such as medicine or nursing, c) units
able to offer different combinations of certificate, associ
ate, baccalaureate, and/or graduate degrees in a wide variety
of programs. (1972, p. 1)
In relation to the relative newness of the allied health professions
he said:
The recency of the allied health units and their concomitant
fundamental unit, the department, does not allow for a great
deal of variability in the position of the departmental
chairman. In other more established professional colleges,
faculty members may rotate annually as chairman, and full
professors may yield more influence on educational policies
than the chairman. Furthermore, the purposes of the profes
sional schools are more goal specific and, as a result, de
partment heads may not be able to exercise as much latitude
and authority in policy matters as might be true in other
schools, (p. 4)
Suzuki went on to identify two other issues which made the organ
ization of allied health education unique from most others. Those are
the necessity for clinical competence on the part of faculty (and
chairperson), and the acknowledgement that sexism may play a part.


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEAN
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSON
Rank Mean
FACULTY
Rank Mean
ALL COMBINED
Rank Mean
EXTRA-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
2
3.58
2
3.63
7
3.37
2
3.53
60.
Attending meetings and
conferences
58
3.94
54.5
4.00
84
4.09
72.5
4.01
61.
Keeping the institution and
public informed of health
developments
8
3.11
4
2.70
15
2.86
8.5
2.89
62.
Preparing quality articles and
communiques
2
2.83
8
3.05
7.5
2.68
5
2.85
63.
Effectively communicating organ
izational goals and problems to
other departments and agencies
18
3.37
20
3.53
26.5
3.07
19.5
3.32
64.
Maintaining liaison with community
agencies and organizations
41
3.71
22
3.58
28.5
3.08
27.5
3.46
65.
Taking responsibility for depart
mental correspondence
64.5
4.00
72
4.32
79
3.95
77.5
4.09
66.
Presenting departmental accom
plishments to the dean
52
3.88
69.5
4.30
86
4.12
79
4.10
67.
Representing the department in
community service projects
34
3.61
10
3.16
10.5
2.76
14
3.18
68.
Seeking to have the department
represented on college committees
21
3.40
29
3.73
53
3.53
36
3.55
69.
Preparing departmental public
relations programs with brochures
and other publicity
13
3.24
11
3.19
9
2.73
11
3.05
70.
Presenting departmental needs to
the dean
81
4.28
76.5
4.39
87
4.15
86
4.27


45
Faculty also considered "Preparing and administering a departmental
budget" to be ideally of highest importance. They ranked "Presenting
departmental needs to the dean" second and "Developing new courses"
third.
Turning again to Appendix E one can see what the lowest ranked
individual items were. For "all groups combined" these included "Eval
uating faculty and staff effectiveness," "Reviewing occupational trends
and identifying implications for curriculum," and "Formulating policies
relating to faculty use of materials, equipment, and other tangibles."
The deans considered the three lowest ranked individual items to
be "Reviewing occupational trends and identifying implications for cur
riculum," "Evaluating faculty and staff effectiveness," and "Maintain
ing a capable support staff."
Chairpersons agreed with the other two groups on two of the three
least important, including "Evaluating faculty and staff effectiveness,"
and "Reviewing occupational trends and identifying implications for
curriculum." Their third lowest ranked item, however, differed from
the other groups'. It was "Evaluating college education and adminis
tration policies and/or procedures, for the purpose of recommending
needed changes." This item was ranked #70 by deans, #43 by faculty,
and #26 by all groups combined.
Faculty ranked "Evaluating faculty and staff effectiveness" low
est, followed by "Formulating policies relating to faculty use of
materials, equipment, and other tangibles," and "Reviewing occupational
trends and identifying implications for curriculum."


84
Author
3. Communicator (cont'd)
Dagenais
1. Maintain a receptivity and accessibility to others
through a knowledge of human behavior.
2. Utilize knowledge and techniques of group processes
to facilitate interaction with faculty, students,
peers, and supervisors.
3. Organize presentations which effectively convey
ideas.
4. Conduct effective conferences and meetings.
4. Educator
Morgan and
Canfield
1. Be competent.
2. Be leader to faculty.
3. Evaluate and encourage revision of curriculum.
4. Evaluate student applicants.
5. Understand job market needs.
6. Evaluate program effectiveness.
7. Encourage publication.
8. Encourage faculty growth.
Di 1 ley
Supervise curriculum.
Doyle
1. Assume teaching and supervisory functions.
2. Engage in personal research and scholarship.
Euwema
Develop a sound curriculum.
Heimler
1. Be responsible for departmental correspondence.
2. Develop and revise courses.
3. Review student petitions.
4. Develop programs.
5. Write student recommendations for employment and
graduate school.
Lee
1. Teach.
2. Be responsible for curriculum development.
3. Do and encourage research.
Miller
1. Teach.
2. Be involved in student recruitment and selection.
Smith
1. Teach one or more classes each term.
2. Conduct research projects.
3. Counsel and advise students.
4. Implement in-service education for faculty.
5. Recruit students.
(continued..
6. Participate in job placement of students.
7. Plan curriculum changes with faculty for two or
more years in advance.


LIST OF ROLE EXPECTATIONS TAKEN FROM THE LITERATURE
Author
1. Group Leader
Morgan and
Canfield
1. Formulate long-range plans and objectives.
2. Understand and implement organizational policy.
3. Identify priorities.
4. Apply democratic ideals.
5. Provide rewardina environment including opportun
ities for mobility.
6. Define and delegate authority.
Dilley
1. Provide ideas and innovations.
2. Influence.
3. Be a problem-solver.
Lee
Take responsibility for governance.
Underwood
Be a planner.
Miller
1. Be a leader...among peers, as superior, as subordin
ate.
2. Program development.
3. Climate setting (maintenance of a positive milieu).
4. Planning.
Smith
1. Involve faculty in decision making.
2. Involve students in decision making.
3. Participate in developing departmental admissions
standards.
4. Seek to have department represented on college
committees.
5. Develop long-range goals and objectives.
6. Review trends in student characteristics and identi
fy implications for departmental programs.
7. Review occupational trends and identify implications
for departmental programs.
8. Review new developments in departmental subject.
9. Resolve conflicts between faculty and central admin
istrator.
10. Resolve conflicts among departmental faculty.
11. Resolve conflicts between students and faculty.
Dagenais
1. Engage in systematic planning and decision-making.
2. Identify central issues in administrative problems.
3. Define and clarify organizational goals and objec
tives.
4. Develop plans to achieve long and short range objec
tives.
5. Establish priority rankings among administrative
problems.
6. Motivate faculty, students, and peers to increase
cooperation and job satisfaction.
7. Recognize the general legal principles that affect
program administration (legal responsibilities,
1iabi1ity, etc.)
81


58
Differences in perception about actual and ideaiized chairperson
role are again significant for each category of respondents and for
all respondents combined. The area of Evaluation is seen by both deans
and chairpersons as being given more importance in actual behavior than
in idealized. This is the only area of the 11 in which that was the
case.
Actual Chairperson Role Identified in the Study Compared to the
Theoretical Role
Problem question 6 was:
How does the actual role behavior of chairpersons, as
perceived by each of the aforementioned groups, compare
with the theoretical role of department chairpersons
found in the literature?
The questionnaire for the present study was developed from the
theoretical role of the department chairperson found in the literature
(see Appendix A). The respondents in the present study verified the
validity of that theoretical role by marking 85 of the 87 individual
items contained therein as ideally important, very important, or of
the highest importance (3, 4, and 5 respectively on the numerical
scale in the questionnaire). The two individual items one or more of
the respondent groups considered ideally of "low importance" in the
role of the chairperson were #30, "Evaluating faculty and staff effec
tiveness," and #36, "Reviewing occupational trends and identifying
implications for curriculum."
Relating this to perceived actual behavior of departmental chair
persons it was found that when data for all the groups were combined
the result was that nine individual items were perceived as being of
"low importance" in actual chairperson role behavior. These were #9,
'Attempting to influence legislation which effects allied health


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULTl
Rank
Mean
ALL COMBINED
Rank Mean
INSTRUCTION
10
4.24
7.5
4.28
6
4.12
8
4.21
38. Working with faculty to improve
instruction
50
4.16
68.5
4.53
48
4.17
59
4.29
39. Assigning faculty to teaching
schedules
56
4.20
53
4.32
53
4.20
51
4.24
40. Participating in development of
departmental admissions standards
77.5
4.42
67
4.51
67.5
4.35
74
4.43
41. Determining departmental class
size policies
85
4.58
38.5
4.15
35
3.96
49
4.23
42. Defining teaching loads for
faculty
20.5
3.81
10
3.64
9
3.57
9
3.67
43. Assigning work space and facil
ities to faculty
80.5
4.52
48
4,26
63
4.32
67
4.37
44. Taking responsibility for main
tenance and repair of lab and
classroom equipment
33
4.00
72
4.56
58.5
4.27
58
4.28
CLIMATE SETTING
5
4.02
6
4.25
5
4.07
5
4.11
45. Recognizing problems in department
59.5
4.23
77.5
4.63
83
4.55
78.5
4.47
46. Attempting to minimize barriers
to maximum departmental efficiency
15
3.71
50
4.29
27.5
3.87
32.5
3.96
47. Recognizing and utilizing employee
skills
58
4.21
46
4.24
46
4.13
47
4.19
48. Striving to balance needs and
goals for department
77.5
4.42
58
4.41
75.5
4.44
72.5
4.42


68
11. A significant difference in perception about actual chairper
son role behavior was found in 21 of the 27 programs analyzed.
12. Results of analysis show a significant difference in percep
tion about actual chairperson role behavior among deans, chairpersons,
and faculty for all 27 programs combined.
13. A significant difference in the dean's perception of ideal
ized and actual chairperson role behavior was found in 21 of the 26
programs included in this analysis.
14. A significant difference was found in the way chairpersons
perceived their actual and their idealized role behavior in 21 of the
27 programs analyzed.
15. A significant difference was found in 26 of 27 programs in
the way faculty perceived the chairperson's actual and idealized role
behavior.
16. When responses from all deans, all chairpersons, and all
faculty were analyzed, a significant difference was found in each group
between the way they perceived actual and idealized chairperson role
behavior.
17. Analysis of the data from all groups of respondents combined
showed that the respondents considered 85 of the 87 individual role
behaviors identified in the literature and used in the questionnaire
to be important, very important, or of the highest importance, to the
idealized role behavior of the chairperson.
18. Deans perceived chairpersons actually placing importance on
83 of those 87 items.
19. Chairpersons saw themselves giving actual importance to 80
of the 87 individual role behaviors.


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 E1KMWA9M8_SSYN3C INGEST_TIME 2013-01-23T14:16:21Z PACKAGE AA00012918_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


CHAIRPERSON
DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION
1. Your age at your last birthday was:
20-25
51-55
26-30
56-60
31-35
61-65
' 36-40
66-70
41-45
over 70
46-50
2. Indicate your sex: female male
3. Degrees held beyond the bachelor's (please write in field):
M. A., i n
M.S., in
M.Ed., in
_ Ph.D., in
_ Other (please list)
4.
5.
Your official title:
Length of time in present position:
under 1 year
1-2 years
3-4 years
5-6 years
7-8 years
9-10 years
11-12 years
over 12 years
6.Number of full-time faculty in your department:
1-2 5-6 9-10 13-14
3-4 7-8 11-12 15-16
7.Number of part-time faculty in your department:
None 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8
8.Number of students in occupational therapy program (fill in numbers)
freshmen .juniors Certificate
sophomores seniors basic master's
9.Position of department within institution:
_ Department in a school/college of health related or allied
health sciences/profession
_ Department in a college of medicine
A separate school within a university
_ A department in a private or state college
Other (please describe) ___
10.Are faculty in your department unionized?
yes no
100


DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION
Please check the appropriate blank or fill in the space provided for
the following items:
1. Your age at your last birthday was:
20-25
51-55
" 26-30
56-60
" 31-35
61-65
' 36-40
66-70
' 41-45
over 70
; 46-50
your sex:
fema1e
male
3.Degrees held beyond the bachelor's (please write in field):
M.A., in
M.S., in
M.Ed., in
_ Ph.D., in
Other (please list)
4. Your official title:
5. Length of time in present position:
under 1 year
7-8 years
1-2 years
9-10 years
3-4 years
11-12 years
5-6 years
over 12 years
98


54
Difference Perceived Between Idealized and Actual Chairperson Role
Problem question five was:
Is there a difference between idealized and actual chair
person role behavior as perceived by a) deans, b) chair-
persons, and c) faculty, for each institution, and for
all institutions?
Data from the 27 "full-response" programs was again used to an
swer this question. The Wilcoxon Matched Pairs, Signed-Ranks Test was
used to analyze the data in context of this question, as it tests both
the direction and magnitude of differences between pairs from the same
population. For example, the same 27 chairpersons were tested for dif
ferences they indicated between what they perceived to be the actual
and the idealized role behavior of chairpersons.
In this test, each category of respondent for each program was
analyzed separately. The mean response for each of the 11 role areas
in the idealized column was matched with the corresponding mean re
sponse for each area in the actual column. The difference between the
ideal and actual mean response for each area was computed, and affixed
with the appropriate positive (+) or negative (-) sign. These differ
ences were then ranked, and the ranks of the sign appearing least often
were added to obtain "T". Since ties are not included in this test,
the "n" varies according to the number of areas left after tie scores
are discarded, as therefore does the level of significance. The re
sults of this test for the above question are presented in Table 14.


41
From Table 9, it can be seen that most programs were in depart
ments within a school or college of health related or allied health
professions. The next largest number were departments or divisions in
a college of medicine.
TABLE 9
POSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS
WITHIN THE INSTITUTION
Position
Number of
Departments
Department in a school/college of health
related or allied health professions
ZO
Department/division in a college of medicine
6
A separate school within a university

A department in a private or state college
4
Moving--uncertain
1
Program within a division or department of a
state college or university
4
Department in a school of education, health,
nursing and arts professions
1
Department in a college of health
1


7
rehabilitation, medical technology, clinical and community dietetics,
communicative disorders, and sometimes clinical psychology, nursing,
and hospital administration.
Chairperson. The acknowledged administrative head of an academic
department.
Dean. The person holding the position in the academic hierarchy
to which department chairpersons are administratively responsible.
Department. The smallest organizational structure in the tradi
tional academic setting. A collection of faculty organized around a
particular academic discipline.
Faculty. Those persons, considered experts in a particular field,
employed to work in academic departments to teach, conduct research,
and to publish.
Occupational therapy. The art and science of applying purpose
ful activity to the maintenance or increase of function or to the
prevention of disability, in physical and/or mental health.
Role. A set of expectations applied to the position of chairper
son of an occupational therapy education department.
Role-conflict. A situation in which a role incumbent must conform
simultaneously to a number of expectations which are mutually exclu
sive, contradictory, or inconsistent so that the performance of one
set of duties makes performance of another set difficult or impossible.
Role-expectations. Those rights, duties, privileges, and obliga
tions that delineate what a person should and should not do under var
ious circumstances as the incombent of a particular role.
Role-theory. Theory developed by "experts" and reported in the
literature, dealing with the concept of role.


66
Based on the data analysis the following results were obtained:
1. The deans perceived the idealized role of the chairperson to
consist of 86 of the 87 individual role expectations identified in the
literature and included in the questionnaire for this study. Their
idealized perceptions were combined into 11 task areas and ranked in
descending order of importance. First in importance was Fiscal Respon
sibility, followed by Instruction, Planning, Inter-departmental Commun
ication, Leadership, Curriculum, Climate Setting, Students, Evaluation,
Faculty Development, and Extra-departmental Communication.
2. The chairpersons perceived their idealized role to include 86
of the 87 role expectations contained in the questionnaire. From the
importance placed on each item, it was determined that the chairpersons
ordered the 11 task areas as follows: Planning, Leadership and Fiscal
Responsibility (tied), Curriculum and Instruction (tied), Climate Set
ting, Inter-departmental Communication, Faculty Development, Extra-
departmental Communication, Students, and Evaluation.
3. In their perception of the idealized role of the chairperson,
the faculty considered 86 of the 87 individual role expectations to be
important. When these items were organized into task areas the follow
ing ranking of faculty perception emerged: Curriculum, Planning,
Leadership, Fiscal Responsibility, Inter-departmental Communication,
Instruction, Climate Setting, Faculty Development, Extra-departmental
Communication, Students, and Evaluation.
4. The chairpersons saw themselves placing importance on 80 of
the 87 individual role expectations, in their actual behavior. When
these 87 items were organized into the 11 task areas, the following
descending order emerged. Curriculum, Fiscal Responsibility, Planning,
Inter-departmental Communication, Climate Setting, Instruction,


40
TABLE 7
DEPARTMENT SIZE BASED ON NUMBER OF FACULTY
Number of
Faculty
Number of Depts.
(Full-time Faculty)
Number of Depts.
(Part-time Faculty)
1-2
3
12
3-4
7
7
5-6
11
4
7-8
7
2
9-10
3
11-12
4
13-14
15-16
Over 16
1
Total
36
25
As can be seen in Table 8, the majority of programs have from 40
to 79 students. Two programs have over 180 students.
TABLE 8
DEPARTMENT SIZE BASED ON NUMBER OF STUDENTS*
Number of
Students
20-
39
40-
59
60-
79
80-
99
100-
119
120-
139
140-
159
160-
179
180-
199
Number of
Departments
6
9
9
4
1
1
1
1
2
includes juniors, seniors, certificate, and basic master's students


18
that no matter how well the first two are defined, people will not al
ways agree or carry out their functions smoothly. This crucial opera
tional aspect of administration is the one on which Getzels and asso
ciates' social systems model focused (Getzels et al., 1968, p. 53).
For analysis of the administrative process, Getzels and associates
saw the social system as involving two basic groups of phenomena.
These groups are conceptually independent, but practically interactive.
These two groups are:
1) the institutions, with certain roles and expectations,
that will fulfill the goals of the system; and 2) the
individuals, with certain personalities and dispositions,
inhabiting the system, whose observed interactions com
prise what we call social behavior, (p. 56)
The first of these groups they termed the normative dimension of
their model, which could be labeled a sociological perspective. The
second they called the personal dimension, which is analogous to a psy
chological perspective. Along the normative dimension of this model,
they included institution, role, and expectations. Institutions were
seen as purposive, peopled, structural, normative, and sanction-bearing
(i.e., mete out praise, disapproval, punishment, awards). Role was
used by Getzels et al. as in Parsons and Shils' definition:
. . that organized sector of an actor's orientation which
constitutes and defines his participation in an interactive
process. It involves a set of complementary expectations
concerning his own actions and those of others with whom
he interacts, (p. 23)
Roles are defined in terms of role expectations, they are more or less
flexible, they are complementary (interdependent), and they vary in
scope from the functionally specific to the functionally diffuse
(Getzels et al., 1968, pp. 61-63). Expectations were described as
those prescriptions (rights, duties, etc.) "that delineate what a


21
expectations do and do not overlap. Where there is disparity about
expectations there is potential for conflict.
When the perceptions of the expectations of partici
pants in an administrative interaction overlap, the par
ticipants feel satisfied with the work accomplished no
matter what the actual behavior or accomplishment: when
the perception of the expectations does not overlap, the
participants feel dissatisfied. (Getzels, 1958, p. 160)
In illustrating this point, Getzels related the results of a study
conducted in which a problem situation instrument was used with 180
administrators who had had consultant services, and with 46 consultants
who had provided that service. Each was asked to evaluate the outcome
of their consultation. Results showed that when the two agreed on ex
pectations, they both rated the consultation favorably. But when they
disagreed on expectations they rated the consultation unfavorably.
This reinforced the view that the crucial aspect of successful adminis
trative interaction was overlap in perception of expectations (p. 160).
When expectations for a role do not overlap, or are inconsistent,
the results may be experienced by the role-incumbent as conflict.
Mishler wrote that conflict may arise because of,
a) agreement within a single alter group upon several
behaviors which are mutually difficult to achieve, b)
disagreement within an alter group on the expectations
to be required of a role, or c) disagreement between
several alter groups of the expectations to be required
of a roleD 0953, p. 123)
The first two types of conflict mentioned by Mishler were identi
fied by Getzels and associates as intrareference group conflict. The
third, disagreement between alter groups, they classify as interrefer
ence group conflict, as illustrated in the following example: Differ
ent expectations of the teacher are made by the principal, by students,
by parents, and by the school board. These demands are often


APPENDIX F
RANKING OF EACH OF THE 87 ACTUAL ROLE EXPECTATIONS
FOR EACH RESPONDENT GROUP AND FOR ALL GROUPS COMBINED


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULTY
Rank Mean
ALL
Rank
COMBINED
Mean
LEADERSHIP (cont'd)
9. Attempting to influence legis
lation which effects allied
health education and health
care delivery
5
3.00
2
2.67
14
2.84
4
2.84
10. Delegating authority
27.5
3.53
63
4.16
45.5
3.39
45
3.69
11. Applying democratic ideals in
the directing of the department
37
3.66
73
4.34
56
3.60
58
3.87
12. Motivating faculty, students,
and peers to increase cooperation
and job satisfaction
44
3.74
60
4.11
33
3.16
52
3.67
13. Describing job responsibilities
for self and faculty/staff
31
3.58
44.5
3.92
26.5
3.07
34
3.52
14. Formulating policites relating
to faculty use of materials,
equipment, and other tangibles
16
3.33
13
3.33
20
3.01
16.5
3.22
15. Fighting for the department
64.5
4.00
86
4.53
81
3.99
84
4.17
16. Exerting influence where needed
46
3.80
76.5
4.39
72.5
3.73
66
3.97
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
7
3.76
10
4.02
5.5
3.34
9
3.71
17. Relating objectives to costs
through cost benefit analysis
35
3.63
23
3.59
47.5
3.40
35
3.54
18. Utilizing knowledge of public
and private funding bases to
secure supplemental funding
32
3.59
54.5
4.00
39
3.24
37
3.61
19. Preparing and administering a
departmental budget
85.5
4.35
87
4.73
83
4.08
87
4.39


17
. . the contact surface of the personality and social
systems lies between need-dispositions of ego and role-
expectations of various alters. The essential element in
the role is the complementarity of expectations. The out
come of ego's action, in terms of its significance to him
is contingent on alter's reaction to what he does. This
reaction in turn is not random but is organized relative
to alter's expectation concerning what is "proper" behav
ior on ego's part.
Role-expectations are the definitions by both ego
and alter of what behavior is proper for each in the rela
tionship and in the situation in question. Both role
expectations and sanctions are essential to the total
concept of a "role in the concrete sense of a segment of
the action of the individual, (pp. 153-54)
Parsons and Shi 1 s' book, Toward a General Theory of Action, (1951)
established them as experts and as classic theoreticians. Most all
scholarly efforts since 1951 in the field of roles acknowledges their
contribution in one way or another. One of the most well recognized
applications of their theory to the area of educational administration
is in the work of Getzels and his associates (Getzels, Lipham &
Campbell, 1968). Given the prominence of the model developed by
Getzels and associates, the details of their formulations are provided
in the paragraphs that follow.
Administration of a Social System
Getzels and associates conceived of administration as a social
process, and of its context as a social system. They content that
administration can be examined from the structural, the functional, and
the operational points of view. Structurally, they saw administration
as a hierarchy of superordinate-subordinate relationships. Function
ally, they postulated that this hierarchy is the locus for the alloca
tion and integration of roles and facilities to achieve the goals of
the system. And operationally, they saw administration happening in
person-to-person interaction. This third, operational, context implies


63
The last area in which over 25% of the chairpersons indicated
feeling conflict with dean and/or faculty was in Inter-departmental
Communication, where 26% indicated conflict. No statistically signifi
cant difference was found in idealized perception among the three
respondent groups. However, the perceptions about the actual impor
tance the chairperson places on this area were significantly different
(H = 10.98).
A further way of examining whether or not there is a relationship
between potential conflict and perceived conflict from the point of
view of the chairperson is to look at the other places where potential
conflict is indicated by differences in perceptions of idealized and/or
actual importance, even though it may not have been so indicated by
over 25% of the chairpersons. There was only one instance in which
this occurred. Though only 20% of chairpersons indicated perceiving
conflict in the task area of Students, a statistically significant
difference was found among the perceptions of the three respondent
groups about the actual importance given this area by chairpersons
(H = 6.38). No significant difference was found among idealized per-
ceptions about Students.
Finally, 36 chairpersons answered the question about their level
of overall satisfaction with their present job. Fifteen stated that
they were "very satisfied," and 15 marked "satisfied." This represents
86% of chairpersons responding to this question. Of the remaining six
chairpersons, two indicated they felt "neutral" about job satisfaction,
three checked "dissatisfied," and one marked "very dissatisfied."
Thus, although more than one fourth of chairpersons indicated experienc
ing conflict with dean and/or faculty in 7 out of 11 task areas, only
14% were less than satisfied with their present position.


56
A significant difference in dean perception of idealized and
actual chairperson role behavior was found in 21 of the 26 programs
used in this analysis. Chairpersons yielded a significant difference
in perception about this question in 21 of 27 programs; and faculty
showed a significant difference in 26 of the 27 programs.
When responses from al 1 deans, al 1 chairpersons, and al 1 faculty
were analyzed, a significant difference was seen in each group between
the way they perceived idealized and actual chairperson role behavior.
Another way of looking at the responses in the content of this
question is to compare the data in Tables 10 and 11. These tables use
the responses, ranked by areas, from all 197 subjects. The data from
these two tables are presented together in Table 15, which makes it
possible to see in concise form the direction and magnitude of differ
ences for al 1 respondents.


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULT1
Rank
Mean
ALL
Rank
COMBINED
Mean
EVALUATION (cont'd)
29. Developing a system for eval
uation of departmental output
and input
18
3.79
14
3.71
4
3.45
8
3.65
30. Evaluating faculty and staff
effectiveness
2
3.31
1
2.82
1
2.59
1
2.91
CURRICULUM
6
4.03
7.5
4.28
11
4.24
7
4.18
31. Developing new courses
72
4.37
81
4.70
85
4.58
83
4.55
32. Revising courses based on eval
uation
68.5
4.32
76
4.59
69.5
4.38
75
4.43
33. Encouraging development of a
sound curriculum
67
4.31
60.5
4.43
75.5
4.44
69.5
4.39
34. Displaying competence in the
field
61.5
4.27
63
4.46
69.5
4.38
67
4.37
35. Identifying implications for
curriculum of new developments
in the field
39
4.06
62
4.44
50.5
4.19
49
4.23
36. Reviewing occupational trends
and identifying implications
for curriculum
1
2.87
2
3.06
3
3.31
2
3.08
37. Planning curricular changes
with the faculty for two or
more years in advance
35
4.03
48
4.26
71.5
4.41
49
4.23


From Appendix E it can be seen that "all groups combined" consid
ered the chairpersons to place greatest actual importance on the indi
vidual item "Preparing and administering a department budget," followed
by "Presenting departmental needs to the dean," and "Participating in
the development of department admissions standards."
Deans saw chairpersons placing greatest actual importance on "Main
taining a departmental library," then "Preparing and administering a
departmental budget," and "Interpreting salary schedules and payroll
procedures for faculty and staff."
The chairpersons saw themselves placing most importance on "Prepar
ing and administering a departmental budget," then on "Fighting for the
department," and third on "Encouraging faculty to participate in con
ventions, conferences, and meetings."
The faculty who participated in this study perceived their chair
persons to place greatest actual importance on "Presenting departmental
needs to the dean." They ranked "Presenting departmental accomplish
ments to the dean" next in importance, then "Striving to balance needs
and goals for the department."
The individual items on which "all groups combined" saw the chair
persons placing 1 east actual importance were "Defining teaching loads
for faculty," "Providing a rewarding environment including opportuni
ties for mobility within the department," and "Reviewing occupational
trends and identifying implications for curriculum."
Deans considered chairpersons to place least importance on "Attempt
ing to minimize barriers to maximum departmental efficiency," then on
"Preparing quality articles and communiques," and thirdly on "Reviewing
occupational trends and identifying implications for curriculum."


The purpose of this study was to determine and define role expec
tations for chairpersons of occupational therapy education programs as
held by the role incumbents and those who border that role, to identify
possible areas of conflict arising from differences in those expecta
tions, and to relate those findings to theoretical writings on role and
role conflict theory. The theoretical basis of this study was Getzels
and associates' work on administration as a social system.
Through the instrument developed for this study from the available
literature on chairperson role expectations, answers were sought to
questions about ideal and actual chairperson role expectations, per
ceived role conflict, and the relationship of perceived ideal role to
the theoretical role found in the literature. Copies of the instrument
were mailed to the dean, chairperson, and a representative number of
faculty of 48 of the 49 professional education programs in occupational
therapy approved by the American Occupational Therapy Association.
Usable responses were received from a total of 32 deans, 38 chairper
sons, and 127 faculty members. The data were analyzed by means of
frequency distributions and where comparisons were required the Kruskal-
Wallis-H test and the Uilcoxon T test were used.
Based on an analysis of the findings, the following conclusions
were drawn:
1. Ideally, the relevant reference groups to chairpersons of
occupational therapy education programs believe that the departmental
chairperson should place primary emphasis on the areas of "planning,"
"fiscal responsibility," and "leadership."
2. In actual practice the relevant reference groups perceive the
chairpersons to place primary emphsis on "curriculum," "evaluation,"
"fiscal responsibility," and "planning."


96
Rating Scale
Highest importance Circle 5
Very important Circle 4
Average importance Circle 3
Low Importance Circle 2
Unimportant Circle 1
No opinion/knowledge Circle 0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Actual
Importance
No
STUDENTS Low High Knowledge
Reviewing trends in stu- 12345
dent characteristics
Identifying implications 12345
of changing student char
acteristics for departmen
tal programs
Evaluating student appli- 12345
cations
Involving students in 12345
decision making
Reviewing student petitions 12345
Counseling and advising 12345
students
Teaching students 12345
Writing student recom- 12345
mendations for employment
and graduate school
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ideal
Importance
No
Low High Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0


LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 AGE OF RESPONDENTS 35
TABLE 2 SEX OF RESPONDENTS 35
TABLE 3 GRADUATE DEGREES HELD BY THE RESPONDENTS 36
TABLE 4 DEGREE FIELDS OF THE RESPONDENTS 37
TABLE 5 OFFICIAL TITLES OF THE RESPONDENTS 39
TABLE 6 LENGTH OF TIME RESPONDENTS HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN
PRESENT POSITION 39
TABLE 7 DEPARTMENT SIZE BASED ON NUMBER OF FACULTY 40
TABLE 8 DEPARTMENT SIZE BASED ON NUMBER OF STUDENTS 40
TABLE 9 POSITION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITHIN THE
INSTITUTION 41
TABLE 10 PERCEPTIONS OF THE IDEALIZED ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON 43
TABLE 11 PERCEPTIONS OF THE ACTUAL ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON ... 46
TABLE 12 SUM OF RANKINGS OF TASK AREAS BY RESPONDENT GROUPS
AND H VALUE FOR EACH INSTITUTION, BASED ON PERCEP
TIONS OF IDEALIZED ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON 51
TABLE 13 SUM OF RANKINGS OF TASK AREAS BY RESPONDENT GROUPS
AND H VALUE FOR EACH INSTITUTION, BASED ON PERCEP
TIONS OF ACTUAL ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON 53
TABLE 14 T-VALUES BY INSTITUTION FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
PERCEIVED IDEALIZED AND ACTUAL ROLE OF CHAIRPERSON
FOR DEANS, CHAIRPERSONS, AND FACULTY 55
TABLE 15 DIRECTION AND MAGNITUDE OF DIFFERENCES AMONG THE
THREE RESPONDENT GROUPS FOR THE 11 TASK AREAS .... 57
TABLE 16 CHAIRPERSON PERCEIVED CONFLICT, BY AREA 61
v


42
Perceptions of the Chairperson Role
The answer to the first five problem questions of the present
study were determined through analyzing subject responses to the
second section of the questionnaire. Subjects were asked to indicate
on a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (highest importance) the impor
tance which they felt their chairperson actually placed on each of the.
87 role behaviors listed (with 0 option included for no opinion/ no
knowledge); and, in a second column with the same scale, the importance
they each felt the chairperson should ideally be placing on each of
those role behaviors.
Respondents' Perceptions of the Idealized Role of the Chairperson
The first problem question was:
What is the idealized role of the chairperson as perceived
by a) deans, b) chairpersons, c) a representative number
of faculty, and d) all groups combined?
Answers to this question were found by taking the mean of re
sponses from the 32 deans, 38 chairpersons, and 127 faculty responding
(less the number who marked 0). Appendix D presents these data in
full, with each of the 87 role behaviors ranked for each category of
respondent and all subjects together, from the most important (#87) to
the least important (#1). These 87 role behaviors are divided into 11
task areas which are shown in Table 10, ranked from high (11) to low
(1) in importance.



PAGE 1

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 )25 &+$,53(56216 2) 2&&83$7,21$/ 7+(5$3< ('8&$7,21 352*5$06 %\ 5RVDOHH -DQH 0LOOHU $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( &281&,/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

$&.12:/('*(0(176 0\ PRVW VSHFLDO WKDQNV DQG DSSUHFLDWLRQ WR 'U 0LFKDHO 1XQQHU\ ZKR FKDLUHG P\ FRPPLWWHH +LV EDVLF GHFHQF\ DQG UHVSHFWIXOQHVV WRJHWKHU ZLWK KLV JUHDW FRPSHWHQFH DQG KLJK VWDQGDUGV LQVSLUHG ERWK RSWLPLVP DQG SURGXFWLYLW\ LQ RXU ZRUNLQJ UHODWLRQVKLS 'U /HOD /ORUHQV KDV DOZD\V JLYHQ JHQHURXVO\ RI KHU WLPH DQG H[n SHUWLVH DSSUHFLDWH KHU DVVLVWDQFH LQ WKLV VWXG\ DQG KHU H[DPSOH LQ RXU SURIHVVLRQ ZDQW WR WKDQN 'U -DPHV :DWWHQEDUJHU IRU KLV FRQWULEXWLRQ WR P\ HGXFDWLRQ DQG WKLV VWXG\ 'U 0DUJDUHW 0RUJDQ KDV VKDUHG KHU HQWKXVLDVP H[SHULHQFH DQG VXSn SRUW LQ ZD\V ZKLFK KDYH VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQIOXHQFHG P\ OHDUQLQJ JUHDWO\ DSSUHFLDWH KHU KHOS DQG IULHQGVKLS $OLFH $QQ *LOO KDV JLYHQ KHU ORYLQJ VXSSRUW LQVSLUDWLRQ HQOLJKWn HQPHQW DQG DVVLVWDQFH LQ PDQ\ ZD\V RYHU PDQ\ \HDUV FDQ QHYHU WKDQN KHU HQRXJK 0\ SDUHQWV5DOSK DQG $GHODLGH 0LOOHU KDYH DOZD\V VKRZQ WKHLU XQIDLOLQJ IDLWK LQ PH 7KDWDERYH DOO HOVH RXWVLGH P\VHOIKDV EURXJKW PH WR WKLV SRLQW )LQDOO\ ZDQW WR WKDQN D IDPLO\ RI IULHQGV DQG VXSSRUWHUV DQG WR SDUWLFXODUO\ DFNQRZOHGJH /LQGD %DVVKDP *HUU\ *UHHQ 6DOOLH $QQ +DUULVRQ 3DW 3DXO DQG /LQGD :LOVRQ IRU WKHLU VLJQLILFDQW DVVLVWDQFH LQ P\ ILQLVKLQJ WKLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ

PAGE 3

7$%/( 2) &217(176 3DJH $&.12:/('*(0(176 LL /,67 2) 7$%/(6 Y $%675$&7 YO &+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 %DFNJURXQG DQG -XVWLILFDWLRQ 7KH 3UREOHP 'HILQLWLRQ RI 7HUPV 3URFHGXUHV 2UJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH 5HPDLQGHU RI WKH 6WXG\ &+$37(5 ,, 5(9,(: 2) 5(/(9$17 /,7(5$785( 'HYHORSPHQW RI 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ (GXFDWLRQ 5ROH 7KHRU\ 'HSDUWPHQW &KDLUSHUVRQ 5ROH /LWHUDWXUH $V ,W 5HODWHV WR 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ 'HSDUWPHQW &KDLUSHUVRQnV 5ROH ([SHFWDWLRQV DQG 3RWHQWLDO $UHDV RI &RQIOLFW 7KH /LWHUDWXUH LQ 5HWURVSHFW &+$37(5 ,,, 5(68/76 2) 7+( 678'< 3URILOH RI 6XEMHFWV 3HUFHSWLRQV RI WKH &KDLUSHUVRQ 5ROH 3HUFHLYHG 'LIIHUHQFH $ERXW &KDLUSHUVRQ 5ROH &KDLUSHUVRQ 5ROH &RQIOLFW &+$37(5 ,9 6800$5< &21&/86,216 $1' ',6&866,21 6XPPDU\ &RQFOXVLRQV 'LVFXVVLRQ L L L

PAGE 4

3DJH $33(1',; $ /,67 2) &+$,53(5621 52/( (;3(&7$7,216 7$.(1 )520 7+( /,7(5$785( $33(1',; % 52/( (;3(&7$7,21 6(&7,21 2) 48(67,211$,5( $33(1',; & '($1)$&8/7< '(6&5,37,9( ,1)250$7,21 $1' &+$,53(5621 '(6&5,37,9( ,1)250$7,21 6(&7,216 $33(1',; &21)/,&7 $1' -2% 6$7,6)$&7,21 6(&7,21 2) 48(67,211$,5( $33(1',; ( 5$1.,1* 2) ($&+ 2) 7+( ,'($/,=(' 52/( (;3(&7$7,216 )25 ($&+ 5(6321'(17 *5283 $1' )25 $// *52836 &20%,1(' $33(1',; ) 5$1.,1* 2) ($&+ 2) 7+( $&78$/ 52/( (;3(&7$7,216 )25 ($&+ 5(6321'(17 *5283 $1' )25 $// *52836 &20%,1(' 5()(5(1&( /,67 5()(5(1&( 127(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ LY

PAGE 5

/,67 2) 7$%/(6 3DJH 7$%/( $*( 2) 5(6321'(176 7$%/( 6(; 2) 5(6321'(176 7$%/( *5$'8$7( '(*5((6 +(/' %< 7+( 5(6321'(176 7$%/( '(*5(( ),(/'6 2) 7+( 5(6321'(176 7$%/( 2)),&,$/ 7,7/(6 2) 7+( 5(6321'(176 7$%/( /(1*7+ 2) 7,0( 5(6321'(176 +$9( %((1 (03/2<(' ,1 35(6(17 326,7,21 7$%/( '(3$570(17 6,=( %$6(' 21 180%(5 2) )$&8/7< 7$%/( '(3$570(17 6,=( %$6(' 21 180%(5 2) 678'(176 7$%/( 326,7,21 2) '(3$570(17 2) 7+( 5(6321'(176 :,7+,1 7+( ,167,787,21 7$%/( 3(5&(37,216 2) 7+( ,'($/,=(' 52/( 2) 7+( &+$,53(5621 7$%/( 3(5&(37,216 2) 7+( $&78$/ 52/( 2) 7+( &+$,53(5621 7$%/( 680 2) 5$1.,1*6 2) 7$6. $5($6 %< 5(6321'(17 *52836 $1' + 9$/8( )25 ($&+ ,167,787,21 %$6(' 21 3(5&(3n 7,216 2) ,'($/,=(' 52/( 2) 7+( &+$,53(5621 7$%/( 680 2) 5$1.,1*6 2) 7$6. $5($6 %< 5(6321'(17 *52836 $1' + 9$/8( )25 ($&+ ,167,787,21 %$6(' 21 3(5&(3n 7,216 2) $&78$/ 52/( 2) 7+( &+$,53(5621 7$%/( 79$/8(6 %< ,167,787,21 )25 ',))(5(1&(6 %(7:((1 3(5&(,9(' ,'($/,=(' $1' $&78$/ 52/( 2) &+$,53(5621 )25 '($16 &+$,53(56216 $1' )$&8/7< 7$%/( ',5(&7,21 $1' 0$*1,78'( 2) ',))(5(1&(6 $021* 7+( 7+5(( 5(6321'(17 *52836 )25 7+( 7$6. $5($6 7$%/( &+$,53(5621 3(5&(,9(' &21)/,&7 %< $5($ Y

PAGE 6

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n GHPLF GHSDUWPHQW FKDLURHUVRQ SDUWLFXODUO\ FKDLUSHUVRQV LQ UHODWLYHO\ QHZ ILHOGV VXFK DV RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ &KDLUSHUVRQV LQ WKLV DUHD KDYH WKH GHPDQGV RI DFFRXQWDELOLW\ WR RXWVLGH DFFUHGLWLQJ ERGLHV DQG IRU WKH FRPSHWHQW GHOLYHU\ RI KHDOWK FDUH LQ DGGLWLRQ WR D FKDLUSHUVRQnV XVXDO DFFRXQWDELOLW\ WR WKH XQLYHUVLW\FROOHJH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG WR WKHLU SDUWLFXODU DFDGHPLF GLVFLSOLQH YL

PAGE 7

7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH DQG GHILQH UROH H[SHFn WDWLRQV IRU FKDLUSHUVRQV RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV DV KHOG E\ WKH UROH LQFXPEHQWV DQG WKRVH ZKR ERUGHU WKDW UROH WR LGHQWLI\ SRVVLEOH DUHDV RI FRQIOLFW DULVLQJ IURP GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKRVH H[SHFWDn WLRQV DQG WR UHODWH WKRVH ILQGLQJV WR WKHRUHWLFDO ZULWLQJV RQ UROH DQG UROH FRQIOLFW WKHRU\ 7KH WKHRUHWLFDO EDVLV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV *HW]HOV DQG DVVRFLDWHVn ZRUN RQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DV D VRFLDO V\VWHP 7KURXJK WKH LQVWUXPHQW GHYHORSHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ IURP WKH DYDLODEOH OLWHUDWXUH RQ FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV DQVZHUV ZHUH VRXJKW WR TXHVWLRQV DERXW LGHDO DQG DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV SHUn FHLYHG UROH FRQIOLFW DQG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI SHUFHLYHG LGHDO UROH WR WKH WKHRUHWLFDO UROH IRXQG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH &RSLHV RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW ZHUH PDLOHG WR WKH GHDQ FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\ RI RI WKH SURIHVVLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ DSSURYHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ $VVRFLDWLRQ 8VDEOH UHVSRQVHV ZHUH UHFHLYHG IURP D WRWDO RI GHDQV FKDLUSHUn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

PAGE 8

7KH WDVN DUHDV RI HYDOXDWLRQ DQG VWXGHQWV DUH OHDVW LPSRUn WDQW WR WKH LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DV SHUFHLYHG E\ GHDQV FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ ,Q DFWXDO SUDFWLFH WKH UHOHYDQW UHIHUHQFH JURXSV SHUFHLYH WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DV SODFLQJ OHDVW LPSRUWDQFH LQ WKH DUHDV RI IDFXOW\ GHYHOn RSPHQW DQG H[WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 7KH UHOHYDQW JURXSV DUH LQ JHQHUDO DJUHHPHQW DERXW WKH LGHDOn L]HG UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ 7KHUH DUH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ SHUFHSWLRQ DPRQJ WKH UHOHYDQW JURXSV DERXW WKH ZD\ FKDLUSHUVRQV DFWXDOO\ EHKDYH 7KHUH LV D GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH ZD\ HDFK RI WKH UHOHYDQW JURXSV SHUFHLYH WKH LGHDOL]HG DQG DFWXDO UROH RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQ 7KHUH LV FRQJUXHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH SHUFHLYHG LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG WKH WKHRUHWLFDO UROH FRQWDLQHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH 7KHUH LV D ODFN RI FRQJUXHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH SHUFHLYHG DFWXDO UROH EHKDYLRU RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG WKH WKHRUHWLFDO UROH 7KHUH LV SRWHQWLDO FRQIOLFW EHWZHHQ WKH GHSDUWPHQWDO FKDLUn SHUVRQV DQG WKHLU GHDQ DQGRU IDFXOW\ LQ WKRVH DUHDV ZKHUH WKHUH LV D ODFN RI DJUHHPHQW DERXW DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV YLLL

PAGE 9

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 %DFNJURXQG DQG -XVWLILFDWLRQ 2QO\ D VPDOO QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV KDYH EHHQ FRQGXFWHG ZKLFK GHDO ZLWK WKH UROH RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQ LQ DQ DFDGHPLF VHWWLQJ 'R\OH $OGPRQ 6PLWK =XFNHU 'DYLV &RSHODQG )UDQNV &DUQHJLH *HUZLQ 9RO] f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKHRUHWLFDO ZULWLQJV LQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ KDYH SDLG VPDOO KHHG WR WKLV SRVLWLRQ UHOHJDWLQJ LW WR RQO\ SDUWV RI D FKDSWHU LQ ERRNV RQ DFDGHPLF DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQGRU JRYHUQDQFH HJ 5LFKDUGVRQ %ORFNHU t %HQGHU &RUVRQ f %UDQQ DQG (PPHW HGLWRUV RI 7KH $FDGHPLF 'HSDUWPHQW RU 'LYLVLRQ &KDLUPDQ $ &RPSOH[ 5ROH f SUHVHQWHG WKH PDMRU H[FHSWLRQ &KDUOHV +HLPOHU LQ VWURQJO\ UHFRPPHQGHG UHVHDUFK LQWR WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV +RZ GR FROOHJH GHSDUWPHQWDO FKDLUPHQ SHUFHLYH WKHLU UROH" +RZ LV WKHLU DGPLQLVWUDWLYH UROH SHUFHLYHG E\ WKH GHSDUWPHQWDO IDFXOW\ DQG WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ" :KDW FRQn IOLFWV LI DQ\ H[LVW DPRQJ WKHVH SHUVSHFWLYHV" S f 7KH OLPLWHG FRYHUDJH WKDW WKHUH KDV EHHQ RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUn SHUVRQ UROH KDV EHHQ DGGUHVVHG WR WKH WUDGLWLRQDO DFDGHPLF DUHDV RI KXPDQLWLHV DQG DUWV DQG VFLHQFHV DQG LQ WKH nV WR FKDLUSHUVRQV LQ YRFDWLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV 1R VWXGLHV KDYH EHHQ GRQH WR DVVD\ WKH UROH RI GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQ LQ WKH PRUH WHFKQLFDOFOLQLFDO DUHD RI SURIHVVLRQDO DOOLHG KHDOWK SURJUDPV DQG VSHFLILFDOO\ RFFXSDWLRQDO

PAGE 10

WKHUDS\ 5RQDOG *HUZLQ GLG VWXG\ WKH 5ROH RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQW &KDLUn SHUVRQ LQ WKH $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI +HDOWK (GXFDWLRQ 3URJUDPV LQ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV LQ EXW WKLV IRFXVHG RQ WZR \HDU SURJUDPV QRW SURIHVn VLRQDO OHYHO RQHV 0RUJDQ DQG &DQILHOG f SURGXFHG WKH RQO\ SXEOLFDWLRQ WR SURn MHFW UROHH[SHFWDWLRQV IRU DGPLQLVWUDWRUV LQ DOOLHG KHDOWK HGXFDWLRQ DQG WKLV ZDV QRW WKH UHVXOW RI DQ HPSLULFDO LQYHVWLJDWLRQ EXW UDWKHU WKH SURFHHGLQJV RI D FRQIHUHQFH 7KHUH ZDV RQO\ RQH RWKHU SDSHU NQRZQ WR WKH UHVHDUFKHU LQ ZKLFK WKH FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LQ DOOLHG KHDOWK HGXFDWLRQ ZHUH DGGUHVVHG DQG LW ZDV XQSXEOLVKHG 'DJHQDLV 1RWH f 7KH VWXG\ UHSRUWHG KHUHLQ ZDV SURSRVHG SDUWLDOO\ WR ILOO WKLV YRLG DQG DV D EHJLQQLQJ HIIRUW WR GHILQH WKH UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ RI WKH DFDGHPLF RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ GHSDUWPHQW 7KDW WKH RXWFRPH RI VXFK D VWXG\ ZRXOG EH EHQHILFLDO WR WKH SURn IHVVLRQ LV HYLGHQFHG E\ WKH KLJK UDWH RI WXUQRYHU RI FKDLUSHUVRQV LQ RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDWLRQ GHSDUWPHQWV DQG LQ WKH GLIILFXOW\ RI UHFUXLWLQJ TXDOLILHG LQGLYLGXDOV LQWR WKHVH SRVLWLRQV 7KH $PHULFDQ 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ $VVRFLDWLRQ OLVWLQJ RI 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ (GXFDn WLRQDO 3URJUDPV IRU VKRZHG ILYH DFWLQJ GLUHFWRUV RXW RI WKH EDVLF SURIHVVLRQDO SURJUDPV ,Q WKH HGLWLRQ RI WKLV OLVW VL[ FRPSOHWHO\ GLIIHUHQW SURJUDPV OLVWHG WKHLU FKDLUSHUVRQV DV DFWLQJ $GYHUWLVHPHQWV IRU LQGLYLGXDOV WR ILOO VHYHUDO RI WKHVH SRVLWLRQV UDQ FRQWLQXRXVO\ LQ WKH $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ DQGRU WKH $PHULFDQ 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ $VVRFLDWLRQ 1HZVSDSHU GXULQJ 7KHVH QXPEHUV VKRZ D SHUFHQW WXUQRYHU UDWH LQ D WKUHH \HDU SHULRG

PAGE 11

2QH FDXVH RI WKLV WXUQRYHU PD\ EH WKDW RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ LV DQ DSSOLHG DUHD UDWKHU WKDQ DQ DFDGHPLF RQH DQG WKH UHODWHG FRQWLQXLQJ GLVUHJDUG IRU WKH QHHG WR SUHSDUH LQGLYLGXDOV LQ SURIHVVLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ IRU UROHV LQ IDFXOW\ DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDn WLRQ -DQW]HQ f 7KH SUDFWLFH RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ LV WKH KHDUW RI RXU ILHOGf§WKH GHOLYHU\ RI RXU SDUWLFXODU NLQG RI KHDOWK FDUH VHUYLFHV WR SDWLHQWV RU FOLHQWV LV WKH UHDVRQ IRU WKH H[LVWHQFH RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ ZRXOG OLNH WR KDYH \RX FRQVLGHU DFDGHPLF RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ DV D FDUHHU VSHFLDOW\ LQ RXU ILHOG JURXQGHG LQ WKH EDVLF ERGLHV RI NQRZOHGJH UHTXLUHG RI FOLQLFDO VSHFLDOWLHV EXW UHTXLULQJ DGGLWLRQDO NQRZOHGJH IRU FRPSHWHQW SHUIRUPDQFH LQ WKH DFDGHPLF VHWWLQJ Sf &DUU\LQJ WKLV SRLQW IXUWKHU PRVW SHUVRQV ZKR FRPH WR WKH FKDLUn SHUVRQ UROH KDYH WUDLQLQJ DQG H[SHULHQFH DV FOLQLFLDQV DQG PDQ\ DV IDFXOW\ EXW DOPRVW QRQH KDYH H[SHULHQFH RU WUDLQLQJ DV DFDGHPLF DGPLQn LVWUDWRUV 7KLV PD\ UHVXOW LQ WKHLU EHLQJ OHVV FRQILGHQW RI ZKDW WKHLU UROH LV LQ WKH DFDGHPLF VHWWLQJ 7KH EHWWHU RQH XQGHUVWDQGV WKH UROH RQH SOD\V LQ DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG WKH PRUH FRQJUXHQFH ZKLFK H[LVWV EHWZHHQ H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU WKDW UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQf DQG WKRVH ZKR ERUGHU LW GHDQV DQG IDFXOW\f WKH OHVV FRQIOLFW WKHUH LV DSW WR EH *HW]HOV S f %\ XVLQJ DOO WKH SURIHVVLRQDO OHYHO RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV DFFUHGLWHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ $VVRFLDWLRQ DV WKH SRSXODWLRQ IRU WKH VWXG\ UHSRUWHG KHUHLQ WKH UHVXOWV FDQ EH JHQHUn DOL]HG DQG DSSOLHG DSSURSULDWHO\ WR H[DPLQDWLRQ RI SUREOHPV LQ DQ\ RQH RU QXPEHU RI WKHVH SUREOHPV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ VKRZ ZKHUH DUHDV RI ERWK DJUHHPHQW DQG GLVDJUHHPHQW H[LVW DERXW UROHH[SHFWDWLRQV IRU FKDLUSHUVRQV :KHUH GLVDJUHHPHQW H[LVWV WKHUH LV SRWHQWLDO IRU FRQIOLFW .DKQ :ROIH 4XLQQ 6QRHN t 5RVHQWKDO S 3DUVRQV t 6KLOV S %ODX t 6FRWW S f

PAGE 12

6XFK FRQIOLFW LV JHQHUDOO\ QRW SURGXFWLYH DV VWDWHG E\ .DKQ DQG DVVRFLDWHV f LQ WKH IROORZLQJ :KHQ SUHVVXUHV IURP DVVRFLDWHV DUH HVSHFLDOO\ VWURQJ DQG GLUHFWHG WRZDUG FKDQJHV LQ WKH EHKDYLRU RI WKH IRFDO SHUVRQ RU ZKHQ WKH\ DUH FRQWUDGLFWRU\ WR RQH DQRWKHU WKH H[SHULHQFH LV DSW WR EH IUDXJKW ZLWK FRQIOLFW DQG DPELJXn LW\ DQG WR HYRNH UHVSRQVHV RI WHQVLRQ DQJHU RU LQGHFLn VLRQ S f ,Q D PRUH JHQHUDO VHQVH 3DUVRQV DQG 6KL V f PDLQWDLQHG WKDW G\QDPLF DQDO\VLV RI WKH UROH RU UROHFRQVWHOODWLRQ ZKHUH YDOXH SDWWHUQ VRFLDO VWUXFWXUH DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ FRPH WRJHWKHU LV ZLWKRXW D GRXEW WKH PRVW VWUDWHJLF SRLQW DW ZKLFK WR DWWHPSW WR H[WHQG G\QDPLF NQRZOHGJH LQ VXFK D ZD\ WKDW LW ZLOO SURPLVH D PD[LPXP RI IUXLWIXO JHQn HUDO UHVXOWV IRU WKH WKHRU\ RI DFWLRQ S f 7KLV WKHQ ZDV IXUWKHU MXVWLILFDWLRQ IRU WKLV VWXG\ 7KH 3UREOHP 6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP 7KH JHQHUDO IRFXV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH DQG GHILQH UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV KHOG IRU FKDLUSHUVRQV RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV E\ WKH UROH LQFXPEDQWV DQG WKRVH ZKR ERUGHU WKDW UROH $V D PHDQV RI GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKDW WKHVH UROHH[SHFWDWLRQV ZHUH DQVZHUV ZHUH VRXJKW WR WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV :KDW LV WKH LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DV SHUn FHLYHG E\ Df WKH GHDQV RU HTXLYDOHQW DGPLQLVWUDWRUV Ef WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV Ff D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\ DQG Gf DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG" :KDW LV WKH DFWXDO UROH EHKDYLRU RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DV SHUFHLYHG E\ Df WKH GHDQV RU HTXLYDOHQW DGPLQLVWUDn WRUV Ef WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV Ff D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\ DQG Gf DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG" ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH LQ SHUFHSWLRQ DERXW LGHDOL]HG FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH DPRQJ GHDQ FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG IDFXOW\ LQ HDFK LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG IRU DOO LQVWLWXWLRQV"

PAGE 13

,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH LQ SHUFHSWLRQ DERXW DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH EHKDYLRU DPRQJ GHDQ FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG IDFXOW\ LQ HDFK LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG IRU DOO LQVWLn WXWLRQV" ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ LGHDOL]HG DQG DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH EHKDYLRU DV SHUFHLYHG E\ Df GHDQV Ef FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG Ff IDFXOW\ IRU HDFK LQVWLWXn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n JUDP LQ RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ DQG OLVWHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ $VVRFLDWLRQ $27$f LQ WKHLU SDPSKOHW (GXFDWLRQDO 3URJUDPV LQ 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ $27$ f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

PAGE 14

WKH RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ SURJUDP 7KH FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG IRXU IDFXOW\ WKH WZR ROGHVW DQG WKH WZR QHZHVW LQ OHQJWK RI VHUYLFH LQ WKH GHSDUWn PHQW ZHUH DVNHG WR GR OLNHZLVH LQ HDFK RI WKH GHSDUWPHQWV LQFOXGHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 5HWXUQV LQGLFDWHG WKDW RI WKH SURJUDPV UHVSRQGLQJ KDG IHZHU WKDQ IXOOWLPH IDFXOW\ ,Q VXP XVLQJ D UHVHDUFKHU GHYHORSHG LQVWUXPHQW SHUFHSWLRQV ZHUH VRXJKW IURP GHDQV FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV 5Hn VSRQVHV ZHUH UHFHLYHG IURP GHDQV FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ $ OLPLWDWLRQ RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WKH UHDOLW\ WKDW IXOO UHWXUQ RQ PDLOHG TXHVWLRQQDLUHV LV XQOLNHO\ DQG WKDW WKH UHVXOWV ZHUH WKHUHIRUH VNHZHG E\ WKH SHUFHQWDJH RI QRQUHWXUQV $OVR EHFDXVH RI WKHLU NQRZOn HGJH WKDW WKH\ ZHUH SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ D UHVHDUFK LQYHVWLJDWLRQ WKH UHVSRQGHQWV PD\ KDYH EHHQ LQIOXHQFHG LQ WKHLU DQVZHUV ,Q DQ DWWHPSW WR PLQLPL]H WKLV HIIHFW UHVSRQGHQWV ZHUH DVVXUHG RI FRPSOHWH DQRQ\PLW\ DQG FRQILGHQWLDOLW\ 6LQFH WKH VWXG\ HQFRPSDVVHV RI WKH DFFUHGLWHG SURJUDPV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV DQG VLQFH WKH UHWXUQ UDWH IURP FKDLUSHUVRQV ZDV b GHDQV ZDV b DQG IDFXOW\ ZDV b LW ZDV EHOLHYHG WKDW WKH JHQHUDO L]DELOLW\ RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV QRW VHULRXVO\ KDPSHUHG DQG WKDW WKHUH WKHUHIRUH ZDV VWLOO D UHDVRQDEO\ KLJK GHJUHH RI H[WHUQDO YDOLGLW\ 'HILQLWLRQ RI 7HUPV $OOLHG KHDOWK 7KRVH SURIHVVLRQDOV WKDW DUH WUDGLWLRQDOO\ FRQVLGn HUHG DOOLHG WR PHGLFLQH *HQHUDOO\ LQFOXGHG DUH RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUn DS\ SK\VLFDO WKHUDS\ UHKDELOLWDWLRQ FRXQVHOLQJ YRFDWLRQDO

PAGE 15

UHKDELOLWDWLRQ PHGLFDO WHFKQRORJ\ FOLQLFDO DQG FRPPXQLW\ GLHWHWLFV FRPPXQLFDWLYH GLVRUGHUV DQG VRPHWLPHV FOLQLFDO SV\FKRORJ\ QXUVLQJ DQG KRVSLWDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ &KDLUSHUVRQ 7KH DFNQRZOHGJHG DGPLQLVWUDWLYH KHDG RI DQ DFDGHPLF GHSDUWPHQW 'HDQ 7KH SHUVRQ KROGLQJ WKH SRVLWLRQ LQ WKH DFDGHPLF KLHUDUFK\ WR ZKLFK GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQV DUH DGPLQLVWUDWLYHO\ UHVSRQVLEOH 'HSDUWPHQW 7KH VPDOOHVW RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VWUXFWXUH LQ WKH WUDGLn WLRQDO DFDGHPLF VHWWLQJ $ FROOHFWLRQ RI IDFXOW\ RUJDQL]HG DURXQG D SDUWLFXODU DFDGHPLF GLVFLSOLQH )DFXOW\ 7KRVH SHUVRQV FRQVLGHUHG H[SHUWV LQ D SDUWLFXODU ILHOG HPSOR\HG WR ZRUN LQ DFDGHPLF GHSDUWPHQWV WR WHDFK FRQGXFW UHVHDUFK DQG WR SXEOLVK 2FFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ 7KH DUW DQG VFLHQFH RI DSSO\LQJ SXUSRVHn IXO DFWLYLW\ WR WKH PDLQWHQDQFH RU LQFUHDVH RI IXQFWLRQ RU WR WKH SUHYHQWLRQ RI GLVDELOLW\ LQ SK\VLFDO DQGRU PHQWDO KHDOWK 5ROH $ VHW RI H[SHFWDWLRQV DSSOLHG WR WKH SRVLWLRQ RI FKDLUSHUn VRQ RI DQ RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDWLRQ GHSDUWPHQW 5ROHFRQIOLFW $ VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK D UROH LQFXPEHQW PXVW FRQIRUP VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ WR D QXPEHU RI H[SHFWDWLRQV ZKLFK DUH PXWXDOO\ H[FOXn VLYH FRQWUDGLFWRU\ RU LQFRQVLVWHQW VR WKDW WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI RQH VHW RI GXWLHV PDNHV SHUIRUPDQFH RI DQRWKHU VHW GLIILFXOW RU LPSRVVLEOH 5ROHH[SHFWDWLRQV 7KRVH ULJKWV GXWLHV SULYLOHJHV DQG REOLJDn WLRQV WKDW GHOLQHDWH ZKDW D SHUVRQ VKRXOG DQG VKRXOG QRW GR XQGHU YDUn LRXV FLUFXPVWDQFHV DV WKH LQFRPEHQW RI D SDUWLFXODU UROH 5ROHWKHRU\ 7KHRU\ GHYHORSHG E\ H[SHUWV DQG UHSRUWHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKH FRQFHSW RI UROH

PAGE 16

3URFHGXUHV 7KH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ZDV QDWLRQDO LQ VFRSH 4XHVWLRQQDLUHV ZHUH XWLOL]HG DV WKH PHDQV RI JDWKHULQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ ,Q WKH IROORZLQJ SDUDn JUDSKV DWWHQWLRQ LV JLYHQ WR WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI SDUWLFLSDQWV LQVWUXPHQn WDWLRQ DQG GDWD FROOHFWLRQ DQG GDWD DQDO\VLV 6HOHFWLRQ RI 3DUWLFLSDQWV 7KH SDUWLFLSDQWV IRU WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH GUDZQ IURP DOO EXW RQH RI WKH EDFFDODXUHDWH DQG FHUWLILFDWH GHJUHH SURJUDPV OLVWHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ $VVRFLDWLRQ LQ LWV SDPSKOHW (GXFDWLRQDO 3URJUDPV LQ 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ f 7KH RQH H[FHSWLRQ ZDV WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD ZKLFK ZDV XVHG DV D WHVW JURXS IRU WKH LQVWUXPHQW DQG ZDV WKHUHIRUH QRW LQFOXGHG LQ WKH SRSXODWLRQ IRU WKH VWXG\ LWVHOI 7KHUHn IRUH SHUVRQQHO DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SURIHVVLRQDO SURJUDPV ZHUH VXUYH\HG 7KUHH FODVVHV RI SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH LQFOXGHG IURP ZLWKLQ HDFK RI WKHVH SURJUDPV 7KH GHDQ RU HDXLYDOHQW DGPLQLVWUDWRU WR ZKRP WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ ZDV DGPLQLVWUDWLYHO\ DFFRXQWDEOH WRWDOf 7KH FKDLUSHUVRQ RI WKH RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDWLRQ GHSDUWn PHQW WRWDOf )RXU IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV LQ RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\WKH WZR ROGHVW DQG WKH WZR QHZHVW LQ WHUPV RI WLPH LQ WKDW GHSDUWPHQW WRWDO f§f 7KH FKDLUSHUVRQV ZHUH DVNHG WR VHOHFW DQG JLYH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV WR WKHVH LQGLYLGXDOV DV LW ZDV FRQVLGHUHG WKDW WKLV ZDV WKH EHVW ZD\ WR DFKLHYH D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH VDPSOLQJ RI IDFXOW\ &KDLUSHUVRQ UHVSRQVHV WR WKH TXHVWLRQ DERXW WKH QXPEHU RI IXOOWLPH IDFXOW\ LQGLFDWHG WKDW RI WKH SURJUDPV SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ WKLV VWXG\ KDG IHZHU WKDQ IXOOWLPH IDFXOW\f

PAGE 17

5HVSRQVHV ZHUH UHFHLYHG IURP GHDQV FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ 7KH UHWXUQ UDWH WKHQ ZDV RI GHDQV RI FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG RI IDFXOW\ ,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQ DQG 'DWD &ROOHFWLRQ 7KH LQVWUXPHQW XVHG LQ FROOHFWLQJ WKH GDWD ZDV D TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZKLFK WKH UHVHDUFKHU GHYHORSHG EDVHG RQ D UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH DQG WHVWLQJ ZLWK D SDQHO RI H[SHUWV 7KHVH H[SHUWV ZHUH WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQV VHOHFWHG IDFXOW\ DQG WKH GHDQ RI WKH &ROOHJH RI +HDOWK 5HODWHG 3URIHVVLRQV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 7KH VHFRQG DQG PDMRU SDUW RI WKLV LQVWUXPHQW ZDV FRPPRQ WR DOO UHVSRQGHQWV DQG FRQn VLVWHG RI WKH OLVW RI FRPSHWHQF\ VWDWHPHQWV RU UROHH[SHFWDWLRQV GHYHOn RSHG IURP WKH OLWHUDWXUH 6HH $SSHQGL[ $f 7KLV OLVW ZDV GLYLGHG LQWR PDMRU FDWHJRULHV RU WDVN DUHDV HDFK FRQWDLQLQJ IURP UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV $SSHQGL[ %f (DFK VXEMHFW ZDV DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH RQ D SRLQW VFDOH WKH LPSRUn WDQFH WKH\ REVHUYHG WKHLU FKDLUSHUVRQ DFWXDOO\ JLYLQJ WR HDFK EHKDYLRU DQG RQ DQRWKHU SRLQW VFDOH WKH LPSRUWDQFH WKH\ WKRXJKW WKHLU FKDLUn SHUVRQ LGHDOO\ RXJKW WR EH SODFLQJ RQ WKH EHKDYLRU ,I WKH\ KDG QR RSLQLRQ RU QR NQRZOHGJH RI WKH EHKDYLRU WKH\ ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR FLUFOH f 7KH IDFXOW\ WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG WKH GHDQV RU HTXLYDOHQW DGPLQn LVWUDWRUV ZHUH DVNHG WR FRPSOHWH WKLV SDUW RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH (YHU\ UHVSRQGHQW ZDV DVNHG WR DQVZHU FHUWDLQ FRPPRQ GHVFULSWLYH TXHVWLRQV 7KHVH UHODWHG WR WKHLU JHQGHU OHQJWK RI WLPH LQ WKHLU SUHVHQW SRVLWLRQ GHJUHHV KHOG EH\RQG WKH EDFKHORUnV RIILFLDO WLWOH DQG DJH $GGLWLRQDOO\ FKDLUSHUVRQV ZHUH DVNHG DERXW QXPEHU RI GHSDUWn PHQW IDFXOW\ DQG VWXGHQWV DGPLQLVWUDWLYH ORFDWLRQ RI GHSDUWPHQW DQG ZKHWKHU RU QRW IDFXOW\ ZHUH XQLRQL]HG

PAGE 18

,' 7KHVH TXHVWLRQV ZHUH DVNHG LQ RUGHU WKDW DV RQH H[DPLQHG WKH ILQG LQTV RQH PLJKW KDYH VRPH EDVLV IRU K\SRWKHVL]LQJ DERXW WKH UHDVRQ FHUn WDLQ SDWWHUQV RI UHVSRQVH ZHUH SUHVHQW )RU H[DPSOH /HH UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH VL]H RI D GHSDUWPHQW LQ ERWK QXPEHU RI VWXGHQWV DQG QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\f KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WR EH D VLJQLILFDQW IDFWRU HIIHFWLQJ UROH H[SHFWDWLRQ /HH f %RWK WKH TXHVWLRQ IDFXOW\GHDQ GHVFULSWLYH VHFWLRQ DQG WKH TXHVWLRQ FKDLUSHUVRQ GHVFULSWLYH VHFWLRQ DUH UHSURn GXFHG DV $SSHQGL[ & 7KH FKDLUSHUVRQ TXHVWLRQQDLUH LQFOXGHG D WKLUG VHFWLRQ LQ ZKLFK FKDLUSHUVRQV ZHUH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH RQ D VFDOH RI f§QR FRQIOLFW f§ VRPH FRQIOLFW f§PXFK FRQIOLFW WKH DPRXQW RI FRQIOLFW WKH\ H[SHULHQFHG ZLWK WKHLU GHDQ DQGRU IDFXOW\ LQ HDFK RI WKH PDMRU FDWHJRULHV LQn FOXGHG LQ WKH UROHH[SHFWDWLRQV VHFWLRQ 7KLV LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV WKHQ FRPn SDUHG ZLWK WKH UHWXUQV IURP WKH GHDQV DQG IDFXOW\ WR VHH LI WKH FKDLUn SHUVRQnV SHUFHSWLRQV RI FRQIOLFW DUHDV ZHUH VKDUHG E\ RWKHUV 6HH $SSHQGL[ 'f )LQDOO\ WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV ZHUH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH WKHLU OHYHO RI RYHUDOO VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK WKHLU SUHVHQW MREIURP YHU\ VDWLVILHG WR YHU\ GLVVDWLVILHG 5ROH FRQIOLFW LV GLUHFWO\ UHODWHG WR MRE VDWLVIDFn WLRQ DV LQGLFDWHG E\ .DKQ S f DQG E\ *HW]HOV DQG DVVRFLDWHV *HW ]HOV HW DO S f DPRQJ RWKHUV DQG WKHUHIRUH WR WXUQRYHU UDWH 'DWD $QDO\VLV 0XFK RI WKH DQDO\VLV RI GDWD IRU WKLV VWXG\ ZDV E\ LQVSHFWLRQ DQG VLPSOH QRQSDUDPHWULF VWDWLVWLFV 7R LOOXVWUDWH DV D SDUW RI TXHVWLRQ D FRPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ GHDQVn DQG FKDLUSHUVRQVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ LGHDOL]HG UROH ZDV SURSRVHG 7RWDO LGHDOL]HG VFRUHV ZHUH IRXQG IRU GHDQV DQG IRU FKDLUSHUVRQV WKHQ WKH WZR ZHUH DQDO\]HG E\

PAGE 19

.UXVNDO:DO LV 2QH:D\ $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH WHVW WR VHH LI WKH GLIIHUn HQFHV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW 7KH UHVSRQVHV IRU HDFK VXEMHFW ZHUH WDEXODWHG IRU HDFK RI WKH PDMRU UROH FDWHJRULHV RU WDVN DUHDV DQG IRU WKH WRWDO LQVWUXPHQW 7KXV D VFRUH IRU HDFK WDVN DUHD DQG IRU WKH WRWDO LQVWUXPHQW ZDV GHWHUPLQHG ,Q WKLV H[DPSOH WKH WRWDO VFRUH RI WKH GHDQVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH LGHDOL]HG FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH ZDV FRPSXWHG DQG FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKH WRWDO VFRUH RI FKDLUSHUVRQVn SHUFHSWLRQV 7KH VDPH EDVLF SURFHGXUH ZDV UHSHDWHG IRU DOO JURXSV IRU TXHVWLRQV WKURXJK )RU TXHVWLRQV DQG WKH .UXVNDO:DOOLV 2QH:D\ $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH ZDV XVHG EHFDXVH LW LV YDOLG IRU WKUHH RU PRUH JURXSV 7KHVH TXHVWLRQV IRFXVHG RQ WKH GLIn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

PAGE 20

2UJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH 5HPDLQGHU RI WKH 6WXG\ &KDSWHU 7ZR ZKLFK IROORZV LPPHGLDWHO\ LV IRFXVHG RQ D UHYLHZ RI WKH UHOHYDQW OLWHUDWXUH ZKLFK SURYLGHV WKH WKHRUHWLFDO IUDPHZRUN LQ FRQWH[W RI ZKLFK WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG ,Q &KDSWHU 7KUHH WKH ILQGLQJV REWDLQHG IURP WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH DUH UHSRUWHG DQG UHVXOWV RI VWDWLVWLFDO WHVWV DUH SUHVHQWHG DV WKH\ UHODWH WR WKH SUREOHP VWDWHn PHQWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KH UHVXOWV DUH GLVFXVVHG FRQFOXVLRQV DUH PDGH DQG WKH WRWDO VWXG\ LV VXPPDUL]HG LQ &KDSWHU )RXU

PAGE 21

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nV WKH WKHUDSHXWLF YDOXH RI IUHH SOHDVDQW DQG SURILWDEOH RFFXSDWLRQ GHYHORSHG DQG WKH PRUH DGYDQFHG PHQWDO KRVSLWDOV EHJDQ FUHDWLQJ UHFUHDWLRQDO DQG ZRUN SURJUDPV S f 0DQ\ RI WKH IRXQGHUV RI WKH SURIHVVLRQ RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ ZHUH WKH GRFWRUV QXUVHV DQG FUDIWVPHQ HQJDJHG LQ DGYHQWXUHV LQ XVLQJ DFWLYLWLHV WR KHOS PHQWDO SDWLHQWV H[SHULHQFH WKH IHHOLQJ RI SURGXFWLYLW\ 7KHVH IRXQGHUV EHFDPH FRQYLQFHG WKDW WKHLU HQGHDYRUV VSHHGHG WKH SDWLHQWVn UHFRYHU\ S f 7KH VHFRQG VRXUFH IURP ZKLFK RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ VSUDQJ ZDV WKH )LUVW :RUOG :DU

PAGE 22

,W 2XU PRUH FRQFUHWH URRWV H[WHQG IURP WKH )LUVW :RUOG :DU ZKHQ WKH FRXQWU\ DQWLFLSDWHG WKDW ZLWK LPSURYHG PHGLFDO DQG VXUJLFDO WHFKQLTXHV ODUJH QXPEHUV RI WKH ZRXQGHG ZRXOG QHHG DQ DFWLYH UHKDELOLWDWLRQ SURJUDP DQG WKDW WKLV ZRXOG UHTXLUH WUDLQHG SHUVRQQHO 7KLV OHG WR 5HFRQVWUXFn WLRQ $LGHV DQG D ODUJH ZDU DQG SRVWZDU UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ SURn JUDP RI UHKDELOLWDWLRQ 2Q 2FWREHU WKH 1DWLRQDO 6RFLHW\ IRU WKH 3URPRWLRQ RI 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ ZDV IRXQGHG S f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f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n WLRQ RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ VFKRROV ZDV UHFRJQL]HG E\ WKH QDWLRQDO DVVRFLDWLRQ DQG D FKDLUPDQ IRU WKH HGXFDWLRQ FRPn PLWWHH RI WKH QDWLRQDO VRFLHW\ ZDV DSSRLQWHG 7KLV FUHDWHG WKH ILUVW GLUHFW OLQN EHWZHHQ RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDn WLRQ DQG WKH SURIHVVLRQDO DVVRFLDWLRQ ,Q PLQLPXP VWDQGDUGV IRU HGXFDWLRQ FRXUVHV ZHUH SXEOLVKHG 7KH nV VDZ GLVWLQFW LPSURYHPHQWV LQ RXU HGXFDWLRQ EHFDXVH VHYHUDO LQGLYLGXDOV ZLWK IRUHVLJKW ZRUNHG KDUG IRU FKDQJH $OO RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ VFKRROV EHFDPH DIILOn LDWHG ZLWK FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV 6WUXJJOHV RYHU ZKDW WR WHDFK UHVXOWHG LQ WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI WKH HGXFDn WLRQ FRPPLWWHH DQG LQ WKH SXEOLFDWLRQ RI WKH ILUVW VHW RI PLQLPXP HVVHQWLDOV RI HGXFDWLRQ LQ +RZHYHU WKH

PAGE 23

LVVXH RI ZKDW WR WHDFK UHPDLQHG D KHDYLO\ GHEDWHG RQH DQG LW ZDVQnW XQWLO QDWLRQDO UHJLVWUDWLRQ EHJDQ LQ WKDW RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ KDG D VSHFLILF VHW RI FUHGHQn WLDOV IRU WKHLU SUDFWLWLRQHUV :RRGVLGH S f 7KH PLQLPXP VWDQGDUGV IRU HGXFDWLRQ ZKLFK :RRGVLGH PHQWLRQHG ZHUH GHYHORSHG LQ SDUWQHUVKLS ZLWK WKH $PHULFDQ 0HGLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ ZKLFK KDV UHWDLQHG FRFRQWURO RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDWLRQ 8QWLO WKH PLQLPXP VWDQGDUGV IRU HGXFDWLRQ GHFODUHG WKDW FOLQLFDO VXEMHFWV VKRXOG EH IRUPXODWHG DQG FRQGXFWHG LQ FROODERUDWLRQ ZLWK SK\VLFLDQV 7KLV VLWXDWLRQ OHG .DUHQ 'LDVLR WR GHFODUH LQ 7KH $PHULFDQ 0HGLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ VWLOO FRQWUROV RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ FXUUFXOXPV S f 2FFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ GHSDUWPHQWV IRU WKH PRVW SDUW ZHUH ORFDWHG ZKHUH WKHUH PD\ EH FRQVLGHUDEOH LQSXW GLUHFWO\ IURP WKH PHGLFDO SURIHV VLRQHLWKHU ZLWKLQ PHGLFDO VFKRROV RU LQ FROOHJHV RI DOOLHG KHDOWK RU KHDOWK UHODWHG SURIHVVLRQV ZKLFK DUH ODUJHO\ FRQWUROOHG E\ WKH PHGLFDO HGXFDWLRQ HVWDEOLVKPHQW 7KLV UHODWLRQVKLS UHPRYHV IURP WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQ VRPH RI WKH SRZHU RYHU FXUULFXOXP FRQWHQW ZKLFK LV JHQHUn DOO\ KHOG E\ WKDW SRVLWLRQ 7KH DFFUHGLWLQJ SURFHVV WKURXJK WKH $PHUn LFDQ 0HGLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ DQG WKH $PHULFDQ 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ $VVRFLDn WLRQ SXWV WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQ LQ WKH SRVLWLRQ RI DFFHSWLQJ GLUHFWLRQV IURP LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR PD\ RU PD\ QRW EH TXDOLILHG WR PDNH WKH EHVW MXGJHPHQWV IRU WKH SURIHVVLRQ RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ 7KH DERYH GHOLQHDWHG IDFWRUV LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDWLRQ LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI VXFK GHSDUWPHQWV GHPDQG GLIIHUHQW NQRZOHGJH DQG VNLOOV IURP WKRVH UHTXLUHG RI WUDGLWLRQn DO DFDGHPLF GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQV )RU LQVWDQFH DV $OLFH -DQW]HQ VWDWHG LQ KHU (OHDQRU &ODUNH 6ODJOH /HFWXUH LQ

PAGE 24

7KH SUDFWLFH RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ LV WKH KHDUW RI RXU ILHOGf§WKH GHOLYHU\ RI RXU SDUWLFXODU NLQG RI KHDOWK FDUH VHUYLFHV WR SDWLHQWV RU FOLHQWV LV WKH UHDVRQ IRU WKH H[LVWHQFH RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ S f 7KH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI D GHSDUWPHQW RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ WKHQ UHTXLUHV DFFRXQWDELOLW\ IRU WKH FRPSHWHQW GHOLYHU\ RI KHDOWK FDUH DQG DFFRXQWDELOLW\ WR WKH DFFUHGLWLQJ ERGLHV IRU WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW DQG PDLQWHQDQFH RI WKH SURJUDP DV ZHOO DV DFFRXQWDELOLW\ WR WKH XQLYHUVLW\ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 5ROH 7KHRU\ %LGGOH DQG 7KRPDV f RIIHUHG WKH IROORZLQJ GHILQLWLRQV RI UROH $ EHKDYLRUDO UHSHUWRLUH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI D SHUVRQ RU D SRVLWLRQ $ VHW RI VWDQGDUGV GHVFULSWLRQV QRUPV RU FRQFHSWV KHOG E\ DQ\RQHf IRU WKH EHKDYLRUV RI D SHUVRQ RU D SRVLWLRQ $ SRVLWLRQ SS f %XW 3DUVRQV DQG 6KL V f RIIHUHG WKH PRVW SUHFLVH GHILQLWLRQ RI UROH DV LW UHODWHG WR WKH VXEMHFW RI WKH VWXG\ UHSRUWHG KHUHLQ WKH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW XQLW RI VXFK SRLQW VWUXFWXUHV LV QRW WKH SHUVRQ EXW WKH UROH 7KH UROH LV WKDW RUJDQL]HG VHFWRU RI DQ DFWRUn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f 7KH\ GLVFXVVHG WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH UROH LQFXPEHQW DQG WKH SHUn VRQ YLHZLQJ WKDW UROH LQ WKH IROORZLQJ H[FHUSW

PAGE 25

WKH FRQWDFW VXUIDFH RI WKH SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG VRFLDO V\VWHPV OLHV EHWZHHQ QHHGGLVSRVLWLRQV RI HJR DQG UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV RI YDULRXV DOWHUV 7KH HVVHQWLDO HOHPHQW LQ WKH UROH LV WKH FRPSOHPHQWDULW\ RI H[SHFWDWLRQV 7KH RXWn FRPH RI HJRnV DFWLRQ LQ WHUPV RI LWV VLJQLILFDQFH WR KLP LV FRQWLQJHQW RQ DOWHUnV UHDFWLRQ WR ZKDW KH GRHV 7KLV UHDFWLRQ LQ WXUQ LV QRW UDQGRP EXW LV RUJDQL]HG UHODWLYH WR DOWHUnV H[SHFWDWLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ ZKDW LV SURSHU EHKDYn LRU RQ HJRnV SDUW 5ROHH[SHFWDWLRQV DUH WKH GHILQLWLRQV E\ ERWK HJR DQG DOWHU RI ZKDW EHKDYLRU LV SURSHU IRU HDFK LQ WKH UHODn WLRQVKLS DQG LQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ LQ TXHVWLRQ %RWK UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG VDQFWLRQV DUH HVVHQWLDO WR WKH WRWDO FRQFHSW RI D UROH LQ WKH FRQFUHWH VHQVH RI D VHJPHQW RI WKH DFWLRQ RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO SS f 3DUVRQV DQG 6KL Vn ERRN 7RZDUG D *HQHUDO 7KHRU\ RI $FWLRQ f HVWDEOLVKHG WKHP DV H[SHUWV DQG DV FODVVLF WKHRUHWLFLDQV 0RVW DOO VFKRODUO\ HIIRUWV VLQFH LQ WKH ILHOG RI UROHV DFNQRZOHGJHV WKHLU FRQWULEXWLRQ LQ RQH ZD\ RU DQRWKHU 2QH RI WKH PRVW ZHOO UHFRJQL]HG DSSOLFDWLRQV RI WKHLU WKHRU\ WR WKH DUHD RI HGXFDWLRQDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LV LQ WKH ZRUN RI *HW]HOV DQG KLV DVVRFLDWHV *HW]HOV /LSKDP t &DPSEHOO f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n DOO\ WKH\ SRVWXODWHG WKDW WKLV KLHUDUFK\ LV WKH ORFXV IRU WKH DOORFDn WLRQ DQG LQWHJUDWLRQ RI UROHV DQG IDFLOLWLHV WR DFKLHYH WKH JRDOV RI WKH V\VWHP $QG RSHUDWLRQDOO\ WKH\ VDZ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ KDSSHQLQJ LQ SHUVRQWRSHUVRQ LQWHUDFWLRQ 7KLV WKLUG RSHUDWLRQDO FRQWH[W LPSOLHV

PAGE 26

WKDW QR PDWWHU KRZ ZHOO WKH ILUVW WZR DUH GHILQHG SHRSOH ZLOO QRW DOn ZD\V DJUHH RU FDUU\ RXW WKHLU IXQFWLRQV VPRRWKO\ 7KLV FUXFLDO RSHUDn WLRQDO DVSHFW RI DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LV WKH RQH RQ ZKLFK *HW]HOV DQG DVVRn FLDWHVn VRFLDO V\VWHPV PRGHO IRFXVHG *HW]HOV HW DO S f )RU DQDO\VLV RI WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SURFHVV *HW]HOV DQG DVVRFLDWHV VDZ WKH VRFLDO V\VWHP DV LQYROYLQJ WZR EDVLF JURXSV RI SKHQRPHQD 7KHVH JURXSV DUH FRQFHSWXDOO\ LQGHSHQGHQW EXW SUDFWLFDOO\ LQWHUDFWLYH 7KHVH WZR JURXSV DUH f WKH LQVWLWXWLRQV ZLWK FHUWDLQ UROHV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV WKDW ZLOO IXOILOO WKH JRDOV RI WKH V\VWHP DQG f WKH LQGLYLGXDOV ZLWK FHUWDLQ SHUVRQDOLWLHV DQG GLVSRVLWLRQV LQKDELWLQJ WKH V\VWHP ZKRVH REVHUYHG LQWHUDFWLRQV FRPn SULVH ZKDW ZH FDOO VRFLDO EHKDYLRU S f 7KH ILUVW RI WKHVH JURXSV WKH\ WHUPHG WKH QRUPDWLYH GLPHQVLRQ RI WKHLU PRGHO ZKLFK FRXOG EH ODEHOHG D VRFLRORJLFDO SHUVSHFWLYH 7KH VHFRQG WKH\ FDOOHG WKH SHUVRQDO GLPHQVLRQ ZKLFK LV DQDORJRXV WR D SV\n FKRORJLFDO SHUVSHFWLYH $ORQJ WKH QRUPDWLYH GLPHQVLRQ RI WKLV PRGHO WKH\ LQFOXGHG LQVWLWXWLRQ UROH DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV ,QVWLWXWLRQV ZHUH VHHQ DV SXUSRVLYH SHRSOHG VWUXFWXUDO QRUPDWLYH DQG VDQFWLRQEHDULQJ LH PHWH RXW SUDLVH GLVDSSURYDO SXQLVKPHQW DZDUGVf 5ROH ZDV XVHG E\ *HW]HOV HW DO DV LQ 3DUVRQV DQG 6KLOVn GHILQLWLRQ WKDW RUJDQL]HG VHFWRU RI DQ DFWRUnV RULHQWDWLRQ ZKLFK FRQVWLWXWHV DQG GHILQHV KLV SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ DQ LQWHUDFWLYH SURFHVV ,W LQYROYHV D VHW RI FRPSOHPHQWDU\ H[SHFWDWLRQV FRQFHUQLQJ KLV RZQ DFWLRQV DQG WKRVH RI RWKHUV ZLWK ZKRP KH LQWHUDFWV S f 5ROHV DUH GHILQHG LQ WHUPV RI UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV WKH\ DUH PRUH RU OHVV IOH[LEOH WKH\ DUH FRPSOHPHQWDU\ LQWHUGHSHQGHQWf DQG WKH\ YDU\ LQ VFRSH IURP WKH IXQFWLRQDOO\ VSHFLILF WR WKH IXQFWLRQDOO\ GLIIXVH *HW]HOV HW DO SS f ([SHFWDWLRQV ZHUH GHVFULEHG DV WKRVH SUHVFULSWLRQV ULJKWV GXWLHV HWFf WKDW GHOLQHDWH ZKDW D

PAGE 27

SHUVRQ VKRXOG DQG VKRXOG QRW GR XQGHU YDULRXV FLUFXPVWDQFHV DV WKH LQn FXPEHQW RI D SDUWLFXODU UROH LQ D VRFLDO V\VWHP *HW]HOV HW DO S f 7KH SHUVRQDO GLPHQVLRQ LQ WKH PRGHO FRQVLVWV RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO KHUKLV SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG KHUKLV QHHGGLVSRVLWLRQV 7KH\ LQFOXGHG WKLV GLPHQVLRQ EHFDXVH LW PDNHV WKH V\VWHP DFFRXQW IRU WKH IDFW WKDW SHRSOH KDYH GLIIHUHQW SHUVRQDOLWLHV DQG XQLTXH VW\OHV RI GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKHLU UROHV 7KH\ FRQWHQGHG WKDW LW LV QRW HQRXJK WR NQRZ WKH QDWXUH RI WKH QRUPDWLYH GLPHQVLRQ HOHPHQWV WR XQGHUVWDQG D SDUWLFXODU SHUVRQnV EHKDYn LRU LQ D V\VWHP ,W LV HVVHQWLDO WR DOVR NQRZ DERXW WKH SHUVRQ LQGLn YLGXDOO\ WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH SHUVRQnV ZD\V RI 'HUFHLYLQJ DQG KHUKLV SDUWLFXODU QHHGV S f *HW]HOV DQG DVVRFLDWHVn GHILQLWLRQ RI SHUVRQDOLW\ ZDV D UHVXOW RI ERUURZLQJ IURP $OOSRUW DQG 3DUVRQV DQG LQVHUWLQJ VRPH RI WKHLU RZQ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ 3HUVRQDOLW\ LV WKH G\QDPLF RUJDQL]DWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO RI WKRVH QHHGGLVSRVLWLRQV WKDW GHWHUPLQH KLV XQLTXH LQWHUn DFWLRQV ZLWK KLV HQYLURQPHQW *HW]HOV HW DO S f 1HHGGLVSRVLWLRQV ZHUH VHHQ DV IRUFHV ZLWKLQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO ZKLFK DUH JRDORULHQWHG 7KH\ GHWHUPLQH WKH FRJQLWLYH DQG SHUFHSWXDO VW\OHV ZKLFK D SHUVRQ EULQJV WR DQ\ UROH WKH\ YDU\ LQ VSHFLILFLW\ DQG WKH\ DUH RUJDQL]HG ERWK KRUL]RQWDOO\ DQG YHUWLFDOO\ 7KLV ODWWHU FKDUDFn WHULVWLF PHDQV WKDW WKH YHU\ JUDWLILFDWLRQ RI RQH QHHG HJ ODQGLQJ D JRRG MREf PD\ DFWLYDWH RWKHU QHHGV HJ WR LQQRYDWHf *HW]HOV DQG DVVRFLDWHV XUJHG WKDW DGPLQLVWUDWRUV PXVW EH DZDUH RI WKLV VR WKH\ GR QRW LQDGYHUWHQWO\ IRVWHU GLVVDWLVIDFWLRQ E\ SXWWLQJ DQ HPSOR\HH LQWR D UROH DQG WKHQ DVVXPLQJ DOO ZLOO EH ZHOO SS f

PAGE 28

*HW]HOV DQG DVVRFLDWHV WKHUHIRUH PDLQWDLQHG WKDW EHKDYLRU LQ D VRFLDO V\VWHP LV DOZD\V WKH UHVXOW RI LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH SHUVRQn DOLW\ IDFWRUV SHUVRQDO GLPHQVLRQf DQG WKH UROH IDFWRUV QRUPDWLYH GLPHQVLRQf )URP WKHLU PRGHO WKH\ GHULYHG WKH HTXDWLRQ % I5[3f ZKHUH % REVHUYHG EHKDYLRU 5 WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDO UROH GHILQHG E\ LWV DWWDFKHG H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG 3 WKH SHUVRQDOLW\ RI WKH UROH LQFXPEHQW GHILQHG E\ KLV QHHGGLVSRVLWLRQV S f 7KLV KDV JUHDW VLPLODULW\ WR .XUW /HZLQnV IRUPXOD % I3(f ZKHUH % EHKDYLRU 3 WKH SHUn VRQ DQG ( WKH HQYLURQPHQW 7KH PDMRU GLIIHUHQFH WKRXJK LV WKDW /HZLQ FRQWHQGHG WKDW WR XQGHUVWDQG RU WR SUHGLFW EHKDYLRU WKH SHUVRQ DQG KLV HQYLURQPHQW KDYH WR EH FRQVLGHUHG DV RQH FRQVWHOODWLRQ RI LQWHUGHSHQGHQW IDFWRUV /HZLQ S f (QYLURQPHQW LV QRW LQGHSHQGHQW RI WKH SHUVRQ 3f EHFDXVH LW (f LV GHILQHG E\ WKH SHUFHSn WLRQ RI WKH SHUVRQ ,Q *HW]HO DQG DVVRFLDWHVn IRUPXOD RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG 5 ( GHILQHG LQ WHUPV RI UROH H[SHFWDWLRQVf LV JLYHQ E\ WKH LQn VWLWXWLRQ FRPSOHWHO\ DSDUW IURP WKH SHUVRQnV SHUFHSWLRQ RI LW S f 7KH VWXG\ UHSRUWHG KHUHLQ IRFXVHG RQ RQO\ WKH QRUPDWLYH GLPHQVLRQ LQ WKH *HW]HOV DQG DVVRFLDWHV PRGHO 7KLV ZDV EDVHG RQ WKH UHDOLW\ WKDW PHDVXUHPHQW RI WKH SHUVRQDO GLPHQVLRQ LV FRQVLGHUDEO\ PRUH GLIILn FXOW WR DFKLHYH ZLWK DQ\ DPRXQW RI DFFXUDF\ DQG LV YDOLGDWHG E\ WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQW E\ 3DUVRQV DQG 6KLOV :KHQ ZH UHFRJQL]H WKDW UROHV UDWKHU WKDQ SHUVRQDOn LWLHV DUH WKH XQLWV RI VRFLDO VWUXFWXUH ZH FDQ SHUFHLYH WKH QHFHVVLW\ RI DQ HOHPHQW RI ORRVHQHVV LQ WKH UHODn WLRQV EHWZHHQ SHUVRQDOLW\ VWUXFWXUH DQG WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI D UROH S f 5ROH &RQIOLFW 2QH RI WKH YDOXHV RI DQDO\]LQJ H[SHFWDWLRQV KHOG E\ GLIIHUHQW LQGLYLGXDOV IRU WKH VDPH UROH LV WKH GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI ZKHUH WKRVH

PAGE 29

H[SHFWDWLRQV GR DQG GR QRW RYHUODS :KHUH WKHUH LV GLVSDULW\ DERXW H[SHFWDWLRQV WKHUH LV SRWHQWLDO IRU FRQIOLFW :KHQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV RI SDUWLFLn SDQWV LQ DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH LQWHUDFWLRQ RYHUODS WKH SDUn WLFLSDQWV IHHO VDWLVILHG ZLWK WKH ZRUN DFFRPSOLVKHG QR PDWWHU ZKDW WKH DFWXDO EHKDYLRU RU DFFRPSOLVKPHQW ZKHQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV GRHV QRW RYHUODS WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV IHHO GLVVDWLVILHG *HW]HOV S f ,Q LOOXVWUDWLQJ WKLV SRLQW *HW]HOV UHODWHG WKH UHVXOWV RI D VWXG\ FRQGXFWHG LQ ZKLFK D SUREOHP VLWXDWLRQ LQVWUXPHQW ZDV XVHG ZLWK DGPLQLVWUDWRUV ZKR KDG KDG FRQVXOWDQW VHUYLFHV DQG ZLWK FRQVXOWDQWV ZKR KDG SURYLGHG WKDW VHUYLFH (DFK ZDV DVNHG WR HYDOXDWH WKH RXWFRPH RI WKHLU FRQVXOWDWLRQ 5HVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW ZKHQ WKH WZR DJUHHG RQ H[n SHFWDWLRQV WKH\ ERWK UDWHG WKH FRQVXOWDWLRQ IDYRUDEO\ %XW ZKHQ WKH\ GLVDJUHHG RQ H[SHFWDWLRQV WKH\ UDWHG WKH FRQVXOWDWLRQ XQIDYRUDEO\ 7KLV UHLQIRUFHG WKH YLHZ WKDW WKH FUXFLDO DVSHFW RI VXFFHVVIXO DGPLQLVn WUDWLYH LQWHUDFWLRQ ZDV RYHUODS LQ SHUFHSWLRQ RI H[SHFWDWLRQV S f :KHQ H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU D UROH GR QRW RYHUODS RU DUH LQFRQVLVWHQW WKH UHVXOWV PD\ EH H[SHULHQFHG E\ WKH UROHLQFXPEHQW DV FRQIOLFW 0LVKOHU ZURWH WKDW FRQIOLFW PD\ DULVH EHFDXVH RI Df DJUHHPHQW ZLWKLQ D VLQJOH DOWHU JURXS XSRQ VHYHUDO EHKDYLRUV ZKLFK DUH PXWXDOO\ GLIILFXOW WR DFKLHYH Ef GLVDJUHHPHQW ZLWKLQ DQ DOWHU JURXS RQ WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV WR EH UHTXLUHG RI D UROH RU Ff GLVDJUHHPHQW EHWZHHQ VHYHUDO DOWHU JURXSV RI WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV WR EH UHTXLUHG RI D UROH' S f 7KH ILUVW WZR W\SHV RI FRQIOLFW PHQWLRQHG E\ 0LVKOHU ZHUH LGHQWLn ILHG E\ *HW]HOV DQG DVVRFLDWHV DV LQWUDUHIHUHQFH JURXS FRQIOLFW 7KH WKLUG GLVDJUHHPHQW EHWZHHQ DOWHU JURXSV WKH\ FODVVLI\ DV LQWHUUHIHUn HQFH JURXS FRQIOLFW DV LOOXVWUDWHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ H[DPSOH 'LIIHUn HQW H[SHFWDWLRQV RI WKH WHDFKHU DUH PDGH E\ WKH SULQFLSDO E\ VWXGHQWV E\ SDUHQWV DQG E\ WKH VFKRRO ERDUG 7KHVH GHPDQGV DUH RIWHQ

PAGE 30

FRQWUDGLFWRU\ DQG FUHDWH LQWHUQDO VWUDLQ IRU WKH LQGLYLGXDO /LNHZLVH D FROOHJH SURIHVVRUVn VWXGHQWV H[SHFW D SULRULW\ RQ WHDFKLQJ ZKHUH KHU KLV GHDQ PD\ H[SHFW D SULRULW\ RQ UHVHDUFK DQG SXEOLVKLQJ $QRWKHU NLQG RI UROH FRQIOLFW RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO DWWHPSWV WR ILOO WZR RU PRUH FRQWUDGLFWRU\ UROHV DW RQH WLPH HJ SULQFLSDOFRXQVHORU PDQDJHUOHDGHUf *HW]HOV S f ,W LV QHFHVVDU\ IRU DGPLQLVn WUDWRUV WR IDFLOLWDWH FODULILFDWLRQ RI UROH DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV LQ RUGHU WR PLQLPL]H SRWHQWLDO UROH FRQIOLFW *URVV 0DVRQ t 0F(DFKHUQ f DGGHG WKH SHUVSHFWLYH WKDW UROH FRQIOLFW VKRXOG EH GHILQHG DFFRUGLQJ WR LQFRPSDWLEOH H[SHFWDWLRQV E\ WKH DFWRU S f LQ DGGLWLRQ WR WKRVH KHOG E\ WKH DOWHU JURXSV 7KXV WKLV GHILQLWLRQ RI LQWHUUROH FRQIOLFW LV WKDW VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKH UROH LQFXPEHQW SHUFHLYHV WKDW RWKHUV KROG GLIIHUHQW H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU KHUKLP DV KROGHU RI WZR RU PRUH SRVLWLRQV .DKQ DQG DVVRFLDWHV f DGGUHVVHG WKH PDWWHU RI GLVFRYHULQJ WKH GHJUHH RI FRQIOLFW LQ DQ\ JLYHQ UROH VHW 7R XQGHUVWDQG WKH GHJUHH RI FRQIOLFW RU DPELJXLW\ LQ WKH UROH WKH WRWDO SDWWHUQ RI >H[SHFWDWLRQV RI HDFK UROH VHQGHU DQG WKH QDWXUH RI VHQW UROH SUHVVXUHV@ PXVW EH FRQn VLGHUHG $ WKRURXJK LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQWR DOO WKH UROH H[n SHFWDWLRQV KHOG DW D JLYHQ PRPHQW E\ DOO WKH PHPEHUV RI WKH UROH VHW VKRXOG \LHOG DQ LQGLFDWLRQ RI WKH SRWHQWLDO LQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ IRU FRQIOLFW 7KH DFWXDO GHJUHH RI REn MHFWLYH UROH FRQIOLFW ZLOO GHSHQG RQ WKH FRQILJXUDWLRQ RI UROH SUHVVXUHV DFWXDOO\ H[HUWHG E\ UROH VHQGHUV RQ WKH IRFDO SHUVRQ +LV H[SHULHQFH RI WKLV FRQIOLFW ZLOO LQ WXUQ GHSHQG XSRQ LWV REMHFWLYH PDJQLWXGH DQG RQ FHUWDLQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH IRFDO SHUVRQ KLPVHOI S f 7KH ZD\V LQ ZKLFK UROH LQFXPEHQWV FRSH ZLWK WKLV FRQIOLFW LV DOVR LQIOXHQFHG E\ IRXU PHFKDQLVPV OLVWHG E\ %ODX DQG 6FRWW f DV IROORZV 7KHUH DUH VHYHUDO PHFKDQLVPV WKDW KHOS WR DUWLFXn ODWH FRQIOLFWLQJ GHPDQGV f GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH LPSRUWDQFH DQG SRZHU RI WKH YDULRXV PHPEHUV RI DQ

PAGE 31

LQGLYLGXDOnV UROHVHW KHOS WR GHWHUPLQH ZKRVH H[SHFWDWLRQV ZLOO JRYHUQ KLV DFWLRQV f WKH IDFW WKDW D SHUVRQ XVXDOO\ GRHV QRW KDYH FRQWDFW ZLWK DOO PHPEHUV RI KLV UROHVHW DW RQFH HQDEOHV KLP WR OLYH XS WR WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV RI VRPH DW RQH WLPH DQG WR WKH FRQIOLFWLQJ H[SHFWDWLRQV RI RWKHUV DW D GLIIHUHQW WLPH f ZKHQ WKH RWKHUV UHDOL]H WKDW WKH\ DUH PDNLQJ FRQIOLFWLQJ GHPDQGV WKH\ ZLOO WKHPVHOYHV RIWHQ DWn WHPSW WR UHVROYH WKHLU GLIIHUHQFHV DQG f VHYHUDO LQGLYLn GXDOV RFFXS\LQJ WKH VDPH VRFLDO VWDWXV FDQ FRPELQH IRU PXWXDO VXSSRUW S f ,W LV FOHDU IURP WKLV SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI UROH FRQIOLFW WKHRU\ WKDW f VXFK FRQIOLFW LV FRPPRQ DQG f WKH ILUVW VWHS WRZDUG UHVROYLQJ LW LV WR UHFRJQL]H LWV H[LVWHQFH 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV LQWHQGHG WR GHn WHUPLQH LQ SDUW WKH VRXUFH RI SRVVLEOH UROH FRQIOLFW IRU FKDLUSHUVRQV E\ GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKHUH WKHUH LV LQFRQJUXHQFH LQ H[SHFWDWLRQV DERXW FKDLUn SHUVRQ UROH EHWZHHQ DQG DPRQJ WKHPVHOYHV DQG WKRVH ZKR ERUGHU WKDW UROH LH GHDQV DQG IDFXOW\f $GGLWLRQDOO\ FKDLUSHUVRQV ZHUH DVNHG WR LGHQWLI\ ZKDW WKH\ SHUFHLYHG DV DUHDV RI FRQIOLFW EHWZHHQ WKHPVHOYHV DQG WKRVH WZR DOWHU JURXSV 'HSDUWPHQW &KDLUSHUVRQ 5ROH 7KLV VHFWLRQ LV GHYRWHG WR Df DQ RYHUYLHZ RI JHQHUDO OLWHUDWXUH DGGUHVVLQJ WKH WRSLF Ef D SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI VHYHUDO UHODWHG VWXGLHV DQG Ff WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI D OLVW RI FKDLUSHUVRQ UROHH[SHFWDWLRQV WDNHQ IURP D QXPEHU RI VRXUFHV DQG V\QWKHVL]HG LQWR WKH LQVWUXPHQW IRU WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ 2YHUYLHZ -R\ +DVWLQJV 'DYLV f EHJDQ GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKLV WRSLF LQ KHU GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZLWK WKH IROORZLQJ SDUDJUDSK 3HUKDSV WKH PRVW DFFXUDWH GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH UROH RI WKH XQLYHUVLW\ GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUPDQ LV DPELYDOHQW DV WKHUH H[LVWV D SOHWKRUD RI OLWHUDWXUH GHVFULELQJ ZKDW WKH

PAGE 32

FKDLUPDQ LV DQG LV QRW ZKDW KH VKRXOG DQG VKRXOG QRW EH 8QOLNH WKH IRUHPDQ LQ LQGXVWU\ KLV MRE LV XVXDOO\ VR LOOGHILQHG WKDW DW PRVW FROOHJHV WKHUH LV QR ZULWWHQ GHVFULSWLRQ RI KLV GXWLHV $W EHVW KH ILQGV KLPVHOI WRUQ E\ OR\DOW\ DQG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DPRQJ DW OHDVW WKUHH JURXSV ZLWK WUHPHQGRXV GLIIHUHQFHV LQ JRDOV DWWLWXGHV QHHGV DQG FULWHULD IRU DSSURYDO KLV GLVFLSOLQDU\ FROOHDJXHV KLV VWXGHQWV DQG WKH DGPLQLVWUDWRUV DERYH KLP S f $QG \HW DV 0REOH\ LQGLFDWHG f WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQ ILOOV RQH RI WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW SRVLWLRQV LQ D XQLYHUVLW\ 7KH FKDLUn SHUVRQ KROGV OLQH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ LQ WKH XQLYHUVLW\ DQG LV WKHUHIRUH DW WKH SRLQW ZKHUH WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ FRQWDFWV WKH IDFXOW\ 7KH FKDLUPDQ LV WKH NH\ WR WKH VXFFHVV RU IDLOXUH RI WKH GHSDUWPHQWDO SURJUDP S f 5RDFK f QRWHG 7KH DFDGHPLF GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQ VKLIWV IURP EHLQJ D VXEMHFW PDWWHU VSHFLDOLVW WR D GHYHORSHU RI GHSDUWPHQWDO SURJUDPV DQG D SDUWQHU LQ VKDSLQJ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO PLVVLRQ RI WKH VFKRRO 7RGD\ WKH DFDGHPLF GHSDUWPHQW LV WKH NH\ WR WKH VXFn FHVVIXO DFKLHYHPHQW RI WKH VFKRROnV SULPDU\ PLVVLRQ 7KH FKDLUSHUVRQ IXQFWLRQV DV FKLHI DFDGHPLF SODQQHU DQG UHn VRXUFH DOORFDWRU LQ KLV UROH DV DGPLQLVWUDWRU RI DOO DVn SHFWV RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW S f 7KH PLGGOHSHUVRQ SRVLWLRQ LV WKH FDXVH RI FRQVLGHUDEOH UROH FRQn IOLFW IRU FKDLUSHUVRQV DV SRLQWHG RXW E\ &RUVRQ f %UDQQ f DQG /HH f DPRQJ RWKHUV /HH SUHVHQWHG WKH LVVXH ZHOO 7KH UROH RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUPDQ LV DQ H[n FHHGLQJO\ GLIILFXOW RQH ,Q KLV RZQ H\HV KH LV VWLOO SULPDULO\ D WHDFKHU ZKR KDV DVVXPHG FHUWDLQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH WDVNV DQG UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV +H KDV QRW DV LW ZHUH VROG RXW FRPSOHWHO\ WR WKH RWKHU VLGH E\ EHFRPLQJ D GHDQ +H LV WKHUHIRUH TXLWH RIWHQ LQ FRQIOLFW DV WR ZKHWKHU KLV UROH LV RQH RI VSRNHVPDQ IRU KLV FROOHDJXHV LQ WKH GHSDUWPHQW RU ZKHWKHU LW LV RQH RI DQ DGPLQLVn WUDWRU ZKR PXVW PDNH WKH GHFLVLRQV QRW RQO\ IRU WKH ZHOIDUH RI KLV GHSDUWPHQW EXW IRU WKH ZHOIDUH RI WKH FROOHJH DQG XQLYHUVLW\ DV D ZKROH :KDW LV GLIILFXOW RI FRXUVH LV WKDW KH PXVW EDODQFH ERWK UROHV S f

PAGE 33

,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ ZLOO YDU\ GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH SDUWLFXODU GHSDUWPHQW WKH VL]H RI WKDW GHSDUWPHQW LWV SODFH DQG LPSRUWDQFH ZLWKLQ WKH WRWDO LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG WKH WLPH ZLWKLQ WKH GHn SDUWPHQWnV KLVWRU\ WKDW WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ LV DSSRLQWHG /HH S f /LWWOH KDV EHHQ GRQH DV 0RUJDQ DQG &DQILHOG f QRWHG WR VLQJOH RXW FRPSHWHQFLHV RI WKH HIIHFWLYH FKDLUSHUVRQ SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ DOOLHG KHDOWK S Yf 7KHUH DUH RWKHU IDFWRUV LQ DGGLWLRQ WR WKRVH PHQWLRQHG E\ /HH ZKLFK HIIHFW WKH UROH RI D FKDLUSHUVRQ LQ DOOLHG KHDOWK +RZDUG 6X]XNL H[SORUHG VRPH RI WKHVH LVVXHV IURP WKH YLHZSRLQW RI D GHDQ RI D FROOHJH RI KHDOWK UHODWHG SURIHVVLRQV WKH JRYHUQDQFH RI DOOLHG KHDOWK XQLWV ZLOO YDU\ GHn SHQGHQW LQ SDUW XSRQ ZKHWKHU RU QRW WKH\ DUH Df XQLWV DVVRn FLDWHG ZLWK XQLYHUVLW\ KHDOWK FHQWHUV QRQXQLYHUVLW\ DIILOn LDWHG PHGLFDO FHQWHUV RU XQLYHUVLWLHV ZLWKRXW KHDOWK FHQWHUV Ef IXOOIOHGJHG FROOHJH XQLWV RU D GLYLVLRQ ZLWKLQ DQRWKHU KHDOWK VFLHQFH FROOHJH VXFK DV PHGLFLQH RU QXUVLQJ Ff XQLWV DEOH WR RIIHU GLIIHUHQW FRPELQDWLRQV RI FHUWLILFDWH DVVRFLn DWH EDFFDODXUHDWH DQGRU JUDGXDWH GHJUHHV LQ D ZLGH YDULHW\ RI SURJUDPV S f ,Q UHODWLRQ WR WKH UHODWLYH QHZQHVV RI WKH DOOLHG KHDOWK SURIHVVLRQV KH VDLG 7KH UHFHQF\ RI WKH DOOLHG KHDOWK XQLWV DQG WKHLU FRQFRPLWDQW IXQGDPHQWDO XQLW WKH GHSDUWPHQW GRHV QRW DOORZ IRU D JUHDW GHDO RI YDULDELOLW\ LQ WKH SRVLWLRQ RI WKH GHSDUWPHQWDO FKDLUPDQ ,Q RWKHU PRUH HVWDEOLVKHG SURIHVVLRQDO FROOHJHV IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV PD\ URWDWH DQQXDOO\ DV FKDLUPDQ DQG IXOO SURIHVVRUV PD\ \LHOG PRUH LQIOXHQFH RQ HGXFDWLRQDO SROLFLHV WKDQ WKH FKDLUPDQ )XUWKHUPRUH WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKH SURIHVn VLRQDO VFKRROV DUH PRUH JRDO VSHFLILF DQG DV D UHVXOW GHn SDUWPHQW KHDGV PD\ QRW EH DEOH WR H[HUFLVH DV PXFK ODWLWXGH DQG DXWKRULW\ LQ SROLF\ PDWWHUV DV PLJKW EH WUXH LQ RWKHU VFKRROV S f 6X]XNL ZHQW RQ WR LGHQWLI\ WZR RWKHU LVVXHV ZKLFK PDGH WKH RUJDQn L]DWLRQ RI DOOLHG KHDOWK HGXFDWLRQ XQLTXH IURP PRVW RWKHUV 7KRVH DUH WKH QHFHVVLW\ IRU FOLQLFDO FRPSHWHQFH RQ WKH SDUW RI IDFXOW\ DQG FKDLUSHUVRQf DQG WKH DFNQRZOHGJHPHQW WKDW VH[LVP PD\ SOD\ D SDUW

PAGE 34

)DFXOW\ PHPEHUV LQ DOOLHG KHDOWK XQLWV KDYH DGGLWLRQDO UHn VSRQVLELOLWLHV QRW QHFHVVDULO\ HVVHQWLDO WR WKRVH DIILOLn DWHG ZLWK DUWV DQG VFLHQFH GHSDUWPHQWV )RU H[DPSOH RXU IDFXOW\ LV H[SHFWHG WR KDYH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ WKH SUDJPDWLF DQG UHOHYDQW DUHDV RI SDWLHQW RU FOLHQW FDUH S f WKH LQIOXHQFH RI GHSDUWPHQWDO FKDLUPDQ DPRQJ RWKHU XQLYHUVLW\ FROOHDJHV PD\ YDU\ GXH WR ODFN RI WKH GRFWRUDWH DQGRU GXH WR VRPH FKDXYLQLVWLF SUHMXGLFHV DJDLQVW IHPDOH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUPDQ VLFf RU IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV S f ,Q VSLWH RI DOO WKH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG UHVWUDLQWV DQG FRQIOLFWV WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ LV FUXFLDO WR WKH VWUHQJWK RU ZHDNQHVV RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW VLQFH VKH RU KH KDV D JUHDW GHDO RI DXWKRULW\ LQ VHOHFWLRQ RI IDFXOW\ WHDFKLQJ DVVLJQPHQWV DQG FXUULFXODU FRQWHQW DQG VHUYHV DV WKH IRUPDO LQWHUPHGLDU\ EHWZHHQ WKH IDFXOW\ DQG WKH DGn PLQLVWUDWLRQ 6X]XNL S f 5HODWHG 6WXGLHV 7KHUH DUH VHYHUDO PDMRU VWXGLHV RQH SURFHHGLQJV DQG D SDSHU ZKLFK DUH GLUHFWO\ UHOHYDQW WR WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ 7KH HDUOLHVW RI WKHVH ZDV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ GRQH LQ E\ 'R\OH HQWLWOHG 7KH 6WDWXV DQG )XQFWLRQV RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQW &KDLUPDQ 7KLV ZDV D VWXG\ RI VHOHFWHG OLEHUDO DUWV FROOHJHV +H FRPSLOHG GHVFULSWLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ PHWKRGV RI VHOHFWLRQ RI FKDLUSHUVRQV UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FKDLUn SHUVRQ DQG IDFXOW\ FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG FKDLUSHUVRQ GXWLHV +H IRXQG WKH IROORZLQJ GXWLHV RI GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQV f WHDFKLQJ DQG VXSHUYLVRU\ IXQFWLRQV f DGPLQLVWUDWLYH GXWLHV VXFK DV Df SUHSDUDWLRQ RI GHSDUWPHQW EXGJHW Ef UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU VWDWHPHQW RI GHSDUWPHQW DLPV DQG RIIHULQJV Ff SURSHU PDLQWHQDQFH RI D GHSDUWPHQWDO OLEUDU\ Gf PDLQWHQDQFH RI IDFXOW\ UHFRUGV RI GHSDUWPHQW Hf PDLQWHQDQFH RI VWXGHQW DFDGHPLF DQG SHUVRQQHO UHFRUGV

PAGE 35

f PLVFHOODQHRXV GXWLHV LQFOXGLQJ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG GHSDUWPHQW DW HGXFDWLRQDO PHHWLQJV DQG FRQIHUHQFHV DV ZHOO DV SHUVRQDO UHVHDUFK DQG SURn GXFWLYH VFKRODUVKLS SS f 7KH VHFRQG VLJQLILFDQW VWXG\ ZDV 6PLWKnV f +H GHYHORSHG DQ H[WHQVLYH LQVWUXPHQW WKH PDMRU VHFWLRQ RI ZKLFK FRQWDLQHG DFWLn YLWLHV RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUPDQ 7KUHH JURXSV RI UHVSRQGHQWV FKDLUSHUVRQV IDFXOW\ DQG XSSHU HFKHORQ DGPLQLVWUDWRUVZHUH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH RQ D SRLQW VFDOH ZKDW HDFK IHOW ZDV WKH DFWXDO EHKDYLRU UHVSRQVH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ IRU HDFK DFWLYLW\ DQG ZKDW HDFK IHOW ZDV WKH H[SHFWHG EHKDYLRU UHVSRQVH IRU HDFK DFWLYLW\ 7KH REMHFWLYH KH ZDV VHHNLQJ E\ WKLV SDUW RI KLV TXHVWLRQQDLUH LV UHODWHG WR WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ,W ZDV WR GHVFULEH ZKDW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUn PHQ GHSDUWPHQW IDFXOW\ DQG XSSHU HFKHORQ DGPLQLVWUDWRUV EHOLHYH VKRXOG EH WKH UROH RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH FKDLUn PDQ DQG WR PHDVXUH WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK FKDLUPHQ DUH LQ IDFW FRQIRUPLQJ WR WKHVH H[SHFWDWLRQV S f 6PLWK XVHG KLV TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZLWK DOO IXOOWLPH IDFXOW\ GHSDUWn PHQW KHDGV DQG XSSHU HFKHORQ DGPLQLVWUDWRUV LQ SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV LQ RQH PLGZHVWHUQ VWDWH ,Q KLV GLVFXVVLRQ RI UHVXOWV KH ORRNHG DW GLIIHUHQFHV RI H[SHFWDWLRQV ZLWKLQ DQG DPRQJ VDPSOH SRSXODn WLRQV DQG DOVR ZLWKLQ VLQJOH GHSDUWPHQWV 7KH UHVXOWV VXSSRUW WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV RQ WKH DYHUDJH DUH LQ EDVLF GLVn DJUHHPHQW ZLWK GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUPHQ DQG XSSHU HFKHORQ DGPLQLVWUDWRUV RYHU WKHLU H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU DQG REVHUYDn WLRQV RI WKH UROH EHKDYLRU RI LQFXPEHQWV RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH FKDLUPDQnV SRVLWLRQ 7KH H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH FRQn IRUPLQJ EHKDYLRU RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUPHQ OHG WR WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW FKDLUPHQ DV D JURXS DUH QRW OLYLQJ XS WR HLWKHU WKHLU RZQ WKHLU IDFXOWLHVn RU WKHLU VXSHUYLVRUVn H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU WKHLU UROH EHKDYLRU S f 7KH WKLUG UHODWHG VWXG\ ZDV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ E\ =XFNHU +H GHYHORSHG D PRGHO IRU GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH UROH SHUFHSWLRQV RI GHSDUWPHQW

PAGE 36

FKDLUPHQ DW D ODUJH XQLYHUVLW\ S [LYf +H FRQVWUXFWHG D TXHVWLRQn QDLUH EDVHG RQ WKDW PRGHO DQG DGPLQLVWHUHG LW WR DOO GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUn SHUVRQV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD =XFNHUnV ILQGLQJV OLPLWHG E\ WKHLU DSSOLFDELOLW\ WR RQO\ RQH XQLYHUVLW\ LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH 8QLn YHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUPDQ VDZ KLV PDLQ WDVNV DV WKRVH RI UHFUXLWLQJ IDFXOW\ GHYHORSLQJ SURJUDPV LPSURYLQJ LQVWUXFWLRQ HYDOXn DWLQJ IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII DQG SUHSDULQJ WKH GHSDUWPHQWDO EXGJHW S $f ,Q &O\GH &DUQHJLH FRPSOHWHG KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ RQ 5ROH ([SHFn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f DQG GHVLUHG EHKDYLRU 7f ZLWK SFU 5HVSRQGHQWV WHQGHG WR DJUHH WKDW WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH DFWLYLWLHV OLVWHG ZHUH LPn SRUWDQW WDVNV IRU GHSDUWPHQWDO FKDLUSHUVRQV 7ZR GLVVHUWDWLRQV GHDOLQJ ZLWK GLIIHUHQW DVSHFWV RI FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV ZHUH FRPSOHWHG LQ 5XWK 9RO] FRPSOHWHG $Q $QDO\VLV RI WKH $FWXDO DQG ,GHDO 5ROHV RI 9RFDWLRQDO (GXFDWLRQ 'HSDUWn PHQW +HDGV DV 3HUFHLYHG E\ 'HDQV +HDGV DQG )DFXOW\ DQG )UDQFHV $JXRQ LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH 6WDWXV RI 'HSDUWPHQW &KDLUSHUVRQV DV 3HUFHLYHG E\ $FDGHPLF &ROOHJH 'HDQV 'HSDUWPHQW &KDLUSHUVRQV DQG )DFXOW\ DW :HVWHUQ 0LFKLJDQ 8QLYHUVLW\

PAGE 37

9RO]nV SXUSRVH ZDV WR DVVHVV DQG DQDO\]H WKH SHUFHSWLRQV RI GHDQV RI HGXFDWLRQ YRFDWLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ GHSDUWPHQW KHDGV DQG YRFDWLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ IDFXOW\ FRQFHUQLQJ WKH DFWXDO DQG LGHDO UROH RI WKH GHSDUWn PHQW KHDG S $f 6KH XVHG YRFDWLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ GHSDUWPHQWV DW PDMRU XQLYHUVLWLHV DV KHU SRSXODWLRQ 8VLQJ $129$ WKH 'XQFDQnV PXOWLSOH UDQJH WHVW DQG WKH FRUUHODWHG W WHVW WR DQDO\]H KHU GDWH VKH IRXQG WKH IROORZLQJ 7KH JUHDWHVW GHJUHH RI FRQJUXHQF\ DSSHDUHG WR H[LVW ZLWK WKH FROOHJH RI HGXFDWLRQ GHDQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH DFWXDO DQG LGHDO SHUIRUPDQFH RI YRFDWLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ GHSDUWPHQW KHDGnV OHDGHU EHKDYLRU 7KH OHDVW DPRXQW RI FRQJUXHQF\ H[LVWHG ZLWK WKH IDFXOW\ UHJDUGLQJ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH DFWXDO DQG LGHDO OHDGHU EHn KDYLRU RI YRFDWLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ GHSDUWPHQW KHDGV ,QFRQJUXHQF\ H[LVWHG IRU ERWK GHSDUWPHQW KHDGV DQG IDFXOW\ LQ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQV RI DFWXDO YV LGHDO OHDGHU EHKDYLRU &RQJUXHQF\ H[LVWHG DPRQJ DOO WKUHH UHIHUHQFH JURXSV ZLWK UHJDUG WR WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQV RI ERWK WKH RYHUDOO LGHDO OHDGHU EHKDYLRU DV ZHOO DV WKH LGHDO OHDGHU EHKDYLRU RQ HDFK RI WKH VXEVFDOHV 7KH GHDQV GHSDUWPHQW KHDGV DQG IDFXOW\ SHUFHLYHG WKH DFWXDO OHDGHU EHKDYLRU RI WKH YRFDWLRQDO HGXFDn WLRQ GHSDUWPHQW KHDG FRQJUXHQWO\ S $f $JXRQ FRPSDUHG WKH SHUFHSWLRQV RI GHDQV GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ DERXW TXDOLILFDWLRQV IRU PHWKRGV RI VHOHFWLRQ RI PDMRU UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV RI DQG SUHUHTXLVLWHV RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLU RQ ERWK DFWXDO DQG LGHDO VFDOHV LQ D TXHVWLRQQDLUH FRQVLVWLQJ RI FKDLUn SHUVRQ WDVN GHVFULSWLRQV )URP D VDPSOH RI SHUVRQV DW :HVWHUQ 0LFKLJDQ 8QLYHUVLW\ VKH UHFHLYHG D SHUFHQW XVDEOH UHVSRQVH DQG UHSRUWHG WKH IROORZLQJ UHVXOWV 7KHUH ZHUH GHVFULSWLRQV RQ ZKLFK WKH JURXSV GLIn IHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQV DV WR WKH GHJUHH RI LPSRUWDQFH WKDW WKH GHVFULSWLRQV KDG EHHQ DFFRUGHG LQ SUDFWLFH UHDOf

PAGE 38

-8 7KHUH ZHUH GHVFULSWLRQV RQ ZKLFK WKH JURXSV GLIn IHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQV DV WR WKH GHJUHH RI LPSRUWDQFH WKDW WKH GHVFULSWLRQV VKRXOG EH DFFRUGHG LQ WKH IXWXUH LGHDOf 7KHUH ZHUH SHUFHLYHG GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH UHDO DQG WKH LGHDO IRU Df GHVFULSWLRQV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH DFDGHPLF FROOHJH GHDQV Ef GHVFULSWLRQV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG Ff GHVFULSWLRQV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH IDFXOW\ S $f 7XFNHU DW WKH ,QVWLWXWH IRU 'HSDUWPHQWDO /HDGHUVKLS DW )ORULGD 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ FRQGXFWHG D VWXG\ RI DOO GHSDUWPHQWDO FKDLUSHUVRQV LQ WKH )ORULGD 8QLYHUVLW\ 6\VWHP 7KH SXUSRVH ZDV WR DVFHUWDLQ WKURXJK TXHVWLRQQDLUH DUHDV LQ ZKLFK FKDLUSHUVRQV QHHGHG HQKDQFHPHQW RI WKHLU SODQQLQJ PDQDJHPHQW DQG OHDGHUVKLS FRPSHWHQFLHV 1RWH f 5HOHYDQW WR WKLV VWXG\ KH IRXQG WKDW SHUFHQW KDG QRA DGPLQLVWUDWLYH H[SHULn HQFH SULRU WR EHFRPLQJ FKDLUSHUVRQV ,Q D FRQIHUHQFH ZDV KHOG DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ ZKLFK WKH VSHDNHUV DGGUHVVHG WKHPVHOYHV WR WKH LVVXH RI FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU DGPLQLVWUDWRUV LQ DOOLHG KHDOWK HGXFDWLRQ 2QH KXQGUHG DQG ILIW\ FRPSHWHQF\ VWDWHPHQWV ZHUH LGHQWLILHG VKDUHG GLVFXVVHG DQG UHn ZULWWHQ LQWR D OLVW RI 7KHVH ZHUH RUJDQL]HG XQGHU WKH KHDGLQJV RI DGPLQLVWUDWRU DV f JURXS OHDGHU f UHVRXUFH GHYHORSHU f FRPPXQLFDn WRU f HGXFDWRU f KHDOWK FDUH VXSHUYLVRU f ILVFDO RIILFHU DQG f HYDOXDWRU 7KHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV DQG WKH UHPDLQLQJ FRQIHUHQFH SURFHHGn LQJV ZHUH FRPSLOHG DQG SXEOLVKHG E\ WKH &HQWHU IRU $OOLHG +HDOWK ,Qn VWUXFWLRQDO 3HUVRQQHO LQ 0RUJDQ t &DQILHOG f 7KUHH \HDUV ODWHU LQ )UHG 'DJHQDLV IURP WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &DOLIRUQLD 6DQ )UDQFLVFR SUHVHQWHG D SDSHU DW WKH $PHULFDQ 6RFLHW\ RI $OOLHG +HDOWK 3URIHVVLRQV FRQYHQWLRQ LQ ZKLFK KH JDYH D OLVW RI DOOLHG

PAGE 39

KHDOWK DGPLQLVWUDWRU FRPSHWHQFLHV ZKLFK KDG EHHQ GHYHORSHG LQ &DOLIRUn QLD +H VXUYH\HG D QDWLRQDO VDPSOH RI DOOLHG KHDOWK DGPLQLVWUDWRUV LQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV DQG LQ VHQLRU FROOHJHV DQG SUHVLGHQWV RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV DQG KDG HDFK UDWH WKH XVHIXOQHVV RI HDFK RI WKH &DOLIRUQLD GHYHORSHG FRPSHWHQF\ VWDWHPHQWV 0RVW RI WKH LWHPV ZHUH UDWHG WRZDUG WKH KLJK RU XVHIXO HQG RI WKH VFDOH ZLWK WKH VHQLRU FROOHJH DGPLQLVn WUDWRUV UDWLQJ WKHP KLJKHVW +H DOVR FRPSDUHG WKH &DOLIRUQLD VWDWHn PHQWV ZLWK WKRVH GHYHORSHG DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD DQG IRXQG PDMRU RYHUODS ZLWK GLIIHUHQFHV SULPDULO\ LQ ZRUGLQJ DQG LQ JURXSLQJ FRQFHSW /LWHUDWXUH $V ,W 5HODWHG WR 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ 'HSDUWPHQW &KDLUSHUVRQnV 5ROH ([SHFWDWLRQV DQG 3RWHQWLDO $UHDV RI &RQIOLFW 7KH SURFHHGLQJV DQG SDSHU MXVW PHQWLRQHG IRUPHG WKH EDVH IRU WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH OLVW RI UROHH[SHFWDWLRQV IRU WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ VLQFH WKH\ ERWK GHDOW VSHFLILFDOO\ ZLWK DOOLHG KHDOWK HGXFDWLRQ 7KH FRPSHWHQFLHV RU UROHH[SHFWDWLRQV LGHQWLILHG LQ WKRVH WZR VRXUFHV ZHUH FRPSDUHG ZLWK GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQ UROHH[SHFWDWLRQV HQXPHUDWHG E\ RWKHU VRXUFHV LQ HGXFDWLRQDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ 'LOOH\ f 'R\OH f (XZHQD f +HLPOHU f /HH f 6PLWK f 8QGHUZRRG f DQG 0LOOHU 1RWH f $OO FRPSHWHQFLHV ZHUH OLVWHG LQ WDEXODU IRUP ZLWK WKH DOOLHG KHDOWK DGPLQLVWUDWRU FRPSHWHQFLHV RI 0RUJDQ DQG &DQILHOG IRUPLQJ WKH SDWWHUQ LQWR ZKLFK DOO RWKHUV ZHUH RUJDQL]HG 6HH $SSHQGL[ $f

PAGE 40

7KH /LWHUDWXUH LQ 5HWURVSHFW 7KH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ IRU WKLV VWXG\ HQFRPSDVVHG RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDWLRQ UROH WKHRU\ DQG UROH FRQIOLFW WKHRU\ DQG WKHRU\ UHODWHG WR WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH :KHQ YLHZLQJ WKH RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ OLWHUDWXUH LW FDQ EH VHHQ WKDW WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH UHTXLUHV GLIIHUn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n SHUVRQV GHDQV DQG IDFXOW\

PAGE 41

&+$37(5 ,,, 5(68/76 2) 7+( 678'< 2I WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV PDLOHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ RU b ZHUH UHWXUQHG ZLWK VRPH XVDEOH GDWD 7KLV FRQVLVWHG RI UHWXUQV IURP RU b RI WKH GHDQV RU b RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG RU b RI WKH IDFXOW\ 7KHUH ZHUH SURJUDPV bf IURP ZKLFK TXHVn WLRQQDLUHV ZHUH UHFHLYHG IURP WKH GHDQ WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG DW OHDVW RQH IDFXOW\ PHPEHU 7KH UHVSRQVHV IURP WKH SHUVRQV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKHVH SURJUDPV FRQVWLWXWHG WKH SRSXODWLRQ XVHG LQ DQVZHULQJ SUREn OHP TXHVWLRQV DQG +RZHYHU RQO\ SURJUDPV ZHUH XVHG LQ DQVZHUn LQJ TXHVWLRQ QXPEHU EHFDXVH WKH GHDQ RI RQH SURJUDP IDLOHG WR FRPn SOHWH WKH LGHDOL]HG SRUWLRQ RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH 4XHVWLRQV DQG ZHUH DQDO\]HG RQ WKH EDVLV RI DOO TXHVWLRQQDLUHV UHWXUQHG f 7ZHQW\RQH RI WKH UHVSRQGLQJ FKDLUSHUVRQV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHLU SURJUDP KDG IHZHU WKDQ IXOOWLPH IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV 7KHUH ZHUH VRPH LQVWDQFHV LQ ZKLFK UHVSRQGHQWV HLWKHU OHIW D TXHVWLRQ XQDQVZHUHG RU FLUFOHG RQ WKH VFDOH 2Q QR RQH TXHVWLRQ KRZHYHU ZDV WKH QXPEHU RI QRQUHVSRQGHQWV RU nV VXIILFLHQW WR VNHZ WKH GDWD 7KLV FKDSWHU LV RUJDQL]HG LQWR VL[ PDMRU VHFWLRQV ,Q WKH VHFWLRQ LPPHGLDWHO\ IROORZLQJ EDFNJURXQG GDWD DERXW WKH VXEMHFWV DUH SUHVHQWHG DORQJ ZLWK LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH SURJUDP 7KLV SURYLGHV WKH UHDGHU ZLWK VRPH EDVLV IRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH FRQWH[W LQ ZKLFK WKH SHUFHSWLRQV

PAGE 42

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n HUDO H[SHUWV KDYH QRWHG WKH UHOHYDQFH RI EDFNJURXQG VXFK DV HGXFDWLRQ DQG ILHOG RI VWXG\ WR WKH ZD\ D SHUVRQ ORRNV DW UROH EHKDYLRUV J /HH S f $OWKRXJK WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV QRW LQWHQGHG WR SURn YLGH D EDVLV IRU GUDZLQJ GHILQLWLYH FRQFOXVLRQV DERXW WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WKH EDFNJURXQG RI UHVSRQGHQWV DQG WKH ZD\ WKH\ YLHZ D SDUWLFXn ODU UROH WKDW EDFNJURXQG LV VLJQLILFDQW DQG WKHUHIRUH ZRUWK H[DPLQLQJ IRU SRVVLEOH WUHQGV DQG LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU IXUWKHU VWXG\ $V 7DEOH VKRZV WKH DJH FDWHJRU\ FRQWDLQLQJ WKH ODUJHVW SHUFHQW RI GHDQV DQG FKDLUSHUVRQV ZDV 7KH DJH FDWHJRU\ ZLWK WKH JUHDWn HVW SHUFHQW RI IDFXOW\ ZDV

PAGE 43

7$%/( $*( 2) 7+( 5(6321'(176 $JH 'HDQV Q f b &KDLUSHUVRQV Q f b )DFXOW\ Q Of b $OO Q f b 7RWDO $V FDQ EH VHHQ IURP 7DEOH RYHU WZRWKLUGV RI WKH GHDQV ZHUH PHQ :RPHQ FRPSULVHG SHUFHQW RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG SHUFHQW RI WKH IDFXOW\ 7$%/( 6(; 2) 7+( 5(6321'(176 'HDQV Q f b &KDLUSHUVRQV Q f b )DFXOW\ Q Of b $OO Q f b )HPDOH 0DOH 7RWDO

PAGE 44

7ZHQW\QLQH RI WKH GHDQV KDG GRFWRUDO GHJUHHV (G' 3K' 0'f 6HYHQ GRFWRUDO GHJUHHV ZHUH KHOG E\ FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IRXU E\ IDFXOW\ 7DEOH f 7$%/( *5$'8$7( '(*5((6 +(/' %< 7+( 5(6321'(176r 'HJUHH 'HDQV Q f &KDLUSHUVRQV Q f )DFXOW\ Q Of $OO Q f 3K' 0' (G 3K' &DQG (G' &DQG 6SHF (G 63+ 027 0%$ 03+ + (G 0327 06 0$ 7RWDO r6RPH UHVSRQGHQWV LQGLFDWHG WZR GHJUHHV EH\RQG WKH EDFKHORUnV $V VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH WKH GHDQV UHFHLYHG WKH ODUJHVW QXPEHU RI WKHLU GHJUHHV LQ SK\VLFDO VFLHQFHV DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 7KH PDMRULW\ RI FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ KHOG JUDGXDWH GHJUHHV LQ RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUn DS\ DQG HGXFDWLRQ

PAGE 45

7$%/( '(*5(( ),(/'6 2) 7+( 5(6321'(176r )LHOG 'HDQV Q f &KDLUSHUVRQV Q f )DFXOW\ Q f $OO Q Of 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ (GXFDWLRQ &RXQVHOLQJ *XLGDQFH $OOLHG +HDOWK +HDOWK 3K\V (G (FRQRPLFV %XVLQHVV (QJOLVK +LVWRU\ 3RO\6FL $QWKUR 6FLHQFH +RVSLWDO $GPLQ (GXFDWLRQDO $GPLQ 3V\FKRORJ\ 2WKHU 7RWDO r6RPH UHVSRQGHQWV LQGLFDWHG WZR JUDGXDWH GHJUHHV 7DEOH VKRZV WKDW RI WKH WZR ZRPHQ GHDQV KDOI ZHUH LQWHULP RU DFWLQJ GHDQV 2QO\ RQH PDOH KDG VXFK D WHPSRUDU\ WLWOH 7KH JUHDWHVW QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\ KHOG HLWKHU DVVLVWDQW SURIHVVRU RU LQVWUXFWRU OHFWXUHU SRVLWLRQV

PAGE 46

D 7$%/( 2)),&,$/ 7,7/(6 2) 7+( 5(6321'(176 7LWOH 'HDQV Q &KDLUSHUVRQV Q f )DFXOW\ Q Of $OO Q f 'HDQ 9LFH 3UHVLGHQW fr $VVRFLDWH RU $VVLVWDQW 'HDQ 'LYLVLRQ +HDG f 'LUHFWRU 3URIHVVRU &KDLUSHUVRQ f f ,QWHULP $FWLQJ f f $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU f $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU f $VVRFLDWH 6SHFLDOLVW f ,QVWUXFWRU /HFWXUHU f )LHOG :RUN &RRUGLQDWRU *UDQW 'LUHFWRU 7RWDO f f f A)LJXUHV LQ SDUHQWKHVHV LQGLFDWH WKH QXPEHU RI ZRPHQ $V FDQ EH VHHQ IURP 7DEOH WKH ODUJHVW QXPEHU RI ERWK GHDQV DQG FKDLUSHUVRQV UHVSRQGLQJ KDG EHHQ HPSOR\HG LQ WKHLU SUHVHQW SRVLWLRQ IRU RQH WR WZR \HDUV 7KH QH[W JUHDWHVW QXPEHU RI GHDQV KDG EHHQ LQ WKDW SRVLWLRQ WKUHH WR IRXU \HDUV ZKHUH WKH QH[W JUHDWHVW QXPEHU RI FKDLUSHUVRQV KDG EHHQ LQ WKDW SRVLWLRQ OHVV WKDQ RQH \HDU 7KH JUHDWn HVW QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\ KDG EHHQ LQ WKH MRE WKH\ KHOG ZKHQ SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ WKLV VWXG\ IRU XQGHU RQH \HDU 1R FKDLUSHUVRQ DPRQJ WKH UHVSRQGHQWV KDG EHHQ HPSOR\HG LQ WKDW SRVLWLRQ PRUH WKDQ \HDUV ZKLOH GHDQV DQG IDFXOW\ KDG KHOG WKHLU SRVLWLRQ DW WKH WLPH RI WKLV VWXG\ IRU RYHU WKDW OHQJWK RI WLPH

PAGE 47

7$%/( /(1*7+ 2) 7,0( 5(6321'(176 +$9( %((1 (03/2<(' ,1 35(6(17 326,7,21
PAGE 48

7$%/( '(3$570(17 6,=( %$6(' 21 180%(5 2) )$&8/7< 1XPEHU RI )DFXOW\ 1XPEHU RI 'HSWV )XOOWLPH )DFXOW\f 1XPEHU RI 'HSWV 3DUWWLPH )DFXOW\f 2YHU 7RWDO $V FDQ EH VHHQ LQ 7DEOH WKH PDMRULW\ RI SURJUDPV KDYH IURP WR VWXGHQWV 7ZR SURJUDPV KDYH RYHU VWXGHQWV 7$%/( '(3$570(17 6,=( %$6(' 21 180%(5 2) 678'(176r 1XPEHU RI 6WXGHQWV 1XPEHU RI 'HSDUWPHQWV LQFOXGHV MXQLRUV VHQLRUV FHUWLILFDWH DQG EDVLF PDVWHUnV VWXGHQWV

PAGE 49

)URP 7DEOH LW FDQ EH VHHQ WKDW PRVW SURJUDPV ZHUH LQ GHSDUWn PHQWV ZLWKLQ D VFKRRO RU FROOHJH RI KHDOWK UHODWHG RU DOOLHG KHDOWK SURIHVVLRQV 7KH QH[W ODUJHVW QXPEHU ZHUH GHSDUWPHQWV RU GLYLVLRQV LQ D FROOHJH RI PHGLFLQH 7$%/( 326,7,21 2) 7+( '(3$570(17 2) 7+( 5(6321'(176 :,7+,1 7+( ,167,787,21 3RVLWLRQ 1XPEHU RI 'HSDUWPHQWV 'HSDUWPHQW LQ D VFKRROFROOHJH RI KHDOWK UHODWHG RU DOOLHG KHDOWK SURIHVVLRQV =2 'HSDUWPHQWGLYLVLRQ LQ D FROOHJH RI PHGLFLQH $ VHSDUDWH VFKRRO ZLWKLQ D XQLYHUVLW\ f§ $ GHSDUWPHQW LQ D SULYDWH RU VWDWH FROOHJH 0RYLQJXQFHUWDLQ 3URJUDP ZLWKLQ D GLYLVLRQ RU GHSDUWPHQW RI D VWDWH FROOHJH RU XQLYHUVLW\ 'HSDUWPHQW LQ D VFKRRO RI HGXFDWLRQ KHDOWK QXUVLQJ DQG DUWV SURIHVVLRQV 'HSDUWPHQW LQ D FROOHJH RI KHDOWK

PAGE 50

3HUFHSWLRQV RI WKH &KDLUSHUVRQ 5ROH 7KH DQVZHU WR WKH ILUVW ILYH SUREOHP TXHVWLRQV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZHUH GHWHUPLQHG WKURXJK DQDO\]LQJ VXEMHFW UHVSRQVHV WR WKH VHFRQG VHFWLRQ RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH 6XEMHFWV ZHUH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH RQ D VFDOH IURP XQLPSRUWDQWf WR KLJKHVW LPSRUWDQFHf WKH LPSRUn WDQFH ZKLFK WKH\ IHOW WKHLU FKDLUSHUVRQ DFWXDOO\ SODFHG RQ HDFK RI WKH UROH EHKDYLRUV OLVWHG ZLWK RSWLRQ LQFOXGHG IRU QR RSLQLRQ QR NQRZOHGJHf DQG LQ D VHFRQG FROXPQ ZLWK WKH VDPH VFDOH WKH LPSRUWDQFH WKH\ HDFK IHOW WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ VKRXOG LGHDOO\ EH SODFLQJ RQ HDFK RI WKRVH UROH EHKDYLRUV 5HVSRQGHQWVn 3HUFHSWLRQV RI WKH ,GHDOL]HG 5ROH RI WKH &KDLUSHUVRQ 7KH ILUVW SUREOHP TXHVWLRQ ZDV :KDW LV WKH LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DV SHUFHLYHG E\ Df GHDQV Ef FKDLUSHUVRQV Ff D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\ DQG Gf DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG" $QVZHUV WR WKLV TXHVWLRQ ZHUH IRXQG E\ WDNLQJ WKH PHDQ RI UHn VSRQVHV IURP WKH GHDQV FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ UHVSRQGLQJ OHVV WKH QXPEHU ZKR PDUNHG f $SSHQGL[ SUHVHQWV WKHVH GDWD LQ IXOO ZLWK HDFK RI WKH UROH EHKDYLRUV UDQNHG IRU HDFK FDWHJRU\ RI UHVSRQGHQW DQG DOO VXEMHFWV WRJHWKHU IURP WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW f WR WKH OHDVW LPSRUWDQW f 7KHVH UROH EHKDYLRUV DUH GLYLGHG LQWR WDVN DUHDV ZKLFK DUH VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH UDQNHG IURP KLJK f WR ORZ f LQ LPSRUWDQFH

PAGE 51

7$%/( 3(5&(37,216 2) 7+( ,'($/,=(' 52/( 2) 7+( &+$,53(5621 7DVN $UHD 'HDQV Q f 5DQN 0HDQ &KDLUSHUVRQV Q f 5DQN 0HDQ )DFXOW\ Q f 5DQN 0HDQ $OO Q Of 5DQN 0HDQ 3ODQQLQJ )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELLW\ /HDGHUVKLS ,QVWUXFWLRQ &XUULFXOXP ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 6WXGHQWV (YDOXDWLRQ $V FDQ EH VHHQ IURP 7DEOH WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW WDVN DUHD IRU DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG ZDV 3ODQQLQJ 7KLV ZDV IROORZHG E\ )LVFDO 5Hn VSRQVLELOLW\ /HDGHUVKLS ,QVWUXFWLRQ &XUULFXOXP ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 6WXGHQWV DQG (YDOXDWLRQ UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH GHDQV ZKHQ FRQVLGHULQJ WKH LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ SODFHG WKH WDVN DUHD RI )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ ILUVW IROORZHG LQ GHVFHQGLQJ RUGHU E\ ,QVWUXFWLRQ 3ODQQLQJ ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLn FDWLRQ /HDGHUVKLS &XUULFXOXP &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ 6WXGHQWV (YDOXDWLRQ )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW DQG ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ

PAGE 52

7KH FKDLUSHUVRQ UDQNLQJV DJUHHG PRVW FORVHO\ ZLWK WKDW IRU DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG 7KH\ FRQVLGHUHG 3ODQQLQJ WR EH WKH LGHDOO\ PRVW LPn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n WLYHV ERWK LQ WKH DUHD RI 3ODQQLQJ 7KH KLJKHVW UDQNHG LQGLYLGXDO LWHP IRU GHDQV ZDV 3UHSDULQJ DQG DGPLQLVWHULQJ D GHSDUWPHQW EXGJHW IROORZHG E\ 'HYHORSLQJ SODQV WR DFKLHYH ORQJ DQG VKRUW UDQJH REMHFWLYHV DQG 'HWHUPLQLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO FODVV VL]H SROLFLHV &KDLUSHUVRQV UDQNHG 3UHSDULQJ DQG DGPLQLVWHULQJ D GHSDUWPHQWDO EXGJHW KLJKHVW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO LWHPV 7KH\ UDQNHG ([HUWLQJ LQIOXn HQFH ZKHUH QHHGHG VHFRQG KLJKHVW IROORZHG E\ D WLH EHWZHHQ 5HGXFLQJ GXSOLFDWLRQ DQG RYHUODS LQ DFWLYLWLHV DQG H[SHQGLWXUHV DQG 3UHVHQWLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO QHHGV WR WKH GHDQ

PAGE 53

)DFXOW\ DOVR FRQVLGHUHG 3UHSDULQJ DQG DGPLQLVWHULQJ D GHSDUWPHQWDO EXGJHW WR EH LGHDOO\ RI KLJKHVW LPSRUWDQFH 7KH\ UDQNHG 3UHVHQWLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO QHHGV WR WKH GHDQ VHFRQG DQG 'HYHORSLQJ QHZ FRXUVHV WKLUG 7XUQLQJ DJDLQ WR $SSHQGL[ ( RQH FDQ VHH ZKDW WKH ORZHVW UDQNHG LQGLYLGXDO LWHPV ZHUH )RU DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG WKHVH LQFOXGHG (YDOn XDWLQJ IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII HIIHFWLYHQHVV 5HYLHZLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFXOXP DQG )RUPXODWLQJ SROLFLHV UHODWLQJ WR IDFXOW\ XVH RI PDWHULDOV HTXLSPHQW DQG RWKHU WDQJLEOHV 7KH GHDQV FRQVLGHUHG WKH WKUHH ORZHVW UDQNHG LQGLYLGXDO LWHPV WR EH 5HYLHZLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUn ULFXOXP (YDOXDWLQJ IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII HIIHFWLYHQHVV DQG 0DLQWDLQn LQJ D FDSDEOH VXSSRUW VWDII &KDLUSHUVRQV DJUHHG ZLWK WKH RWKHU WZR JURXSV RQ WZR RI WKH WKUHH OHDVW LPSRUWDQW LQFOXGLQJ (YDOXDWLQJ IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII HIIHFWLYHQHVV DQG 5HYLHZLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFXOXP 7KHLU WKLUG ORZHVW UDQNHG LWHP KRZHYHU GLIIHUHG IURP WKH RWKHU JURXSVn ,W ZDV (YDOXDWLQJ FROOHJH HGXFDWLRQ DQG DGPLQLVn WUDWLRQ SROLFLHV DQGRU SURFHGXUHV IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI UHFRPPHQGLQJ QHHGHG FKDQJHV 7KLV LWHP ZDV UDQNHG E\ GHDQV E\ IDFXOW\ DQG E\ DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG )DFXOW\ UDQNHG (YDOXDWLQJ IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII HIIHFWLYHQHVV ORZn HVW IROORZHG E\ )RUPXODWLQJ SROLFLHV UHODWLQJ WR IDFXOW\ XVH RI PDWHULDOV HTXLSPHQW DQG RWKHU WDQJLEOHV DQG 5HYLHZLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFXOXP

PAGE 54

5HVSRQGHQWVn 3HUFHSWLRQV RI $FWXDO 5ROH %HKDYLRU RI &KDLUSHUVRQV 7KH VHFRQG SUREOHP TXHVWLRQ DGGUHVVHG LQ WKLV UHVHDUFK ZDV :KDW LV WKH DFWXDO UROH EHKDYLRU RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DV SHUFHLYHG E\ Df GHDQV Ef FKDLUSHUVRQV Ff D UHSUHVHQWDn WLYH QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\ DQG Gf DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG" $V ZLWK WKH SUHFHGLQJ TXHVWLRQ DQVZHUV ZHUH IRXQG WR WKLV TXHVn WLRQ E\ WDNLQJ WKH PHDQ UHVSRQVHV IURP WKH WKUHH FDWHJRULHV RI UHVSRQGn HQWV DQG IRU DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG 7KH SHUFHSWLRQV UHODWLYH WR WKH DFWXDO UROH EHKDYLRU RI FKDLUSHUVRQV DUH VKRZQ LQ IXOO LQ $SSHQGL[ ) 7KH UDQNLQJV DQG PHDQV E\ DUHD IRU WKH GHDQV FKDLUSHUVRQV IDFXOW\ DQG DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH $JDLQ WKH UDQNLQJ LV IURP KLJKHVW f WR ORZHVW f LQ LPSRUWDQFH 7$%/( 3(5&(37,216 2) 7+( $&78$/ 52/( 2) 7+( &+$,53(5621 7DVN $UHDV 'HDQV Q f 5DQN 0HDQ &KDLUSHUVRQV Q f 5DQN 0HDQ )DFXOW\ Q O f 5DQN 0HDQ Q 5DQN $OO f 0HDQ &XUULFXOXUQ 3ODQQLQJ )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ (YDOXDWLRQ ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 6WXGHQWV /HDGHUVKLS &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ ,QVWUXFWLRQ ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW

PAGE 55

$V FDQ EH VHHQ IURP 7DEOH DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG VDZ &XUULFXOXP DV WKH WDVN DUHD RQ ZKLFK WKH\ SHUFHLYHG WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DFWXDOO\ SODFn LQJ PRVW LPSRUWDQFH 7KLV ZDV IROORZHG E\ D WLH DPRQJ 3ODQQLQJ )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG (YDOXDWLRQ ZKLFK ZDV UDQNHG ORZHVW LQ LGHDOL]HG LPSRUWDQFHf 7KH UHPDLQLQJ WDVN DUHDV LQ GHVFHQGLQJ RUGHU RI LPSRUn WDQFH ZHUH ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 6WXGHQWV DQG /HDGHUVKLS WLHGf &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ ,QVWUXFWLRQ ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW 'HDQV UDQNHG (YDOXDWLRQ DV WKH WDVN DUHD RQ ZKLFK WKH\ VDZ WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ SODFLQJ JUHDWHVW LPSRUWDQFH 7KLV ZDV IROORZHG E\ 6WXGHQWV ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ &XUULFXOXP )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ ,QVWUXFWLRQ 3ODQQLQJ DQG &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ WLHGf /HDGHUVKLS ([WUD GHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW &KDLUSHUVRQV VDZ WKHPVHOYHV SODFLQJ JUHDWHVW DFWXDO LPSRUWDQFH RQ WKH DUHD RI &XUULFXOXP ZKLFK WKH\ UDQNHG IRXUWK LQ LGHDO LPSRUWDQFHf 7KH\ FRQVLGHUHG )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ QH[W IROORZHG E\ 3ODQQLQJ ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ ,QVWUXFWLRQ 6WXn GHQWV (YDOXDWLRQ /HDGHUVKLS ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW )DFXOW\ DJUHHG ZLWK GHDQV LQ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ WKDW FKDLUSHUVRQV SODFHG JUHDWHVW DFWXDO LPSRUWDQFH RQ WKH WDVN DUHD RI (YDOXDWLRQ FKDLUSHUVRQV VDZ WKHPVHOYHV SODFLQJ WKLV DUHD IRXUWK IURP WKH ERWWRP LQ DFWXDO LPSRUWDQFHf )DFXOW\ SHUFHLYHG FKDLUSHUVRQV SODFLQJ QH[W JUHDWHVW LPSRUWDQFH LQ WKH DUHDV RI /HDGHUVKLS DQG &XUULFXOXP IROORZHG E\ ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ D WLH EHWZHHQ )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOn LW\ DQG 6WXGHQWV WKHQ DQRWKHU WLH EHWZHHQ ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLn FDWLRQ DQG &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ DQG ILQDOO\ ,QVWUXFWLRQ DQG )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW

PAGE 56

)URP $SSHQGL[ ( LW FDQ EH VHHQ WKDW DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG FRQVLGn HUHG WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV WR SODFH JUHDWHVW DFWXDO LPSRUWDQFH RQ WKH LQGLn YLGXDO LWHP 3UHSDULQJ DQG DGPLQLVWHULQJ D GHSDUWPHQW EXGJHW IROORZHG E\ 3UHVHQWLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO QHHGV WR WKH GHDQ DQG 3DUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI GHSDUWPHQW DGPLVVLRQV VWDQGDUGV 'HDQV VDZ FKDLUSHUVRQV SODFLQJ JUHDWHVW DFWXDO LPSRUWDQFH RQ 0DLQn WDLQLQJ D GHSDUWPHQWDO OLEUDU\ WKHQ 3UHSDULQJ DQG DGPLQLVWHULQJ D GHSDUWPHQWDO EXGJHW DQG ,QWHUSUHWLQJ VDODU\ VFKHGXOHV DQG SD\UROO SURFHGXUHV IRU IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII 7KH FKDLUSHUVRQV VDZ WKHPVHOYHV SODFLQJ PRVW LPSRUWDQFH RQ 3UHSDUn LQJ DQG DGPLQLVWHULQJ D GHSDUWPHQWDO EXGJHW WKHQ RQ )LJKWLQJ IRU WKH GHSDUWPHQW DQG WKLUG RQ (QFRXUDJLQJ IDFXOW\ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ FRQn YHQWLRQV FRQIHUHQFHV DQG PHHWLQJV 7KH IDFXOW\ ZKR SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ SHUFHLYHG WKHLU FKDLUn SHUVRQV WR SODFH JUHDWHVW DFWXDO LPSRUWDQFH RQ 3UHVHQWLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO QHHGV WR WKH GHDQ 7KH\ UDQNHG 3UHVHQWLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO DFFRPSOLVKn PHQWV WR WKH GHDQ QH[W LQ LPSRUWDQFH WKHQ 6WULYLQJ WR EDODQFH QHHGV DQG JRDOV IRU WKH GHSDUWPHQW 7KH LQGLYLGXDO LWHPV RQ ZKLFK DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG VDZ WKH FKDLUn SHUVRQV SODFLQJ HDVW DFWXDO LPSRUWDQFH ZHUH 'HILQLQJ WHDFKLQJ ORDGV IRU IDFXOW\ 3URYLGLQJ D UHZDUGLQJ HQYLURQPHQW LQFOXGLQJ RSSRUWXQLn WLHV IRU PRELOLW\ ZLWKLQ WKH GHSDUWPHQW DQG 5HYLHZLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFXOXP 'HDQV FRQVLGHUHG FKDLUSHUVRQV WR SODFH OHDVW LPSRUWDQFH RQ $WWHPSWn LQJ WR PLQLPL]H EDUULHUV WR PD[LPXP GHSDUWPHQWDO HIILFLHQF\ WKHQ RQ 3UHSDULQJ TXDOLW\ DUWLFOHV DQG FRPPXQLTXHV DQG WKLUGO\ RQ 5HYLHZLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFXOXP

PAGE 57

7KH FKDLUSHUVRQV VDZ WKHPVHOYHV DV SODFLQJ OHDVW LPSRUWDQFH RQ 5HYLHZLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFn XOXP 7KLV ZDV IROORZHG E\ $WWHPSWLQJ WR LQIOXHQFH OHJLVODWLRQ ZKLFK DIIHFWV DOOLHG KHDOWK HGXFDWLRQ DQG KHDOWK FDUH GHOLYHU\ DQG (YDOXn DWLQJ IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII HIIHFWLYHQHVV 7KH IDFXOW\ UDQNHG 'HILQLQJ WHDFKLQJ ORDGV IRU IDFXOW\ ORZHVW LQ LPSRUWDQFH DV WKH\ VDZ WKHLU FKDLUSHUVRQnV DFWXDO EHKDYLRU 7KH\ FRQn VLGHUHG 3URYLGLQJ D UHZDUGLQJ HQYLURQPHQW LQFOXGLQJ RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU PRELOLW\ ZLWKLQ WKH GHSDUWPHQW QH[W ORZHVW IROORZHG E\ 6HHNLQJ D ODUJHU VKDUH RI FROOHJH IXQGV IRU WKH GHSDUWPHQW 3HUFHLYHG 'LIIHUHQFHV $ERXW &KDLUSHUVRQ 5ROH 7KH SRSXODWLRQ IRU TXHVWLRQV DQG FRQVLVWHG RI WKH RFFXn SDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV IURP ZKLFK UHVSRQVHV ZHUH UHFHLYHG IURP DW OHDVW WKH GHDQ WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG RQH IDFXOW\ PHPEHU +RZn HYHU RQO\ SURJUDPV ZHUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH DQDO\VLV RI TXHVWLRQ EHFDXVH RQH GHDQ GLG QRW ILOO RXW WKH LGHDO SRUWLRQ RI WKH TXHVWLRQn QDLUH ,Q RQO\ WZR RI WKHVH SURJUDPV ZDV WKHUH RQO\ RQH IDFXOW\ PHPEHU UHVSRQVH 7KH UHPDLQLQJ ZHUH UHSUHVHQWHG E\ UHVSRQVHV IURP SURJUDPVf SURJUDPVf RU SURJUDPVf IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV ,Q WKHVH SURJUDPV WKH UHVSRQVHV WR HDFK LWHP IURP DOO IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV ZHUH FRPELQHG DQG D PHDQ FRPSXWHG WR UHSUHVHQW WKH IDFXOW\ UHVSRQVH WR HDFK LWHP IRU WKDW SURJUDP 7R GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ SHUFHSWLRQ H[LVWHG ZLWKLQ HDFK LQVWLWXWLRQ TXHVWLRQV DQG f WKH .UXVNDO:DOOLV 2QH :D\ $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH ZDV XVHG ZLWK WKH OHYHO XVHG WR UHMHFW WKH

PAGE 58

K\SRWKHVLV RI QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH $V 6HLJHO f KDV QRWHG WKH .UXVNDO:DOOLV 2QH:D\ $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH 7HVW LV XVHIXO IRU GHn FLGLQJ ZKHWKHU LQGHSHQGHQW VDPSOHV DUH IURP GLIIHUHQW SRSXODWLRQV RU ZKHWKHU GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ VDPSOHV MXVW UHSUHVHQW FKDQFH YDULDWLRQV VXFK DV DUH WR EH H[SHFWHG DPRQJ VHYHUDO UDQGRP VDPSOHV IURP WKH VDPH SRSXODWLRQ S f 'LIIHUHQFHV LQ 3HUFHSWLRQ $ERXW ,GHDOL]HG &KDLUSHUVRQ 5ROH 7KH WKLUG SUREOHP TXHVWLRQ RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH LQ SHUFHSWLRQ DERXW LGHDOL]HG FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH DPRQJ GHDQ FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG IDFXOW\ LQ HDFK LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG IRU DOO LQVWLWXWLRQV" 7DEOH VKRZV WKH VXP RI WKH UDQNLQJV IRU WKH WDVN DUHDV IRU WKH GHDQ WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG WKH IDFXOW\ IRU HDFK RI WKH SURJUDPV ZKLFK ZHUH DQDO\]HG LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKLV TXHVWLRQ $V PHQWLRQHG SUHn YLRXVO\ RQH GHDQ GLG QRW FRPSOHWH WKH LGHDOL]HG SRUWLRQ RI WKH TXHVn WLRQQDLUHf $V FDQ EH VHHQ IURP WKLV WDEOH LQ RI WKH SURJUDPV DQDO\]HG WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH GHDQ FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG IDFXOW\ LQ WKH ZD\ WKH LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ ZDV SHUn FHLYHG :KHQ DOO LQVWLWXWLRQV ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG WRJHWKHU KRZHYHU QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH DSSHDUHG DPRQJ GHDQV FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ + f

PAGE 59

7$%/( 680 ,) 5$1.,1*6 2) 7$6. $5($6 %< 5(6321'(17 *52836 $1' + 9$/8( )25 ($&+ ,167,787,21 %$6(' 21 3(5&(37,216 2) ,'($/,=(' 52/( 2) 7+( &+$,53(5621 ,QVWLWXWLRQrr 'HDQ &KDLUSHUVRQ )DFXOW\ + 9DOXH 6LJQLILFDQW DW OHYHO $ r \HV % \HV & \HV QR ( QR ) \HV \HV + QR \HV \HV \HV / \HV 0 QR 1 \HV \HV 3 \HV 4 \HV 5 \HV 6 \HV 7 \HV 8 \HV 9 QR : \HV ; \HV < QR = \HV $OO FRPELQHG QR A5HIHUV WR WKH WRWDO RI WKH UDQNLQJV DVVLJQHG WR WKH WDVN DUHDV AA,QVWLWXWLRQV DUH DUUDQJHG LQ UDQGRP RUGHU

PAGE 60

'LIIHUHQFHV LQ 3HUFHSWLRQ $ERXW $FWXDO &KDLUSHUVRQ 5ROH 7KH IRXUWK SUREOHP TXHVWLRQ ZDV ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH LQ SHUFHSWLRQ DERXW DFWXDO FKDLUn SHUVRQ UROH EHKDYLRU DPRQJ GHDQ FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG IDFXOW\ LQ HDFK LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG IRU DOO LQVWLWXWLRQV" 7KH VXP RI WKH UDQNLQJV IRU WKH WDVN DUHDV IRU WKH GHDQ FKDLUn SHUVRQ DQG IDFXOW\ IRU HDFK RI WKH SURJUDPV ZKLFK ZHUH DQDO\]HG LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKLV TXHVWLRQ DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 7KH UHVXOWV VKRZ WKDW WKHUH ZDV D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ SHUFHSWLRQ DERXW DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH LQ RI WKH SURJUDPV LQFOXGHG LQ WKLV DQDO\VLV DQG IRU DOO LQVWLWXWLRQV FRPELQHG

PAGE 61

7$%/( 680 2) 5$1.,1*6 2) 7$6. $5($6 %< 5(6321'(17 *52836 $1' + 9$/8( )25 ($&+ ,167,787,21 %$6(' 21 3(5&(37,216 2) $&78$/ 52/( 2) 7+( &+$,53(5621 ,QVWLWXWLRQrr 'HDQ &KDLUSHUVRQ )DFXOW\ + 9DOXH 6LJQLILFDQW DW /HYHO $ r \HV % \HV & QR \HV ( \HV ) \HV \HV + \HV \HV QR \HV / QR 0 \HV 1 QR \HV 3 \HV 4 \HV 5 \HV 6 QR 7 \HV 8 \HV 9 \HV Z \HV ; \HV < \HV = \HV \HV $OO FRPELQHG M \HV r5HIHUV WR WKH WRWDO RI WKH UDQNLQJV DVVLJQHG WR WKH WDVN DUHDV rr,QVWLWXWLRQV DUH DUUDQJHG LQ UDQGRP RUGHU

PAGE 62

'LIIHUHQFH 3HUFHLYHG %HWZHHQ ,GHDOL]HG DQG $FWXDO &KDLUSHUVRQ 5ROH 3UREOHP TXHVWLRQ ILYH ZDV ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ LGHDOL]HG DQG DFWXDO FKDLUn SHUVRQ UROH EHKDYLRU DV SHUFHLYHG E\ Df GHDQV Ef FKDLU SHUVRQV DQG Ff IDFXOW\ IRU HDFK LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG IRU DOO LQVWLWXWLRQV" 'DWD IURP WKH IXOOUHVSRQVH SURJUDPV ZDV DJDLQ XVHG WR DQn VZHU WKLV TXHVWLRQ 7KH :LOFR[RQ 0DWFKHG 3DLUV 6LJQHG5DQNV 7HVW ZDV XVHG WR DQDO\]H WKH GDWD LQ FRQWH[W RI WKLV TXHVWLRQ DV LW WHVWV ERWK WKH GLUHFWLRQ DQG PDJQLWXGH RI GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ SDLUV IURP WKH VDPH SRSXODWLRQ )RU H[DPSOH WKH VDPH FKDLUSHUVRQV ZHUH WHVWHG IRU GLIn IHUHQFHV WKH\ LQGLFDWHG EHWZHHQ ZKDW WKH\ SHUFHLYHG WR EH WKH DFWXDO DQG WKH LGHDOL]HG UROH EHKDYLRU RI FKDLUSHUVRQV ,Q WKLV WHVW HDFK FDWHJRU\ RI UHVSRQGHQW IRU HDFK SURJUDP ZDV DQDO\]HG VHSDUDWHO\ 7KH PHDQ UHVSRQVH IRU HDFK RI WKH UROH DUHDV LQ WKH LGHDOL]HG FROXPQ ZDV PDWFKHG ZLWK WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ PHDQ UHn VSRQVH IRU HDFK DUHD LQ WKH DFWXDO FROXPQ 7KH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH LGHDO DQG DFWXDO PHDQ UHVSRQVH IRU HDFK DUHD ZDV FRPSXWHG DQG DIIL[HG ZLWK WKH DSSURSULDWH SRVLWLYH f RU QHJDWLYH f VLJQ 7KHVH GLIIHUn HQFHV ZHUH WKHQ UDQNHG DQG WKH UDQNV RI WKH VLJQ DSSHDULQJ OHDVW RIWHQ ZHUH DGGHG WR REWDLQ 7 6LQFH WLHV DUH QRW LQFOXGHG LQ WKLV WHVW WKH Q YDULHV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH QXPEHU RI DUHDV OHIW DIWHU WLH VFRUHV DUH GLVFDUGHG DV WKHUHIRUH GRHV WKH OHYHO RI VLJQLILFDQFH 7KH UHn VXOWV RI WKLV WHVW IRU WKH DERYH TXHVWLRQ DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 63

7$%/( 79$/8(6 %< ,167,787,21 )25 ',))(5(1&(6 %(7:((1 3(5&(,9(' ,'($/,=(' $1' $&78$/ 52/( 2) &+$,53(5621 )25 '($16 &+$,53(56216 $1' )$&8/7< ,QVWLWXWLRQ 'HDQV &KDLUSHUVRQV )DFXOW\ 7 9DOXH 6LJQLILFDQW" 7 9DOXH 6LJQLILFDQW" 7 9DOXH 6LJQLILFDQW" $ QR \HV \HV % \HV \HV \HV & QR \HV QR DOO WLHV QR QR \HV ( \HV \HV \HV ) \HV \HV \HV QR \HV \HV + \HV \HV \HV \HV \HV \HV \HV QR \HV \HV \HV \HV / \HV \HV \HV 0 DOO WLHV QR \HV \HV 1 \HV QR \HV \HV \HV \HV 3 \HV \HV \HV 4 \HV QR \HV 5 \HV QR \HV 6 \HV \HV \HV 7 \HV \HV \HV 8 \HV \HV \HV 9 \HV \HV \HV : \HV \HV \HV ; \HV QR \HV < \HV \HV \HV = \HV \HV \HV == \HV \HV $OO FRPELQHGM 2 \HV \HV \HV

PAGE 64

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n HQFHV IRU DO UHVSRQGHQWV

PAGE 65

7$%/( ',5(&7,21 $1' 0$*1,78'( 2) ',))(5(1&(6 $021* 7+( 7+5(( 5(6321'(17 *52836 )25 7+( 7$6. $5($6 7DVN $UHDV 'HDQV r5DQNf$rr ,0HDQf$ &KDLUSHUVRQV ,5DQNf$ ,0HDQf$ )DFXOW\ ,5DQNf$ ,0HDQf$ $OO ,5DQNf$ ,0HDQf$ 3ODQQLQJ )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ /HDGHUVKLS ,QVWUXFWLRQ &XUULFXOXP ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 6WXGHQWV (YDOXDWLRQ r,GHDOL]HG rr$FWXDO

PAGE 66

'LIIHUHQFHV LQ SHUFHSWLRQ DERXW DFWXDO DQG LGHDLL]HG FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH DUH DJDLQ VLJQLILFDQW IRU HDFK FDWHJRU\ RI UHVSRQGHQWV DQG IRU DOO UHVSRQGHQWV FRPELQHG 7KH DUHD RI (YDOXDWLRQ LV VHHQ E\ ERWK GHDQV DQG FKDLUSHUVRQV DV EHLQJ JLYHQ PRUH LPSRUWDQFH LQ DFWXDO EHKDYLRU WKDQ LQ LGHDOL]HG 7KLV LV WKH RQO\ DUHD RI WKH LQ ZKLFK WKDW ZDV WKH FDVH $FWXDO &KDLUSHUVRQ 5ROH ,GHQWLILHG LQ WKH 6WXG\ &RPSDUHG WR WKH 7KHRUHWLFDO 5ROH 3UREOHP TXHVWLRQ ZDV +RZ GRHV WKH DFWXDO UROH EHKDYLRU RI FKDLUSHUVRQV DV SHUFHLYHG E\ HDFK RI WKH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG JURXSV FRPSDUH ZLWK WKH WKHRUHWLFDO UROH RI GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQV IRXQG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH" 7KH TXHVWLRQQDLUH IRU WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV GHYHORSHG IURP WKH WKHRUHWLFDO UROH RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQ IRXQG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH VHH $SSHQGL[ $f 7KH UHVSRQGHQWV LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ YHULILHG WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKDW WKHRUHWLFDO UROH E\ PDUNLQJ RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO LWHPV FRQWDLQHG WKHUHLQ DV LGHDOO\ LPSRUWDQW YHU\ LPSRUWDQW RU RI WKH KLJKHVW LPSRUWDQFH DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ RQ WKH QXPHULFDO VFDOH LQ WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHf 7KH WZR LQGLYLGXDO LWHPV RQH RU PRUH RI WKH UHVSRQGHQW JURXSV FRQVLGHUHG LGHDOO\ RI ORZ LPSRUWDQFH LQ WKH UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ ZHUH (YDOXDWLQJ IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII HIIHFn WLYHQHVV DQG 5HYLHZLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFXOXP 5HODWLQJ WKLV WR SHUFHLYHG DFWXDO EHKDYLRU RI GHSDUWPHQWDO FKDLUn SHUVRQV LW ZDV IRXQG WKDW ZKHQ GDWD IRU DOO WKH JURXSV ZHUH FRPELQHG WKH UHVXOW ZDV WKDW QLQH LQGLYLGXDO LWHPV ZHUH SHUFHLYHG DV EHLQJ RI ORZ LPSRUWDQFH LQ DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH EHKDYLRU 7KHVH ZHUH n$WWHPSWLQJ WR LQIOXHQFH OHJLVODWLRQ ZKLFK HIIHFWV DOOLHG KHDOWK

PAGE 67

HGXFDWLRQ DQG KHDOWK FDUH GHOLYHU\ 'HILQLQJ WHDFKLQJ ORDGV IRU IDFXOW\ 'HYHORSLQJ LQVHUYLFH HGXFDWLRQ IRU QHZ IDFXOW\ 5HFUXLWLQJ IDFXOW\ 3URYLGLQJ D UHZDUGLQJ HQYLURQPHQW LQFOXGLQJ RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU PRELOLW\ ZLWKLQ WKH GHSDUWPHQW .HHSLQJ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG SXEOLF LQIRUPHG RI KHDOWK GHYHORSPHQWV DQG 3UHSDULQJ TXDOLW\ DUWLFOHV DQG FRPPXQLTXHV 7KH WZR LWHPV SHUFHLYHG DV LGHDOO\ RI ORZ LPSRUWDQFH ZKLFK ZHUH (YDOXDWLQJ IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII HIIHFWLYHQHVV DQG 5HYLHZLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQn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f LQ ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG LQ ,QWHUn GHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 7KH LWHPV SHUFHLYHG E\ FKDLUSHUVRQV WR UHIOHFW ORZ LPSRUWDQFH LQ WKHLU DFWXDO EHKDYLRU LQFOXGH RI WKH VR PDUNHG E\ DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG SOXV LQ WKH DUHD RI ,QVWUXFWLRQ ZKLFK LV WKH VDPH DV RI WKH LQ WKDW DUHD UDWHG ORZ E\ IDFXOW\ 'HILQLQJ WHDFKLQJ ORDGV IRU IDFXOW\f

PAGE 68

7KUHH RI WKH IRXU LWHPV PDUNHG RI ORZ LPSRUWDQFH E\ GHDQV DUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH QLQH VR PDUNHG E\ DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG 7KH RQH XQLTXH LWHP GHDQV UDWHG RI ORZ LPSRUWDQFH ZDV &ROOHFWLQJ DQDn O\]LQJ DQG LQWHUSUHWLQJ GDWD UHODWHG WR DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SUREOHPV ,Q VXP ZKHQ DFWXDO EHKDYLRU LV FRPSDUHG WR WKH WKHRU\ RQH PXVW QRWH WKDW IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG LQ RI FDVHV WKHUH LV D KLJK GHJUHH RI FRQJUXHQFH EHWZHHQ ZKDW RXJKW WR EH GRQH LGHDOL]HG UDQNLQJVf DQG ZKDW LV DFWXDOO\ EHLQJ GRQH +RZHYHU WKLV GLIIHUV IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI WKH IDFXOW\ FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG GHDQV WKHPVHOYHV &KDLUSHUVRQ 5ROH &RQIOLFW 4XHVWLRQ QXPEHU ZDV DV IROORZV :KDW GR FKDLUSHUVRQV LGHQWLI\ DV DUHDV RI FRQIOLFW DQG KRZ GR WKHVH UHODWH WR SRVVLEOH DUHDV RI FRQIOLFW LGHQn WLILHG LQ WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\" ,Q RUGHU WR DVFHUWDLQ FRQIOLFW SHUFHLYHG E\ FKDLUSHUVRQV EHWZHHQ WKHPVHOYHV DQG WKHLU GHDQ DQGRU IDFXOW\ WKH\ ZHUH DVNHG WR FRPSOHWH D WKLUG VHFWLRQ RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZKLFK ZDV QRW LQFOXGHG LQ WKRVH VHQW WR WKH RWKHU WZR FDWHJRULHV RI UHVSRQGHQWV 7KLV VHFWLRQ FRQn VLVWHG RI WZR SDUWV ,Q WKH ILUVW WKH\ ZHUH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH IRU HDFK RI WKH DUHDV RI UROH EHKDYLRUV WKH DPRXQW RI FRQIOLFW QRQH VRPH RU PXFKf WKH\ IHOW H[LVWHG EHWZHHQ WKHPVHOYHV DQG WKHLU GHDQ DQGRU IDFXOW\ ,Q WKH VHFRQG SDUW XVLQJ D SRLQW VFDOH WKH\ ZHUH UHn TXHVWHG WR LQGLFDWH WKH OHYHO RI RYHUDOO VDWLVIDFWLRQ WKH\ KDG ZLWK WKHLU SUHVHQW MRE 7KLUW\ILYH FKDLUSHUVRQV DQVZHUHG WKH FRQIOLFW SDUW RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH 7KHLU UHVSRQVHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 69

7$%/( &+$,53(5621 3(5&(,9(' &21)/,&7 %< $5($ Q f $UHDV 1R &RQIOLFW 6RPH &RQIO LFW 0XFK &RQIOLFW 1XPEHU 3HUFHQW 1XPEHU 3HUFHQW 1XPEHU 3HUFHQW 3ODQQLQJ /HDGHUVKLS )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELLW\ (YDOXDWLRQ &XUULFXO XUQ ,QVWUXFWLRQ &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 6WXGHQWV f§ f§ $V FDQ EH VHHQ E\ H[DPLQDWLRQ LQ RI WKH LQVWDQFHV RYHU b RU D IRXUWK RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQV UHSRUWHG VRPH RU PXFK FRQn IOLFW ZLWK HLWKHU IDFXOW\ RU GHDQ UHODWLYH WR WKH WDVN DUHD LQ TXHVWLRQ ,Q RUGHU WR GHWHUPLQH LI WKLV UHODWHG WR GLIIHUHQFHV LQ SHUFHSWLRQ RI LGHDOL]HG RU DFWXDO UROH LW ZDV ZRUWKZKLOH WR FRPSDUH WKH GDWD LQ 7DEOH ZLWK HDFK RI WKHVH VHYHQ DUHDV )RU H[DPSOH LQ WKH FDVH RI 3ODQQLQJ ZKHUH b RI FKDLUSHUVRQV UHSRUWHG VRPH FRQIOLFW LW FDQ EH VHHQ IURP 7DEOH WKDW LQ WHUPV RI LGHDOL]HG SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH 3ODQn QLQJ DUHD WKH GHDQV UDQNHG LW FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\

PAGE 70

7KH .UXVNDO:DOOLV+ WHVW VKRZHG WKDW D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH GLG H[LVW LQ DFWXDO SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ 3ODQQLQJ UROH + f )RUW\ SHUFHQW RI FKDLUSHUVRQV LQGLFDWHG IHHOLQJ FRQIOLFW LQ WKH DUHD RI /HDGHUVKLS $JDLQ WKH .UXVNDO:DOOLV+ VKRZHG QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ LGHDOL]HG SHUFHSWLRQ DERXW FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH LQ WKLV DUHD EXW GLG VKRZ D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH + f DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV LQ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DFWXDOO\ SODFHG RQ WKLV WDVN DUHD ,Q WKH DUHD RI )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ b RI FKDLUSHUVRQV SHUn FHLYHG VRPH RU PXFK FRQIOLFW ZLWK WKH GHDQ DQGRU IDFXOW\ 1R VLJQLn ILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV LQGLFDWHG E\ WKH .UXVNDO:DOOLV+ WHVW RQ WKH LGHDOL]HG UDQNLQJV RI WKHVH WKUHH JURXSV IRU WKLV WDVN DUHD EXW D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH + f ZDV IRXQG IRU WKH DFWXDO SHUFHSWLRQV DERXW WKLV DUHD &RQIOLFW ZDV SHUFHLYHG E\ b RI FKDLUSHUVRQV LQ WKH DUHD RI (YDOXDWLRQ $JDLQ WKH VWDWLVWLFDO WHVW VKRZHG QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUn HQFH LQ LGHDOL]HG SHUFHSWLRQV DERXW WKLV DUHD EXW GLG VKRZ D VLJQLILn FDQW GLIIHUHQFH + f LQ SHUFHSWLRQV RI DFWXDO EHKDYLRU DPRQJ GHDQV FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ 7ZHQW\VL[ SHUFHQW RI FKDLUSHUVRQV LQGLFDWHG IHHOLQJ FRQIOLFW ZLWK WKH GHDQ DQGRU IDFXOW\ LQ WKH DUHD RI &XUULFXOXP 7KH GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW LQ WKH LGHDOL]HG UDQNLQJV EXW ZDV VLJQLILFDQW LQ WKH DFWXDO UDQNLQJV + f 1HDUO\ KDOI RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV bf LQGLFDWHG IHHOLQJ FRQIOLFW ZLWK WKHLU GHDQ DQGRU IDFXOW\ DERXW &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ +RZHYHU QR VLJn QLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG DPRQJ WKHVH WKUHH JURXSV LQ HLWKHU LGHDOn L]HG RU DFWXDO SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKLV WDVN DUHD

PAGE 71

7KH ODVW DUHD LQ ZKLFK RYHU b RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV LQGLFDWHG IHHOLQJ FRQIOLFW ZLWK GHDQ DQGRU IDFXOW\ ZDV LQ ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ ZKHUH b LQGLFDWHG FRQIOLFW 1R VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILn FDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG LQ LGHDOL]HG SHUFHSWLRQ DPRQJ WKH WKUHH UHVSRQGHQW JURXSV +RZHYHU WKH SHUFHSWLRQV DERXW WKH DFWXDO LPSRUn WDQFH WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ SODFHV RQ WKLV DUHD ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW + f $ IXUWKHU ZD\ RI H[DPLQLQJ ZKHWKHU RU QRW WKHUH LV D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SRWHQWLDO FRQIOLFW DQG SHUFHLYHG FRQIOLFW IURP WKH SRLQW RI YLHZ RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ LV WR ORRN DW WKH RWKHU SODFHV ZKHUH SRWHQWLDO FRQIOLFW LV LQGLFDWHG E\ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ SHUFHSWLRQV RI LGHDOL]HG DQGRU DFWXDO LPSRUWDQFH HYHQ WKRXJK LW PD\ QRW KDYH EHHQ VR LQGLFDWHG E\ RYHU b RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV 7KHUH ZDV RQO\ RQH LQVWDQFH LQ ZKLFK WKLV RFFXUUHG 7KRXJK RQO\ b RI FKDLUSHUVRQV LQGLFDWHG SHUFHLYLQJ FRQIOLFW LQ WKH WDVN DUHD RI 6WXGHQWV D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG DPRQJ WKH SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH WKUHH UHVSRQGHQW JURXSV DERXW WKH DFWXDO LPSRUWDQFH JLYHQ WKLV DUHD E\ FKDLUSHUVRQV + f 1R VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG DPRQJ LGHDOL]HG SHU FHSWLRQV DERXW 6WXGHQWV )LQDOO\ FKDLUSHUVRQV DQVZHUHG WKH TXHVWLRQ DERXW WKHLU OHYHO RI RYHUDOO VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK WKHLU SUHVHQW MRE )LIWHHQ VWDWHG WKDW WKH\ ZHUH YHU\ VDWLVILHG DQG PDUNHG VDWLVILHG 7KLV UHSUHVHQWV b RI FKDLUSHUVRQV UHVSRQGLQJ WR WKLV TXHVWLRQ 2I WKH UHPDLQLQJ VL[ FKDLUSHUVRQV WZR LQGLFDWHG WKH\ IHOW QHXWUDO DERXW MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ WKUHH FKHFNHG GLVVDWLVILHG DQG RQH PDUNHG YHU\ GLVVDWLVILHG 7KXV DOWKRXJK PRUH WKDQ RQH IRXUWK RI FKDLUSHUVRQV LQGLFDWHG H[SHULHQFn LQJ FRQIOLFW ZLWK GHDQ DQGRU IDFXOW\ LQ RXW RI WDVN DUHDV RQO\ b ZHUH OHVV WKDQ VDWLVILHG ZLWK WKHLU SUHVHQW SRVLWLRQ

PAGE 72

&+$37(5 ,9 6800$5< &21&/86,216 $1' ',6&866,21 6XPPDU\ 7KH JHQHUDO IRFXV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH DQG GHILQH UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU FKDLUSHUVRQV RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDWLRQ SURn JUDPV DV KHOG E\ WKH UROH LQFXPEHQWV DQG WKRVH ZKR ERUGHU WKDW UROH $V D PHDQV RI GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKDW WKHVH UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV ZHUH DQVZHUV ZHUH VRXJKW WR WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV :KDW LV WKH LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DV SHUFHLYHG E\ Df WKH GHDQV RU HTXLYDOHQW DGPLQLVn WUDWRUV Ef WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV Ff D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\ DQG Gf DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG" :KDW LV WKH DFWXDO UROH EHKDYLRU RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DV SHUFHLYHG E\ Df WKH GHDQV RU HTXLYDOHQW DGPLQn LVWUDWRUV Ef WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV Ff D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\ DQG Gf DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG" ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH LQ SHUFHSWLRQ DERXW LGHDOL]HG FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH DPRQJ GHDQ FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG IDF XOW\ LQ HDFK LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG IRU DOO LQVWLWXWLRQV" ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH LQ SHUFHSWLRQ DERXW DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH EHKDYLRU DPRQJ GHDQ FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG IDFXOW\ LQ HDFK LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG IRU DOO LQVWLn WXWLRQV" ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ LGHDOL]HG DQG DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH EHKDYLRU DV SHUFHLYHG E\ Df GHDQV Ef FKDLUSHUVRQV Ff IDFXOW\ IRU HDFK LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG IRU DOO LQVWLWXWLRQV" +RZ GRHV WKH DFWXDO UROH EHKDYLRU RI FKDLUSHUVRQV DV SHUFHLYHG E\ HDFK RI WKH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG JURXSV FRPSDUH ZLWK WKH WKHRUHWLFDO UROH RI GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQV IRXQG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH"

PAGE 73

:KDW GR FKDLUSHUVRQV LGHQWLI\ DV DUHDV RI FRQIOLFW DQG KRZ GR WKHVH UHODWH WR SRVVLEOH DUHDV RI FRQIOLFW LGHQWLILHG LQ WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\" $V D ILUVW VWHS WRZDUG DQVZHULQJ WKH SUREOHP TXHVWLRQV LW ZDV QHFHVVDU\ WR GHYHORS DQ LQVWUXPHQW RI UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU GHSDUWPHQn WDO FKDLUSHUVRQV 7KLV ZDV GRQH E\ H[KDXVWLYH UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH IURP ZKLFK UROH H[SHFWDWLRQ VWDWHPHQWV ZHUH GHULYHG EDVHG RQ WKH ZULWn LQJV RI WKHRUHWLFLDQV LQ WKH DUHD 7KHVH UROH VWDWHPHQWV ZHUH WKHQ XVHG DV D EDVLV RI GHYHORSLQJ D TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZKLFK ZDV WKH SULQFLSDO PHDQV RI JDWKHULQJ WKH GDWD 7KH TXHVWLRQQDLUH FRQWDLQHG UROH H[n SHFWDWLRQ VWDWHPHQWV SOXV GHPRJUDSKLF LQIRUPDWLRQ LWHPV DQG IRU FKDLUSHUVRQV LWHPV UHODWLYH WR SHUFHLYHG FRQIOLFW DQG UROH VDWLVIDFn WLRQ &RSLHV RI WKLV LQVWUXPHQW ZHUH PDLOHG WR WKH GHDQ FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG IDFXOW\ RI RI WKH SURIHVVLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ RFFXSDn WLRQDO WKHUDS\ DSSURYHG E\ WKH $PHULFDQ 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ $VVRFLDn WLRQ 5HVSRQVHV ZHUH UHFHLYHG IURP D WRWDO RI GHDQV FKDLUSHUn VRQV DQG IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV 8VDEOH GDWD ZHUH UHFHLYHG IURP FRPSOHWH SURJUDPV ZKHUH UHVSRQVHV ZHUH UHFHLYHG IURP WKH GHDQ WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG DW OHDVW RQH IDFXOW\ PHPEHUf $OO UHVSRQVHV ZHUH XVHG IRU DQVZHULQJ SUREOHP TXHVWLRQV DQG 7KH UHVSRQVHV IURP WKH FRPSOHWH SURJUDPV ZHUH XVHG LQ DQVZHULQJ TXHVWLRQV DQG 7KH GDWD ZHUH DQDO\]HG E\ PHDQV RI IUHTXHQF\ GLVWULEXWLRQV :KHUH FRPSDULVRQV ZHUH UHTXLUHG WZR WHFKQLTXHV ZHUH XVHG WKH .UXVNDO :DOOLV+ DQG WKH :LOFR[RQ 7 /RJLFDO DQDO\VLV ZDV XVHG WR DQVZHU WKH TXHVWLRQ UHODWLQJ WR FRQIOLFW

PAGE 74

%DVHG RQ WKH GDWD DQDO\VLV WKH IROORZLQJ UHVXOWV ZHUH REWDLQHG 7KH GHDQV SHUFHLYHG WKH LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ WR FRQVLVW RI RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV LGHQWLILHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH DQG LQFOXGHG LQ WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH IRU WKLV VWXG\ 7KHLU LGHDOL]HG SHUFHSWLRQV ZHUH FRPELQHG LQWR WDVN DUHDV DQG UDQNHG LQ GHVFHQGLQJ RUGHU RI LPSRUWDQFH )LUVW LQ LPSRUWDQFH ZDV )LVFDO 5HVSRQn VLELOLW\ IROORZHG E\ ,QVWUXFWLRQ 3ODQQLQJ ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQn LFDWLRQ /HDGHUVKLS &XUULFXOXP &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ 6WXGHQWV (YDOXDWLRQ )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW DQG ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 7KH FKDLUSHUVRQV SHUFHLYHG WKHLU LGHDOL]HG UROH WR LQFOXGH RI WKH UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV FRQWDLQHG LQ WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH )URP WKH LPSRUWDQFH SODFHG RQ HDFK LWHP LW ZDV GHWHUPLQHG WKDW WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV RUGHUHG WKH WDVN DUHDV DV IROORZV 3ODQQLQJ /HDGHUVKLS DQG )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ WLHGf &XUULFXOXP DQG ,QVWUXFWLRQ WLHGf &OLPDWH 6HWn WLQJ ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW ([WUD GHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 6WXGHQWV DQG (YDOXDWLRQ ,Q WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ WKH IDFXOW\ FRQVLGHUHG RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV WR EH LPSRUWDQW :KHQ WKHVH LWHPV ZHUH RUJDQL]HG LQWR WDVN DUHDV WKH IROORZn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

PAGE 75

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f 7KLV ZDV IROORZHG LQ GHVFHQGLQJ RUGHU E\ 3ODQQLQJ D WLH EHWZHHQ /HDGHUVKLS DQG &XUULFXOXP ([WUD GHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG 6WXGHQWV WLHGf &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ DQG ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ WLHGf ,QVWUXFn WLRQ DQG )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW :KHQ GDWD IURP DOO JURXSV ZHUH FRPELQHG LW ZDV IRXQG WKDW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO LWHPV ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG WR EH LPSRUWDQW LQ WKH DFWXDO EHKDYLRU RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ 7KH LPSRUWDQFH LQ GHVFHQGLQJ RUGHU RI WKH WDVN DUHDV IRU DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG ZDV DV IROORZV &XUULFXOXP D WLH DPRQJ 3ODQQLQJ /HDGHUVKLS DQG (YDOXDWLRQ ,QWHUn GHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ /HDGHUVKLS DQG 6WXGHQWV WLHGf &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ ,QVWUXFWLRQ ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW ,Q RI WKH SURJUDPV DQDO\]HG WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW GLIn IHUHQFH LQ SHUFHSWLRQ DPRQJ WKH GHDQ FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG IDFXOW\ LQ UHJDUG WR WKH LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ :KHQ DOO SURJUDPV ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG WRJHWKHU ULR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG DPRQJ WKH ZD\ WKH GHDQV FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ SHUFHLYHG WKH LGHDO UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ

PAGE 76

$ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ SHUFHSWLRQ DERXW DFWXDO FKDLUSHUn VRQ UROH EHKDYLRU ZDV IRXQG LQ RI WKH SURJUDPV DQDO\]HG 5HVXOWV RI DQDO\VLV VKRZ D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ SHUFHSn WLRQ DERXW DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH EHKDYLRU DPRQJ GHDQV FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ IRU DOO SURJUDPV FRPELQHG $ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH GHDQnV SHUFHSWLRQ RI LGHDOn L]HG DQG DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH EHKDYLRU ZDV IRXQG LQ RI WKH SURJUDPV LQFOXGHG LQ WKLV DQDO\VLV $ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG LQ WKH ZD\ FKDLUSHUVRQV SHUFHLYHG WKHLU DFWXDO DQG WKHLU LGHDOL]HG UROH EHKDYLRU LQ RI WKH SURJUDPV DQDO\]HG $ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG LQ RI SURJUDPV LQ WKH ZD\ IDFXOW\ SHUFHLYHG WKH FKDLUSHUVRQn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

PAGE 77

)DFXOW\ SHUFHLYHG WKHLU FKDLUSHUVRQV DV SODFLQJ DFWXDO LPSRUn WDQFH RQ RI WKH UROH EHKDYLRU LWHPV :KHQ GDWD IURP DOO JURXSV ZHUH FRPELQHG LW ZDV IRXQG WKDW FKDLUSHUVRQV ZHUH SHUFHLYHG DV SODFLQJ DFWXDO LPSRUWDQFH RQ RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO UROH EHKDYLRUV 2YHU b RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV LQGLFDWHG IHHOLQJ VRPH RU PXFK FRQIOLFW ZLWK WKHLU GHDQ DQGRU IDFXOW\ LQ RI WKH WDVN DUHDV 7KHVH DUHDV ZHUH 3ODQQLQJ /HDGHUVKLS )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ (YDOXDn WLRQ &XUULFXOXP &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ DQG ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ ,Q HDFK RI WKH WDVN DUHDV LQ ZKLFK RYHU b RI FKDLUSHUVRQV LQGLFDWHG IHHOLQJ VRPH FRQIOLFW D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG LQ WKH ZD\ GHDQV FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ SHUFHLYHG WKH DFWXDO UROH EHKDYLRU RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV 7KHUH ZDV RQO\ RQH WDVN DUHD 6WXGHQWVf ZKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG DPRQJ WKH DFWXDO SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH WKUHH UHVSRQGHQW JURXSV EXW ZKHUH FRQIOLFW ZDV QRW SHUFHLYHG E\ RYHU b RI FKDLUSHUVRQV &RQFOXVLRQV %DVHG RQ WKH IRUHJRLQJ GDWD WKH IROORZLQJ FRQFOXVLRQV ZHUH GHHPHG ZDUUDQWHG ,GHDOO\ WKH UHOHYDQW UHIHUHQFH JURXSV WR FKDLUSHUVRQV RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV EHOLHYH WKDW WKH GHSDUWPHQWDO FKDLUSHUVRQ VKRXOG SODFH SULPDU\ HPSKDVLV RQ WKH DUHDV RI 3ODQQLQJ )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG /HDGHUVKLS 7KLV FRQFOXVLRQ VHHPV VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH IDFW WKDW DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG UDQNHG 3ODQQLQJ DW WKH WRS RI WKHLU SULRULW\ RUGHU f WKH GHDQV UDQNHG LW FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG

PAGE 78

IDFXOW\ )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ ZDV UDQNHG E\ DOO JURXSV FRPn ELQHG E\ GHDQV E\ FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG E\ IDFXOW\ $OO JURXSV FRPELQHG UDQNHG /HDGHUVKLS GHDQV UDQNHG LW FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ ,Q DFWXDO SUDFWLFH WKH UHOHYDQW UHIHUHQFH JURXSV SHUFHLYH WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV WR SODFH SULPDU\ HPSKDVLV RQ &XUULFXOXP (YDOXDWLRQ )LVn FDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG 3ODQQLQJ 6XSSRUW RI WKLV FRQFOXVLRQ LV IRXQG LQ WKDW DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG UDQNHG FXUULFXOXP KLJKHVWf GHDQV UDQNHG LW FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ UDQNHG $OO JURXSV FRPELQHG UDQNHG (YDOXDWLRQ )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG 3ODQQLQJ WLHG IRU VHFRQG PRVW LPSRUWDQW DUHD LQ SHUFHSWLRQ RI DFWXDO UROH EHKDYn LRU RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV 'HDQV UDQNHG WKHVH DUHDV DQG UHn VSHFWLYHO\ &KDLUSHUVRQV UDQNHG WKHVH WKUHH WDVN DUHDV DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ LQ WHUPV RI WKHLU DFWXDO UROH EHKDYLRU )DFXOW\ UDQNHG WKHVH DUHDV DQG LQ WHUPV RI WKH DFWXDO UROH EHKDYLRU RI WKHLU FKDLUSHUVRQV 7KH WDVN DUHDV RI (YDOXDWLRQ DQG 6WXGHQWV ZHUH OHDVW LPSRUn WDQW WR WKH LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DV SHUFHLYHG E\ GHDQV FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ ,Q WKLV VWXG\ DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG UDQNHG WKRVH DUHDV ORZHVWf DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ 'HDQV UDQNHG (YDOXDWLRQ DQG 6WXGHQWV ZKLOH ERWK FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG IDFXOW\ UDQNHG WKHVH DUHDV OLNH DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG ,Q DFWXDO SUDFWLFH WKH UHOHYDQW UHIHUHQFH JURXSV SHUFHLYH WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV DV SODFLQJ OHDVW LPSRUWDQFH LQ WKH DUHDV RI )DFXOW\ 'HYHOn RSPHQW DQG ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 7KH UHVXOWV VKRZHG ERWK WKH GHDQ DQG FKDLUSHUVRQ JURXSV UDQNLQJ WKHVH WZR DUHDV ODVW 7KH IDFXOW\ JURXSV DOVR SODFHG )DFXOW\ 'HYHORSPHQW ORZHVW RQ WKH OLVW RI WDVN DUHDV DQG UDQNHG ([WUDGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ

PAGE 79

7KH UHOHYDQW JURXSV DUH LQ JHQHUDO DJUHHPHQW DERXW WKH LGHDOn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n VRQ 7KLV LV HYLGHQFHG E\ WKH IDFW WKDW ZKHQ UHVSRQVHV IURP DOO GHDQV DOO FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG DOO IDFXOW\ ZHUH DQDO\]HG D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUn HQFH ZDV IRXQG LQ HDFK FDVH EHWZHHQ WKHLU LGHDOL]HG DQG WKHLU DFWXDO SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH 7KHUH LV FRQJUXHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH SHUFHLYHG LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG WKH WKHRUHWLFDO UROH FRQWDLQHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH +RZHYHU WKHUH LV D ODFN RI FRQJUXHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH SHUn FHLYHG DFWXDO UROH EHKDYLRU RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DQG WKH WKHRUHWLFDO UROH 7KLV LV VKRZQ E\ WKH IDFW WKDW RI WKH UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV LGHQWLILHG WKURXJK D UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG LGHDOO\ LPSRUn WDQW E\ DO WKUHH FDWHJRULHV RI UHVSRQGHQW DQG E\ DOO JURXSV FRPELQHG
PAGE 80

7KHUH LV SRWHQWLDO FRQIOLFW EHWZHHQ WKH GHSDUWPHQWDO FKDLUSHUn VRQ DQG WKHLU GHDQ DQGRU IDFXOW\ LQ WKRVH DUHDV ZKHUH WKHUH LV D ODFN RI DJUHHPHQW DERXW DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH EHKDYLRU 7KLV VHHPV VXSn SRUWHG E\ WKH IDFW WKDW RI WKH WDVN DUHDV LQ ZKLFK D VLJQLILFDQW GLIn IHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG LQ SHUFHSWLRQ RI DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH EHKDYLRU RI WKHVH DUHDV ZHUH LGHQWLILHG E\ RYHU b RI FKDLUSHUVRQV DV DUHDV ZKHUH WKH\ IHOW VRPH GHJUHH RI FRQIOLFW ZLWK WKHLU GHDQ DQGRU IDFXOW\ 'LVFXVVLRQ $V ZDV PHQWLRQHG LQ &KDSWHU WKHUH DUH VHYHUDO UHDVRQV WKH SUHn VHQW VWXG\ ZDV LPSRUWDQW DQG WLPHO\ )RU H[DPSOH DW WKH WLPH RI WKH VWXG\ WKHUH ZDV D KLJK WXUQRYHU UDWH DPRQJ FKDLUSHUVRQV LQ RFFXSDWLRQn DO WKHUDS\ HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV $OVR QR SULRU VWXGLHV KDG EHHQ GRQH WR DVFHUWDLQ WKH UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ LQ VXFK SURJUDPV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ VKRZHG DUHDV RI DJUHHPHQW DQG RI GLVDJUHHPHQW DPRQJ WKH UHVSRQGHQW JURXSV DERXW WKH FKDLUSHUVRQn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n PHQWDO FKDLUSHUVRQnV UROH DQG QHHGHG IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK LQ WKH DUHD" $V ZDV QRWHG LQ &KDSWHU ,,, FHUWDLQ GHPRJUDSKLF GDWD DERXW WKH UHVSRQGHQWV ZHUH JDWKHUHGn DORQJ ZLWK RWKHU GDWD DERXW WKH SURJUDPV LQFOXGHG LQ WKH VWXG\ ,V LW SRVVLEOH WKDW FHUWDLQ SDWWHUQV VHHQ LQ

PAGE 81

WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ FDQ EH H[SODLQHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI GHPRJUDSKLF GDWD FROOHFWHG" )RU LQVWDQFH HYHQ WKRXJK LW ZDV QRW VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW WKH IDFXOW\ SHUFHLYHG WKH LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUn VRQ PRUH FORVHO\ WR WKH ZD\ FKDLUSHUVRQV WKHPVHOYHV SHUFHLYHG WKHLU LGHDOL]HG UROH WKDQ GLG GHDQV 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG WKH IDFXOW\ SHUFHSn WLRQV RI WKHLU FKDLUSHUVRQVn DFWXDO UROH EHKDYLRU ZDV IXUWKHU IURP WKH FKDLUSHUVRQVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKHLU DFWXDO EHKDYLRU WKDQ ZDV WKH GHDQVn 'R WKH GHPRJUDSKLF GDWD FROOHFWHG VKHG DQ\ OLJKW RQ WKLV SX]]OLQJ ILQGn LQJ" $V WKH GHPRJUDSKLF GDWD VKRZ FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ KDYH PXFK PRUH LQ FRPPRQ LQ WKHLU EDFNJURXQG WKDQ HLWKHU JURXS KDV ZLWK GHDQV )RU LQVWDQFH QHDUO\ DOO FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ ZHUH ZRPHQ DQG PRVW GHDQV ZHUH PHQ $OO FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ ZLWK RQH H[FHSWLRQ VKDUHG WKH VDPH SURIHVVLRQDO EDFNJURXQG LQ RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ ZKHUHn DV LW DSSHDUHG WKDW QRQH RI WKH GHDQV ZHUH RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDSLVWV 7KH JUHDWHVW QXPEHU RI ERWK FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ JUDGXDWH GHJUHHV ZHUH LQ WKH DUHDV RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ DQG HGXFDWLRQ ZKHUHDV WKH ODUJHVW QXPEHU RI GHDQV KDG GHJUHHV LQ WKH SK\VLFDO VFLHQFHV DQG DGPLQn LVWUDWLRQ 7KH RQO\ GHPRJUDSKLF LWHPV FKDLUSHUVRQV VKDUHG PRUH ZLWK GHDQV WKDQ ZLWK IDFXOW\ ZHUH DJH WKH JUHDWHVW SHUFHQW RI ERWK GHDQV DQG FKDLUSHUVRQV ZHUH DQG WKH ODUJHVW SHUFHQW RI IDFXOW\ ZHUH LQ WKH DJH JURXSf DQG OHQJWK RI WLPH HPSOR\HG LQ WKHLU SUHVHQW SRVLWLRQ WKH ODUJHVW SHUFHQW RI GHDQV DQG FKDLUSHUVRQV ZHUH LQ WKH \HDU FDWHJRU\ DQG DPRQJ IDFXOW\ WKH JUHDWHVW QXPEHU ZHUH LQ WKH XQGHU \HDU JURXSf 7KH GHPRJUDSKLF GDWD WKHQ GR QRW VHHP WR SURYLGH D VXEVWDQWLYH UDWLRQDOH IRU WKH GLIIHUHQFH LQ IDFXOW\ SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH LGHDOL]HG DQG DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH UHODWLYH WR KRZ WKH RWKHU WZR JURXSV YLHZ

PAGE 82

WKDW UROH ,W FDQ EH VXJJHVWHG KRZHYHU WKDW WKH VLPLODULW\ LQ EDFNn JURXQGV RI FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ SURYLGHV D EDVLV IRU WKH VLPLODULW\ LQ LGHDOL]HG SHUFHSWLRQV DERXW FKDLUSHUVRQ UROH ,W FDQ EH IXUWKHU VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH GLYHUJHQFH LQ SHUFHSWLRQ RI DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ EHn KDYLRU PD\ EH WKH UHVXOW RI D ODFN RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RQ WKH SDUW RI IDFXOW\ DERXW WKH GHPDQGV SODFHG RQ WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV LQ WKHLU UROH DV PLGGOHPDQDJHUV 7KH GHDQV DV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV PD\ EH PRUH OLNHO\ WKDQ IDFXOW\ WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH SUHVVXUHV WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV H[SHULHQFH LQ WKH DFWXDO SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKHLU UROH 7KXV WKH GHDQV PD\ DSSUDLVH WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV PRUH UHDOLVWLFDOO\ UHODWLYH WR KRZ WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV SHUn FHLYHG WKHPVHOYHV DFWXDOO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ 7KH ILQGLQJV RI WKH VWXG\ SDUWLDOO\ VXSSRUW ZKDW 6PLWK f IRXQG LQ KLV VWXG\ RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH FKDLUSHUVRQV 7KH UHVXOWV VXSSRUW WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV RQ WKH DYHUDJHDUH LQ EDVLF GLVn DJUHHPHQW ZLWK GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUPHQ DQG XSSHU HFKHORQ DGPLQLVWUDWRUV RYHU WKHLU H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU DQG REVHUYDn WLRQV RI WKH UROH EHKDYLRU RI LQFXPEHQWV RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH FKDLUPDQnV SRVLWLRQ S f $FFRUGLQJ WR /HH f WKHUH DUH RWKHU YDULDEOHV DSDUW IURP UROH LWVHOI DQG SHUVRQDO GHPRJUDSKLFV ZKLFK HIIHFW WKDW UROH LQFOXGLQJ VL]H RI GHSDUWPHQW LQ ERWK QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\ DQG QXPEHU RI VWXGHQWVf SODFH RI GHSDUWPHQW LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ W\SH RI GHSDUWPHQW DQG WKH WLPH LQ WKH GHSDUWPHQWnV KLVWRU\ WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ LV DSSRLQWHG ,Q WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ WKH VL[ ODUJHVW GHSDUWPHQWV LQ WHUPV RI QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\ DQGRU VWXGHQWV LQFOXGHG WKUHH RI WKH IRXU GHSDUWPHQWV ZKHUH QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV DERXW DFWXDO FKDLUSHUVRQ EHKDYLRU ZHUH IRXQG DPRQJ WKH WKUHH UHVSRQGHQW JURXSV DQG WKUHH RI WKH VL[ SURJUDPV ZKHUH QR VLJQLn ILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG LQ LGHDOL]HG EHKDYLRU 7KLV LV WKH RQO\ VXFK DVVRFLDWLRQ ZKLFK VHHPV ORJLFDO

PAGE 83

,W LV REYLRXV IURP VRPH RI WKH FRQFOXVLRQV GUDZQ WKDW WKH SRWHQn WLDO IRU FRQIOLFW LV SUHVHQW LQ WKH SURSUDPV LQFOXGHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 0XFK KDV EHHQ ZULWWHQ DERXW WKH SUREOHPV ZKLFK UHVXOW IURP ODFN RI DJUHHPHQW DERXW UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV 3DUVRQV DQG 6KLOV f GHILQH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH UROH LQFXPEHQW RU HJR FKDLUSHUVRQ LQ WKLV FDVHf DQG WKRVH ZKR ERUGHU WKDW UROH RU DOWHUV GHDQV DQG IDFXOW\ LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\f DV IROORZV 7KH HVVHQWLDO HOHPHQW LQ WKH UROH LV WKH FRPSOHPHQWDULW\ RI H[SHFWDWLRQV 7KH RXWFRPH RI HJRnV DFWLRQ LQ WHUPV RI LWV VLJQLILFDQFH WR KLP LV FRQWLQJHQW RQ DOWHUnV UHDFWLRQ WR ZKDW KH GRHV 7KLV UHDFWLRQ LQ WXUQ LV QRW UDQGRP EXW LV RUJDQL]HG UHODWLYH WR DOWHUnV H[SHFWDWLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ ZKDW LV SURSHU EHKDYLRU RQ HJRnV SDUW S f ,Q WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ FRPSOHPHQWDULW\ RI H[SHFWDWLRQV SDUWLFXn ODUO\ LQ DFWXDO SUDFWLFH ZDV LQIUHTXHQW (YHQ WKRXJK IRU WKH WRWDO UHVSRQGLQJ JURXSV WKHUH ZDV JHQHUDO DJUHHPHQW UHODWLYH WR ZKDW ZDV LGHDO DV WKH UHVXOWV RI VWDWLVWLFDO WHVWV VKRZHG LQ RI WKH LQGLn YLGXDO SURJUDPV LQFOXGHG D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH H[LVWHG DPRQJ WKH WKUHH UHVSRQGHQW JURXSV LQ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH LGHDOL]HG UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ $OVR IRU WKH WRWDO RI UHVSRQGLQJ JURXSV DQG LQ RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO SURJUDPV D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG LQ SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH DFWXDO UROH EHKDYLRU RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ *HW]HOV f VDLG WKDW WKH EHWWHU RQH XQGHUVWDQGV WKH UROH RQH SOD\V LQ DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG WKH PRUH FRQJUXHQFH ZKLFK H[LVWV EHWZHHQ H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU WKDW UROH RI WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ LQ WKLV VWXG\f DQG WKRVH ZKR ERUGHU LW GHDQV DQG IDFXOW\f WKH OHVV FRQIOLFW WKHUH LV DSW WR EH +H LV VXSSRUWHG LQ WKLV JHQHUDOL]DWLRQ E\ RWKHU WKHRUHWLFLDQV ZKR KDYH VKRZQ WKDW ZKHUH GLVDJUHHPHQW H[LVWV DERXW UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ WKHUH LV SRWHQWLDO IRU FRQIOLFW .DKQ S 3DUVRQ DQG 6KLOV S %ODX DQG 6FRWW S f

PAGE 84

7KH DUHDV RI FRQIOLFW LGHQWLILHG LQ WKH SUHVHQW UHVHDUFK ZHUH LQ DFWXDO SHUFHSWLRQV DERXW UROH EHKDYLRU LQ WKH DUHDV RI 3ODQQLQJ OHDGHUn VKLS )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ (YDOXDWLRQ &XUULFXOXP &OLPDWH 6HWWLQJ DQG ,QWHUGHSDUWPHQWDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 7KH WDVN DUHDV LQ ZKLFK GHDQV GLIIHUHG PRVW IURP FKDLUSHUVRQV LQ WKH LPSRUWDQFH WKH\ VDZ WKH FKDLUn SHUVRQ DFWXDOO\ SODFLQJ RQ WKHP ZHUH 3ODQQLQJ (YDOXDWLRQ 6WXGHQWV )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG &XUULFXOXP 7KH IDFXOW\ UHVSRQGHQWV SHUFHLYHG WKHLU FKDLUSHUVRQV DV SODFLQJ WKH JUHDWHVW DFWXDO LPSRUWDQFH LQ WKH DUHD RI (YDOXDWLRQ ZKHUHDV WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV VDZ WKHPVHOYHV SODFLQJ LW IRXUWK IURP WKH ERWWRP LQ LPSRUWDQFH 7KH IDFXOW\ VDZ 3ODQQLQJ /HDGHUVKLS DQG &XUULFXOXP DV WKH QH[W DUHDV LQ DFWXDO LPSRUWDQFH WR WKHLU FKDLUn SHUVRQV ZKHUHDV FKDLUSHUVRQV VDZ WKHPVHOYHV DV SXWWLQJ OLWWOH LPSRUn WDQFH RQ /HDGHUVKLS 7KH IDFXOW\ VDZ &XUULFXOXP DV WKH LGHDOO\ PRVW LPSRUWDQW DUHD EXW VDZ FKDLUSHUVRQV DFWXDOO\ JLYLQJ LW OHVV LPSRUWDQFH 7KH GHDQV DQG FKDLUSHUVRQV RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG ERWK FRQVLGHUHG WKH FKDLUn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n VRQ WKH IDFXOW\ PHDQV ZHUH WKH ORZHVW LQ DOO WDVN DUHDV EDVHG RQ WKH SHUFHLYHG LPSRUWDQFH WKH FKDLUSHUVRQ DFWXDOO\ SODFHG RQ WKRVH UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV

PAGE 85

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b UHn VSRQVH UDWH +RZHYHU VXFK D UHWXUQ UDWH VHHPV XQUHDOLVWLF DQG WR H[n SHQG WKH QHFHVVDU\ HQHUJ\ LQ DWWHPSWLQJ VXFK D VWXG\ ZRXOG EH ZDVWHIXO 7KHUH DUH PRUH IUXLWIXO DUHDV ZKLFK QHHG H[SORUDWLRQ 2QH IUXLWIXO DUHD RI IXUWKHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ZRXOG EH WR WU\ WR GHn WHUPLQH ZK\ WKH WKUHH UHVSRQGHQW JURXSV FRQVLGHUHG 3ODQQLQJ IRU LQn VWDQFH WR EH WKH LGHDOO\ PRVW LPSRUWDQW DUHD IRU FKDLUSHUVRQV )LVFDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ QH[W LQ LPSRUWDQFH DQG VR RQ $QRWKHU DUHD WR LQYHVWLn JDWH IXUWKHU ZRXOG EH WR GHWHUPLQH LQ DQ DJH RI JURZLQJ DFFRXQWDELOLW\ DQG RI LQFUHDVLQJ FRQFHUQ ZLWK VWXGHQWV ZK\ WKH DUHDV RI (YDOXDWLRQ DQG 6WXGHQWV ZHUH WKH WDVN DUHDV UDWHG WKH ORZHVW LQ WHUPV RI LGHDOL]HG LPSRUWDQFH E\ HDFK JURXS RI UHVSRQGHQWV ,Q DGGLWLRQ ZKDW LV WKH VLJQLILFDQFH LQ D WLPH RI LQFUHDVLQJ JRYHUQPHQW UHJXODWLRQ DQG LQWHUYHQWLRQ LQ KHDOWK FDUH RI WKH IDFW WKDW HDFK JURXS RI UHVSRQGHQWV VDZ WKH FKDLUSHUVRQV SODFLQJ OLWWOH RU QR LPn SRUWDQFH ERWK LGHDOO\ DQG DFWXDOO\ RQ LWHPV VXFK DV $WWHPSWLQJ WR LQIOXHQFH OHJLVODWLRQ ZKLFK HIIHFWV DOOLHG KHDOWK HGXFDWLRQ DQG KHDOWK FDUH GHOLYHU\ DQG 5HYLHZLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQWLI\LQJ LPn SOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFXOXP"

PAGE 86

$QRWKHU W\SH RI UHVHDUFK ZKLFK ZRXOG EH D IUXLWIXO RXWJURZWK RI WKLV VWXG\ LV RI D TXDVLH[SHULPHQWDO QDWXUH ,I WKHUH LV LQ IDFW D ODFN RI DGHTXDWH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DW WKH EDVLV RI WKH GLIIHUHQFHV LGHQWLn ILHG LQ WKH VWXG\ LW PLJKW EH SURGXFWLYH WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU RQH FDQ ORZHU WKH GHJUHH RI SRWHQWLDO FRQIOLFW DQG DFKLHYH JUHDWHU FRQJUXHQFH LQ UROH H[SHFWDWLRQV E\ XQGHUWDNLQJ FHUWDLQ VSHFLILHG SDWWHUQV RI FRPn PXQLFDWLRQ

PAGE 87

$33(1',&(6

PAGE 88

$33(1',; $ /,67 2) &+$,53(5621 52/( (;3(&7$7,216 7$.(1 )520 7+( /,7(5$785(

PAGE 89

/,67 2) 52/( (;3(&7$7,216 7$.(1 )520 7+( /,7(5$785( $XWKRU *URXS /HDGHU 0RUJDQ DQG &DQILHOG )RUPXODWH ORQJUDQJH SODQV DQG REMHFWLYHV 8QGHUVWDQG DQG LPSOHPHQW RUJDQL]DWLRQDO SROLF\ ,GHQWLI\ SULRULWLHV $SSO\ GHPRFUDWLF LGHDOV 3URYLGH UHZDUGLQD HQYLURQPHQW LQFOXGLQJ RSSRUWXQn LWLHV IRU PRELOLW\ 'HILQH DQG GHOHJDWH DXWKRULW\ 'LOOH\ 3URYLGH LGHDV DQG LQQRYDWLRQV ,QIOXHQFH %H D SUREOHPVROYHU /HH 7DNH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU JRYHUQDQFH 8QGHUZRRG %H D SODQQHU 0LOOHU %H D OHDGHUDPRQJ SHHUV DV VXSHULRU DV VXERUGLQn DWH 3URJUDP GHYHORSPHQW &OLPDWH VHWWLQJ PDLQWHQDQFH RI D SRVLWLYH PLOLHXf 3ODQQLQJ 6PLWK ,QYROYH IDFXOW\ LQ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ ,QYROYH VWXGHQWV LQ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ 3DUWLFLSDWH LQ GHYHORSLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO DGPLVVLRQV VWDQGDUGV 6HHN WR KDYH GHSDUWPHQW UHSUHVHQWHG RQ FROOHJH FRPPLWWHHV 'HYHORS ORQJUDQJH JRDOV DQG REMHFWLYHV 5HYLHZ WUHQGV LQ VWXGHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG LGHQWLn I\ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU GHSDUWPHQWDO SURJUDPV 5HYLHZ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQWLI\ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU GHSDUWPHQWDO SURJUDPV 5HYLHZ QHZ GHYHORSPHQWV LQ GHSDUWPHQWDO VXEMHFW 5HVROYH FRQIOLFWV EHWZHHQ IDFXOW\ DQG FHQWUDO DGPLQn LVWUDWRU 5HVROYH FRQIOLFWV DPRQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO IDFXOW\ 5HVROYH FRQIOLFWV EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV DQG IDFXOW\ 'DJHQDLV (QJDJH LQ V\VWHPDWLF SODQQLQJ DQG GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ ,GHQWLI\ FHQWUDO LVVXHV LQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SUREOHPV 'HILQH DQG FODULI\ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO JRDOV DQG REMHFn WLYHV 'HYHORS SODQV WR DFKLHYH ORQJ DQG VKRUW UDQJH REMHFn WLYHV (VWDEOLVK SULRULW\ UDQNLQJV DPRQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SUREOHPV 0RWLYDWH IDFXOW\ VWXGHQWV DQG SHHUV WR LQFUHDVH FRRSHUDWLRQ DQG MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ 5HFRJQL]H WKH JHQHUDO OHJDO SULQFLSOHV WKDW DIIHFW SURJUDP DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ OHJDO UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV LDELLW\ HWFf

PAGE 90

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n LDOV DQG HTXLSPHQW 3DUWLFLSDWH LQ IDFXOW\ UHFUXLWPHQW 0DLQWDLQ OLDLVRQ ZLWK FRPPXQLW\ DJHQFLHV DQG RUJDQn L]DWLRQV (QFRXUDJH IDFXOW\ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ FRQYHQWLRQV FRQIHUHQFHV HWF 6HHN RXWVLGH IXQGV IRU WKH GHSDUWPHQW 3ODQ IRU ORQJ UDQJH GHSDUWPHQW HTXLSPHQW QHHGV 'HWHUPLQH GHSDUWPHQW FODVV VL]H SROLFLHV

PAGE 91

$XWKRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSHU FRQWnGf 'DTHQDLV 0DQDJH SHUVRQQHO 8WLOL]H UHFUXLWLQJ DQG VHOHFWLRQ SURFHGXUHV 'HVFULEH MRE UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV IRU VHOI DQG VXERUn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f§RQHZD\ WZRZD\ ZLWK JURXSV 6PL WK 5HSUHVHQW GHSDUWPHQW LQ FRPPXQLW\ VHUYLFH SURMHFWV 3UHSDUH GHSDUWPHQWDO SXEOLF UHODWLRQV SURJUDP ZLWK SURJUDP EURFKXUHV HWF 5HSRUW GHSDUWPHQWDO DFFRPSOLVKPHQWV WR GHDQ

PAGE 92

$XWKRU &RPPXQLFDWRU FRQWnGf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

PAGE 93

$XWKRU (GXFDWRU FRQWnGf 6PL WK FRQWGf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nV EXGJHW IRU VXEPLVVLRQ WR FHQn WUDO DGPLQLVWUDWRU 2YHUVHH LQWHUQDO DOORFDWLRQ RI EXGJHW IXQGV 'DJHQDLV 8WLOL]H NQRZOHGJH RI ILQDQFLDO DVSHFWV RI DGPLQLVn WUDWLRQ 8WLOL]H NQRZOHGJH RI SXEOLF DQG SULYDWH IXQGLQJ EDVHV WR VHFXUH ILQDQFLDO VXSSRUW 8WLOL]H SULQFLSOHV RI DFFRXQWLQJ LQ WKH PDQDJHPHQW RI D GHSDUWPHQWDO RU SURJUDP EXGJHW ,QWHUSUHW VDODU\ VFKHGXOHV DQG SD\UROO SURFHGXUHV

PAGE 94

$XWKRU (YDOXDWRU 0RUJDQ DQG &DQILHOG (YDOXDWH IDFXOW\ HIIHFWLYHQHVV 'HYHORS HYDOXDWLRQ RI GHSDUWPHQW LQSXW DQG RXWSXW 8VH FRQVXPHU LQSXW WR LPSURYH SURJUDP 2EMHFWLYHO\ HYDOXDWH RUJDQL]DWLRQDO HIIHFWLYHQHVV 8VH HYDOXDWLRQ LQIRUPDWLRQ WR LPSURYH V\VWHP 'LOOH\ (YDOXDWH IDFXOW\ DQG SURJUDP (XZHPD 3HULRGLFDOO\ HYDOXDWH DOO SHUVRQQHO +HLPOHU (YDOXDWH IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII 8QGHUZRRG %H DQ HYDOXDWRU 6PLWK (YDOXDWH IDFXOW\ ,PSOHPHQW SURFHGXUHV IRU UHYLHZLQJ IDFXOW\ FRPn SODLQWV (YDOXDWH FROOHJH HGXFDWLRQ DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SROn LFLHV DQGRU SURFHGXUHV IRU SXUSRVH RI UHFRPPHQGLQJ QHHGHG FKDQJHV 5HYLHZ VWDWLVWLFDO GDWD WR HYDOXDWH GHSDUWPHQW HIIHFWLYHQHVV 'DJHQDLV 8WLOL]H WHFKQLTXHV IRU V\VWHPDWLF SODQQLQJ DQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ HJ 3(57 33%6 7DVN $QDO\VLV HWF &ROOHFW DQDO\]H DQG LQWHUSUHW GDWD UHODWHG WR DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SUREOHPV

PAGE 95

$33(1',; % 52/( (;3(&7$7,21 6(&7,21 2) 48(67,211$,5(

PAGE 96

52/((;3(&7$7,216 )25 '(3$570(17 &+$,53(56216 ,03257$1&( 6&$/( 'LUHFWLRQV 7KH LWHPV LQ WKLV TXHVWLRQQDLUH DUH EHKDYLRUDO FRPSHWHQFLHV RU UROHH[SHFWDWLRQV ZKLFK KDYH EHHQ LGHQWLILHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH DV SDUWV RI WKH MRE RI DFDGHPLF FKDLUSHUVRQV $V WKHUH LV RFFDVLRQDO RYHUODS LQ VSHFLILF WDVNV ZKLFK DSSHDU ZLWKLQ GLIIHUHQW FDWHJRULHV SOHDVH UHDG RYHU WKH HQWLUH TXHVWLRQQDLUH EHIRUH ILOOLQJ LW RXW
PAGE 97

5DWLQJ 6FDOH +LJKHVW LPSRUWDQFH 9HU\ LPSRUWDQW $YHUDJH LPSRUWDQFH /RZ LPSRUWDQFH 8QLPSRUWDQW 1R RSLQLRQ.QRZOHGJH 3/$11,1* &LUFOH &LUFOH &LUFOH &LUFOH &LUFOH &LUFOH $FWXDO ,PSRUWDQFH 1R /RZ +LJK .QRZOHGJH 'HILQLQJ DQG FODULI\LQJ ORQJUDQJH JRDOV DQG REn MHFWLYHV &RQVLGHULQJ WKH LPSOLFD WLRQV RI DOWHUQDWLYH PRGHOV RI DOOLHG KHDOWK HGXFDWLRQ LQ WHUPV RI WKHLU XOWLPDWH HIIHFWV RQ KHDOWK GHOLYHU\ 'HYHORSLQJ SODQV WR DFKLHYH ORQJ DQG VKRUW UDQJH REMHFn WLYHV 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG LPSOH PHQWLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO SROLF\ 5HYLHZLQJ ORQJUDQJH JRDOV DQG REMHFWLYHV SHULRGLFDOO\ &ROOHFWLQJ DQDO\]LQJ DQG LQWHUSUHWLQJ GDWD UHODWHG WR DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SUREOHPV 5HFRJQL]LQJ WKH JHQHUDO OHJDO SULQFLSOHV WKDW DIn IHFW SURJUDP DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ VXFK DV OHJDO UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG OLDELOLW\ /($'(56+,3 0DNLQJ GHFLVLRQV $WWHPSWLQJ WR LQIOXHQFH OHJLVODWLRQ ZKLFK HIIHFWV DOOLHG KHDOWK HGXFDWLRQ DQG KHDOWK FDUH GHOLYHU\ 'HOHJDWLQJ DXWKRULW\ $SSO\LQJ GHPRFUDWLF LGHDV LQ WKH GLUHFWLQJ RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW ,GHDO ,PSRUWDQFH 1R /RZ +LJK 2SLQLRQ

PAGE 98

5DWLQT 6FDOH +LJKHVW LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 9HU\ LPSRUWDQW &LUFOH $YHUDJH LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH /RZ LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 8QLPSRUWDQW &LUFOH 1R RSLQLRQNQRZOHGJH &LUFOH $FWXDO ,PSRUWDQFH 1R /($'(56+,3f /RZ +LJK .QRZOHGJH 0RWLYDWLQJ IDFXOW\ VWX GHQWV DQG SHHUV WR LQn FUHDVH FRRSHUDWLRQ DQG MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ 'HVFULELQJ MRE UHVSRQVLELO LWLHV IRU VHOI DQG IDFXOW\ VWDII )RUPXODWLQJ SROLFLHV UHODW LQJ WR IDFXOW\ XVH RI PDWHUn LDOV HTXLSPHQW DQG RWKHU WDQJLEOHV )LJKWLQJ IRU WKH GHSDUWPHQW ([HUWLQJ LQIOXHQFH ZKHUH QHHGHG ,GHDO ,PSRUWDQFH 1R /RZ +LJK 2SLQLRQ ),6&$/ 5(63216,%,/,7< 5HODWLQJ REMHFWV WR FRVWV WKURXJK FRVW EHQHILW DQDO\n VLV 8WLOL]LQJ NQRZOHGJH RI SXE OLH DQG SULYDWH IXQGLQJ EDVHV WR VHFXUH VXSSOHPHQn WDO IXQGLQJ 3UHSDULQJ DQG DGPLQLVWHU LQJ D GHSDUWPHQWDO EXGJHW ,QWHUSUHWLQJ VDODU\ VFKHG XOHV DQG SD\UROO SURFHGXUHV IRU IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII 5HGXFLQJ GXSOLFDWLRQ DQG RYHUODS LQ DFWLYLWLHV DQG H[SHQGLWXUHV &RPPXQLFDWLQJ EXGJHW QHHGV WR VWDII DQG KLJKHU DGPLQn LVWUDWLRQ

PAGE 99

5DWLQJ 6FDOH +LJKHVW LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 9HU\ LPSRUWDQW &LUFOH $YHUDJH LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH /RZ LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 8QLPSRUWDQW &LUFOH 1R RSLQLRQ.QRZOHGJH &LUFOH $FWXDO ,PSRUWDQFH 1R ),6&$/ 5(63216,%,/,7
PAGE 100

5DWLQJ 6FDOH +LJKHVW LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 9HU\ LPSRUWDQW &LUFOH $YHUDJH LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH /RZ LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 8QLPSRUWDQW &LUFOH 1R RSLQLRQ.QRZOHGJH &LUFOH $FWXDO ,PSRUWDQFH 1R &855,&8/80f /RZ +LJK .QRZOHGJH 'LVSOD\LQJ FRPSHWHQFH LQ WKH ILHOG ,GHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFXOXP RI QHZ GHn YHORSPHQWV LQ WKH ILHOG 5HYLHZLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQWLI\LQJ LPn SOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFXOXP 3ODQQLQJ FXUULFXODU FKDQJHV ZLWK WKH IDFXOW\ IRU WZR RU PRUH \HDUV LQ DGYDQFH ,GHDO ,PSRUWDQFH 1R /RZ +LJK 2SLQLRQ ,16758&7,21 :RUNLQJ ZLWK IDFXOW\ WR LPSURYH LQVWUXFWLRQ $VVLJQLQJ IDFXOW\ WR WHDFK LQJ VFKHGXOHV 3DUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ GHYHORS PHQW RI GHSDUWPHQWDO DGPLVn VLRQV VWDQGDUGV 'HWHUPLQLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO FODVV VL]H SROLFLHV 'HILQLQJ WHDFKLQJ ORDGV IRU IDFXOW\ $VVLJQLQJ ZRUN VSDFH DQG IDFLOLWLHV WR IDFXOW\ 7DNLQJ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU PDLQWHQDQFH DQG UHSDLU RI ODE DQG FODVVURRP HJXLSPHQW

PAGE 101

5DWLQJ 6FDOH +LJKHVW LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 9HU\ LPSRUWDQW &LUFOH $YHUDJH LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH /RZ LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 8QLPSRUWDQW &LUFOH 1R RSLQLRQ.QRZOHGJH &LUFOH $FWXDO ,PSRUWDQFH 0R &/,0$7( 6(77,1* /RZ +LJK .QRZOHGJH 5HFRJQL]LQJ SUREOHPV LQ GHSDUWPHQW $WWHPSWLQJ WR PLQLPL]H EDU ULHUV WR PD[LPXP GHSDUWPHQn WDO HIILFLHQF\ 5HFRJQL]LQJ DQG XWLOL]LQJ HPSOR\HH VNLOOV 6WULYLQJ WR EDODQFH QHHGV DQG JRDOV IRU GHSDUWPHQW 0DLQWDLQLQJ D FDSDEOH VXS SRUW VWDII 0DLQWDLQLQJ D GHSDUWPHQWDO OLEUDU\ )$&8/7< '(9(/230(17 (QFRXUDJLQJ IDFXOW\ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ FRQYHQWLRQV FRQIHUHQFHV DQG PHHWLQJV /HDGLQJ WKH IDFXOW\ LQ HV WDEOLVKLQJ JRDOV IRU JURZWK (QFRXUDJLQJ UHVHDUFK DQG SXEOLFDWLRQ 0DNLQJ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU SURPRWLRQ DQG WHQXUH 2ULHQWLQJ QHZ IDFXOW\ 'HYHORSLQJ LQVHUYLFH HG XFDWLRQ IRU QHZ IDFXOW\ 5HFUXLWLQJ IDFXOW\ 3URYLGLQJ D UHZDUGLQJ HQ YLURQPHQW LQFOXGLQJ RSSRUn WXQLWLHV IRU PRELOLW\ ZLWKLQ WKH GHSDUWPHQW ,QYROYLQJ IDFXOW\ LQ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ ,GHDO ,PSRUWDQFH 1R /RZ +LJK 2SLQLRQ

PAGE 102

5DWLQJ 6FDOH +LJKHVW LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 9HU\ LPSRUWDQW &LUFOH $YHUDJH LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH /RZ LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 8QLPSRUWDQW &LUFOH 1R RSLQLRQ.QRZOHGJH &LUFOH (;75$'(3$570(17$/ &20081,&$7,21 $WWHQGLQJ PHHWLQJV DQG FRQIHUHQFHV .HHSLQJ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG SXEOLF LQIRUPHG RI KHDOWK GHYHORSPHQWV 3UHSDULQJ TXDOLW\ DUWLFOHV DQG FRPPXQLTXHV (IIHFWLYHO\ FRPPXQLFDWLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO JRDOV DQG SUREOHPV WR RWKHU GHSDUWn PHQWV DQG DJHQFLHV 0DLQWDLQLQJ OLDLVRQ ZLWK FRPPXQLW\ DJDQFLHV DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQV 7DNLQJ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU GHSDUWPHQWDO FRUUHVSRQGHQFH 3UHVHQWLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO DFFRPSOLVKPHQWV WR WKH GHDQ 5HSUHVHQWLQJ WKH GHSDUWn PHQW LQ FRPPXQLW\ VHUYLFH SURMHFWV 6HHNLQJ WR KDYH WKH GHn SDUWPHQW UHSUHVHQWHG RQ FROOHJH FRPPLWWHHV 3UHSDULQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO SXEOLF UHODWLRQV SURJUDPV ZLWK EURFKXUHV DQG RWKHU SXEOLFLW\ 3UHVHQWLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO QHHGV WR WKH GHDQ $FWXDO ,PSRUWDQFH 1R /RZ +LJK .QRZOHGJH ,GHDO ,PSRUWDQFH 1R /RZ +LJK 2SLQLRQ

PAGE 103

5DWLQJ 6FDOH +LJKHVW LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 9HU\ LPSRUWDQW &LUFOH $YHUDJH LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH /RZ LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 8QLPSRUWDQW &LUFOH 1R RSLQLRQ.QRZOHGJH &LUFOH $FWXDO ,PSRUWDQFH ,17(5'(3$570(17$/ 1R &20081,&$7,21 /RZ +LJK .QRZOHGJH 0DLQWDLQLQJ D UHFHSWLYLW\ DQG DFFHVVLELOLW\ WR RWKHUV /HDUQLQJ WKH ODQJXDJH FRPPRQ WHUPLQRORJ\f RI DUHDV IRU ZKLFK KDV UHVSRQn VLELOLW\ 2UJDQL]LQJ SUHVHQWDWLRQV ZKLFK HIIHFWLYHO\ FRQYH\ LGHDV 6WULYLQJ WR UHVROYH FRQ IOLFWV EHWZHHQ IDFXOW\ DQG FHQWUDO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV +HOSLQJ WR UHVROYH FRQ IOLFWV DPRQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO IDFXOW\ 0DLQWDLQLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO UHFRUGV &RQGXFWLQJ PHHWLQJV LQ D PDQQHU WR HQFRXUDJH LQYROYHn PHQW RI DOO ,PSOHPHQWLQJ SURFHGXUHV IRU UHYLHZLQJ IDFXOW\ FRPSODLQWV 6WULYLQJ WR UHVROYH FRQ IOLFWV EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV DQG IDFXOW\ ,GHDO ,PSRUWDQFH 1R /RZ +LJK 2SLQLRQ

PAGE 104

5DWLQJ 6FDOH +LJKHVW LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 9HU\ LPSRUWDQW &LUFOH $YHUDJH LPSRUWDQFH &LUFOH /RZ ,PSRUWDQFH &LUFOH 8QLPSRUWDQW &LUFOH 1R RSLQLRQNQRZOHGJH &LUFOH $FWXDO ,PSRUWDQFH 1R 678'(176 /RZ +LJK .QRZOHGJH 5HYLHZLQJ WUHQGV LQ VWX GHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ,GHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV RI FKDQJLQJ VWXGHQW FKDUn DFWHULVWLFV IRU GHSDUWPHQn WDO SURJUDPV (YDOXDWLQJ VWXGHQW DSSOL FDWLRQV ,QYROYLQJ VWXGHQWV LQ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ 5HYLHZLQJ VWXGHQW SHWLWLRQV &RXQVHOLQJ DQG DGYLVLQJ VWXGHQWV 7HDFKLQJ VWXGHQWV :ULWLQJ VWXGHQW UHFRP PHQGDWLRQV IRU HPSOR\PHQW DQG JUDGXDWH VFKRRO ,GHDO ,PSRUWDQFH 1R /RZ +LJK 2SLQLRQ

PAGE 105

$33(1',; & '($1)$&8/7< '(6&5,37,9( ,1)250$7,21 $1' &+$,53(5621 '(6&5,37,9( ,1)250$7,21 6(&7,216

PAGE 106

'(6&5,37,9( ,1)250$7,21 3OHDVH FKHFN WKH DSSURSULDWH EODQN RU ILOO LQ WKH VSDFH SURYLGHG IRU WKH IROORZLQJ LWHPV
PAGE 107

$33(1',; &21)/,&7 $1' -2% 6$7,6)$&7,21 6(&7,21 2) 48(67,211$,5(

PAGE 108

&+$,53(5621 '(6&5,37,9( ,1)250$7,21
PAGE 109

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

PAGE 110

$33(1',; ( 5$1.,1* 2) ($&+ 2) 7+( ,'($/,=(' 52/( (;3(&7$7,216 )25 ($&+ 5(6321'(17 *5283 $1' )25 $// *52836 &20%,1('

PAGE 111

5$1.,1*6 )25 ($&+ 2) 7+( ,'($/ 52/( (;3(&7$7,216 )25 ($&+ 5(6321'(17 *5283 $1' )25 $// *52836 &20%,1(' 52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 ,Q 7f 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(56216 > @ 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7< Q f 5DQN 0HDQ $// Q 5DQN &20%,1(' f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

PAGE 112

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(56216 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7< 5DQN 0HDQ $// &20%,1(' 5DQN 0HDQ /($'(56+,3 FRQWnGf $WWHPSWLQJ WR LQIOXHQFH OHJLVODn WLRQ ZKLFK HIIHFWV DOOLHG KHDOWK HGXFDWLRQ DQG KHDOWK FDUH GHOLn YHU\ 'HOHJDWLQJ DXWKRULW\ $SSO\LQJ GHPRFUDWLF LGHDOV LQ WKH GLUHFWLQJ RI WKH GHSDUWPHQW 0RWLYDWLQJ IDFXOW\ VWXGHQWV DQG SHHUV WR LQFUHDVH FRRSHUDWLRQ DQG MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ 'HVFULELQJ MRE UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV IRU VHOI DQG IDFXOW\VWDII )RUPXODWLQJ SROLFLHV UHODWLQJ WR IDFXOW\ XVH RI PDWHULDOV HTXLSn PHQW DQG RWKHU WDQJLEOHV )LJKWLQJ IRU WKH GHSDUWPHQW ([HUWLQJ LQIOXHQFH ZKHUH QHHGHG ),6&$/ 5(63216,%,/,7< 5HODWLQJ REMHFWLYHV WR FRVWV WKURXJK FRVW EHQHILW DQDO\VLV 8WLOL]LQJ NQRZOHGJH RI SXEOLF DQG SULYDWH IXQGLQJ EDVHV WR VHFXUH VXSSOHPHQWDO IXQGLQJ 3UHSDULQJ DQG DGPLQLVWHULQJ D GHSDUWPHQWDO EXGJHW

PAGE 113

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(56216 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7< 5DQN 0HDQ $// &20%,1(' 5DQN 0HDQ ),6&$/ 5(63216,%,/,7< FRQWnGf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n QHVV

PAGE 114

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(56216 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7 5DQN 0HDQ $// 5DQN &20%,1(' 0HDQ (9$/8$7,21 FRQWnGf 'HYHORSLQJ D V\VWHP IRU HYDOn XDWLRQ RI GHSDUWPHQWDO RXWSXW DQG LQSXW (YDOXDWLQJ IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII HIIHFWLYHQHVV &855,&8/80 'HYHORSLQJ QHZ FRXUVHV 5HYLVLQJ FRXUVHV EDVHG RQ HYDOn XDWLRQ (QFRXUDJLQJ GHYHORSPHQW RI D VRXQG FXUULFXOXP 'LVSOD\LQJ FRPSHWHQFH LQ WKH ILHOG ,GHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFXOXP RI QHZ GHYHORSPHQWV LQ WKH ILHOG 5HYLHZLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFXOXP 3ODQQLQJ FXUULFXODU FKDQJHV ZLWK WKH IDFXOW\ IRU WZR RU PRUH \HDUV LQ DGYDQFH

PAGE 115

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(56216 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7O 5DQN 0HDQ $// &20%,1(' 5DQN 0HDQ ,16758&7,21 :RUNLQJ ZLWK IDFXOW\ WR LPSURYH LQVWUXFWLRQ $VVLJQLQJ IDFXOW\ WR WHDFKLQJ VFKHGXOHV 3DUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ GHYHORSPHQW RI GHSDUWPHQWDO DGPLVVLRQV VWDQGDUGV 'HWHUPLQLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO FODVV VL]H SROLFLHV 'HILQLQJ WHDFKLQJ ORDGV IRU IDFXOW\ $VVLJQLQJ ZRUN VSDFH DQG IDFLOn LWLHV WR IDFXOW\ 7DNLQJ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU PDLQn WHQDQFH DQG UHSDLU RI ODE DQG FODVVURRP HTXLSPHQW &/,0$7( 6(77,1* 5HFRJQL]LQJ SUREOHPV LQ GHSDUWPHQW $WWHPSWLQJ WR PLQLPL]H EDUULHUV WR PD[LPXP GHSDUWPHQWDO HIILFLHQF\ 5HFRJQL]LQJ DQG XWLOL]LQJ HPSOR\HH VNLOOV 6WULYLQJ WR EDODQFH QHHGV DQG JRDOV IRU GHSDUWPHQW

PAGE 116

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(56216 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7< 5DQN 0HDQ $// &20%,1(' 5DQN 0HDQ &/,6$7( 6(77,1* FRQWnGf 0DLQWDLQLQJ D FDSDEOH VXSSRUW VWDII 0DLQWDLQLQJ D GHSDUWPHQWDO OLEUDU\ )$&8/7< '(9(/230(17 (QFRXUDJLQJ IDFXOW\ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ FRQYHQWLRQV FRQIHUHQFHV DQG PHHWLQJV /HDGLQJ WKH IDFXOW\ LQ HVWDEOLVKn LQJ JRDOV IRU JURZWK (QFRXUDJLQJ UHVHDUFK DQG SXEOLFDn WLRQ 0DNLQJ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU SURn PRWLRQ DQG WHQXUH 2ULHQWLQJ QHZ IDFXOW\ 'HYHORSLQJ LQVHUYLFH HGXFDWLRQ IRU QHZ IDFXOW\ 5HFUXLWLQJ IDFXOW\ 3URYLGLQJ D UHZDUGLQJ HQYLURQn PHQW LQFOXGLQJ RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU PRELOLW\ ZLWKLQ WKH GHSDUWPHQW ,QYROYLQJ IDFXOW\ LQ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ

PAGE 117

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(56216 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/79 5DQN 0HDQ $// 5DQN &20%,1(' 0HDQ (;75$'(3$570(17$/ &20081,&$7,21 $WWHQGLQJ PHHWLQJV DQG FRQIHUHQFHV .HHSLQJ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG SXEn OLF LQIRUPHG RI KHDOWK GHYHORSn PHQWV 3UHSDULQJ TXDOLW\ DUWLFOHV DQG FRPPXQLTXHV (IIHFWLYHO\ FRPPXQLFDWLQJ RUJDQn L]DWLRQDO JRDOV DQG SUREOHPV WR RWKHU GHSDUWPHQWV DQG DJHQFLHV 0DLQWDLQLQJ OLDLVRQ ZLWK FRPPXQn LW\ DJHQFLHV DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQV 7DNLQJ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU GHSDUWPHQWDO FRUUHVSRQGHQFH 3UHVHQWLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO DFFRPn SOLVKPHQWV WR WKH GHDQ 5HSUHVHQWLQJ WKH GHSDUWPHQW LQ FRPPXQLW\ VHUYLFH SURMHFWV 6HHNLQJ WR KDYH WKH GHSDUWPHQW UHSUHVHQWHG RQ FROOHJH FRPPLWWHHV 3UHSDULQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO SXEOLF UHODWLRQV SURJUDPV ZLWK EURn FKXUHV DQG RWKHU SXEOLFLW\ 3UHVHQWLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO QHHGV WR WKH GHDQ

PAGE 118

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(56216 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7< 5DQN 0HDQ $// &20%,1(' 5DQN 0HDQ ,17(5'(3$570(17$/ &20081,&$7,21 0DLQWDLQLQJ D UHFHSWLYLW\ DQG DFFHVVLELOLW\ WR RWKHUV /HDUQLQJ WKH ODQJXDJH FRPPRQ WHUPLQRORJ\f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

PAGE 119

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(56216 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7< 5DQN 0HDQ $// &20%,1(' 5DQN 0HDQ 678'(176 FRQWfGf (YDOXDWLQJ VWXGHQW DSSOLFDWLRQV ,QYROYLQJ VWXGHQWV LQ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ 5HYLHZLQJ VWXGHQW SHWLWLRQV &RXQVHOLQJ DQG DGYLVLQJ VWXGHQWV 7HDFKLQJ VWXGHQWV :ULWLQJ VWXGHQW UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU HPSOR\PHQW DQG JUDGXDWH VFKRRO

PAGE 120

$33(1',; ) 5$1.,1* 2) ($&+ 2) 7+( $&78$/ 52/( (;3(&7$7,216 )25 ($&+ 5(6321'(17 *5283 $1' )25 $// *52836 &20%,1('

PAGE 121

5$1.,1*6 )25 ($&+ 2) 7+( $&78$/ 52/( (;3(&7$7,216 )25 ($&+ 5(6321'(17 *5283 $1' )25 $// *52836 &20%,1(' 52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 7f 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(56216 Q f 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7< Q Of 5DQN 0HDQ $// &20%,1(' Q f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

PAGE 122

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(56216 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7< 5DQN 0HDQ $// 5DQN &20%,1(' 0HDQ /($'(56+,3 FRQWnGf $WWHPSWLQJ WR LQIOXHQFH OHJLVn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

PAGE 123

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 5DQN 0HDQ ),6&$/ 5(63216,%,/,7< FRQWnGf ,QWHUSUHWLQJ VDODU\ VFKHGXOHV DQG SD\UROO SURFHGXUHV IRU IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII 5HGXFLQJ GXSOLFDWLRQ DQG RYHUODS LQ DFWLYLWLHV DQG H[SHQGLWXUHV &RPPXQLFDWLQJ EXGJHW QHHGV WR VWDII DQG KLJKHU DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ $SURYLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO SXUFKDVH UHTXHVWV 6HHNLQJ D ODUJHU VKDUH RI FROOHJH IXQGV IRU GHSDUWPHQW (9$/8$7,21 'HYHORSLQJ DQG XWLOL]LQJ D V\VWHP IRU FXUULFXOXP HYDOXDWLRQ (YDOXDWLQJ FROOHJH HGXFDWLRQ DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ SROLFLHV DQGRU SURFHGXUHV IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI UHFRPPHQGLQJ QHHGHG FKDQJHV 8WLOL]LQJ OD\ DQG SURIHVVLRQDO DGYLVRU\ FRPPLWWHHV IRU SURJUDP HYDOXDWLRQ DQG LPSURYHPHQW 5HYLHZLQJ VWDWLVWLFDO GDWD WR HYDOXDWH GHSDUWPHQWDO HIIHFWLYHn QHVV &+$,53(56216 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7< 5DQN 0HDQ $// &20%,1(' 5DQN 0HDQ

PAGE 124

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(56216 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7< 5DQN 0HDQ $// &20%,1(' 5DQN 0HDQ (9$/8$7,21 FRQWnGf 'HYHORSLQJ D V\VWHP IRU HYDOXDn WLRQ RI GHSDUWPHQWDO RXWSXW DQG LQSXW (YDOXDWLQJ IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII HIIHFWLYHQHVV &855,&8/80 'HYHORSLQJ QHZ FRXUVHV 5HYLVLQJ FRXUVHV EDVHG RQ HYDOXDWLRQ (QFRXUDJLQJ GHYHORSPHQW RI D VRXQG FXUULFXOXP 'LVSOD\LQJ FRPSHWHQFH LQ WKH ILHOG ,GHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFXOXP RI QHZ GHYHORSPHQWV LQ WKH ILHOG 5HYLHZLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO WUHQGV DQG LGHQWLI\LQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FXUULFXOXP 3ODQQLQJ FXUULFXODU FKDQJHV ZLWK WKH IDFXOW\ IRU WZR RU PRUH \HDUV LQ DGYDQFH

PAGE 125

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

PAGE 126

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($1 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(5621 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7< 5DQN 0HDQ $// &20%,1(' 5DQN 0HDQ &/,0$7( 6(77,1* FRQWnGf 0DLQWDLQLQJ D FDSDEOH VXSSRUW VWDII 0DLQWDLQLQJ D GHSDUWPHQWDO OLEUDU\ )$&8/7< '(9(/230(17 (QFRXUDJLQJ IDFXOW\ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ FRQYHQWLRQV FRQIHUHQFHV DQG PHHWLQJV /HDGLQJ WKH IDFXOW\ LQ HVWDEOLVKLQJ JRDOV IRU JURZWK (QFRXUDJLQJ UHVHDUFK DQG SXEOLFDWLRQ 0DNLQJ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU SURPRWLRQ DQG WHQXUH 2ULHQWLQJ QHZ IDFXOW\ 'HYHORSLQJ LQVHUYLFH HGXFDWLRQ IRU QHZ IDFXOW\ 5HFUXLWLQJ IDFXOW\ 3URYLGLQJ D UHZDUGLQJ HQYLURQn PHQW IRU PRELOLW\ ZLWKLQ WKH GHSDUWPHQW ,QYROYLQJ IDFXOW\ LQ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ

PAGE 127

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($1 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(5621 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7< 5DQN 0HDQ $// &20%,1(' 5DQN 0HDQ (;75$'(3$570(17$/ &20081,&$7,21 $WWHQGLQJ PHHWLQJV DQG FRQIHUHQFHV .HHSLQJ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG SXEOLF LQIRUPHG RI KHDOWK GHYHORSPHQWV 3UHSDULQJ TXDOLW\ DUWLFOHV DQG FRPPXQLTXHV (IIHFWLYHO\ FRPPXQLFDWLQJ RUJDQn L]DWLRQDO JRDOV DQG SUREOHPV WR RWKHU GHSDUWPHQWV DQG DJHQFLHV 0DLQWDLQLQJ OLDLVRQ ZLWK FRPPXQLW\ DJHQFLHV DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQV 7DNLQJ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU GHSDUWn PHQWDO FRUUHVSRQGHQFH 3UHVHQWLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO DFFRPn SOLVKPHQWV WR WKH GHDQ 5HSUHVHQWLQJ WKH GHSDUWPHQW LQ FRPPXQLW\ VHUYLFH SURMHFWV 6HHNLQJ WR KDYH WKH GHSDUWPHQW UHSUHVHQWHG RQ FROOHJH FRPPLWWHHV 3UHSDULQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO SXEOLF UHODWLRQV SURJUDPV ZLWK EURFKXUHV DQG RWKHU SXEOLFLW\ 3UHVHQWLQJ GHSDUWPHQWDO QHHGV WR WKH GHDQ

PAGE 128

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 5DQN 0HDQ ,17(5'(3$570(17$/ &20081,&$7,21 0DLQWDLQLQJ D UHFHSWLYLW\ DQG DFFHVVLELOLW\ WR RWKHUV /HDUQLQJ WKH ODQJXDJH FRPPRQ WHUPLQRORJ\f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

PAGE 129

52/( (;3(&7$7,216 '($16 5DQN 0HDQ &+$,53(56216 5DQN 0HDQ )$&8/7< 5DQN 0HDQ $// &20%,1(' 5DQN 0HDQ 678'(176 FRQWnGf (YDOXDWLQJ VWXGHQW DSSOLFDWLRQV ,QYROYLQJ VWXGHQWV LQ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ 5HYLHZLQJ VWXGHQW SHWLWLRQV &RXQVHOLQJ DQG DGYLVLQJ VWXGHQWV 7HDFKLQJ VWXGHQWV :ULWLQJ VWXGHQW UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU HPSOR\PHQW DQG JUDGXDWH VFKRRO

PAGE 130

5()(5(1&( /,67 $JXRQ )6 6WDWXV RI GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQV DV SHUFHLYHG E\ DFDGHPLF FROOHJH GHDQV GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUSHUVRQV DQG IDFXOW\ DW :HVWHUQ 0LFKLJDQ 8QLYHUVLW\ 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ :HVWHUQ 0LFKLJDQ 8QLYHUVLW\ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f $OGPRQ +) &ULWLFDO EHKDYLRUDO UHTXLUHPHQWV RI KHDGV RI GHSDUWPHQWV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7HQQHVVHH f 'LVVHUWDn WLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFUR ILOPV 1R f $PHULFDQ 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ $VVRFLDWLRQ (GXFDWLRQDO SURJUDPV LQ RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ 5RFNYLOOH 0DU\ODQG $QGHUVRQ .7KH DPELYDOHQW GHSDUWPHQW (GXFDWLRQDO 5HFRUG %LGGOH DQG 7KRPDV (HGVf 5ROH WKHRU\ &RQFHSWV DQG UHVHDUFK 1HZ
PAGE 131

&RSHODQG % -U )DFXOW\ SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH SURIHVVLRQDO UROH RI WKH DGPLQLVWUDWRU RI WKH DFDGHPLF GHSDUWPHQW 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ .DQVDV 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDn WLRQDO $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f &RUVRQ -7KH JRYHUQDQFH RI FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV 5HY HGf 1HZ
PAGE 132

*URVV 1 0DVRQ :6 DQG 0F(DFKHUQ $: ([SORUDWLRQ LQ UROH DQDO\VLV 6WXGLHV RI WKH VFKRRO VXSHULQWHQGHQF\ UROH 1HZ
PAGE 133

6X]XNL +. $ GHDQnV H[SHFWDWLRQV RI GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUPHQ LQ DQ HGXFDn WLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQ IRU KHDOWK SURIHVVLRQDOV ,Q 0 0RUJDQ DQG $ &DQILHOG (GVf $GPLQLVWUDWLYH FRPSHWHQFLHV LQ HGXFDWLRQ DQG WKH DOOLHG KHDOWK SURIHVVLRQV *DLQHVYLOOH )ORULGD &HQWHU IRU $OOLHG +HDOWK ,QVWUXFWLRQDO 3HUVRQQHO 8QGHUZRRG 7KH FKDLUPDQ DV DFDGHPLF SODQQHU ,Q %UDQQ DQG 7$ (PPHW (GVf 7KH DFDGHPLF GHSDUWPHQW RU GLYLVLRQ FKDLUPDQ $ FRPSOH[ UROH 'HWURLW %HODPS 3XEOLVKLQJ 9RO] 5: $Q DQDO\VLV RI WKH DFWXDO DQG LGHDO UROHV RI YRFDWLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ GHSDUWPHQW KHDGV DV SHUFHLYHG E\ GHDQV KHDGV DQG IDFXOW\ 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7HQQHVVHH f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO $ 8QLYHU VLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f :RRGVLGH ++ 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ =XFNHU -' $ PRGHO IRU GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH UROH SHUFHSWLRQV RI GHSDUWn PHQW FKDLUPDQ DW D ODUJH XQLYHUVLW\ 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDn WLRQDO $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f

PAGE 134

5()(5(1&( 127(6 'DJHQDLV ) &RPSHWHQFLHV IRU HGXFDWLRQDO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV LQ WKH DOOLHG KHDOWK ILHOGV 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH PHHWLQJ RI WKH $PHULFDQ 6RFLHW\ RI $OOLHG +HDOWK 3URIHVVLRQV 3KLODGHOSKLD 1RYHPEHU 7XFNHU $ $ SURSRVDO WR GHVLJQ DQG WHVW D PRGHO IRU SODQQHG FKDQJHV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ WKURXJK HQKDQFLQJ WKH SODQQLQJ PDQDJHPHQW DQG OHDGHUVKLS FRPSHWHQFLHV RI GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUn SHUVRQV ZLWKLQ D VWDWH XQLYHUVLW\ V\VWHP 7DOODKDVVHH )OD ,QVWLWXWH IRU 'HSDUWPHQWDO /HDGHUVKLS 0LOOHU 5$ VWXG\ LQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH VW\OH DQG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ 8QSXEOLVKHG PDQXVFULSW 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD

PAGE 135

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ 5RVDOHH 0LOOHU ZDV ERUQ LQ (O\ULD 2KLR RQ -XQH 6KH DWWHQGHG WKH :HOOLQJWRQ 3XEOLF 6FKRROV DQG JUDGXDWHG IURP :HOOLQJWRQ +LJK 6FKRRO LQ +HU XQGHUJUDGXDWH ZRUN ZDV FRPSOHWHG DW 'RDQH &ROOHJH LQ &UHWH 1HEUDVND DQG (DUOKDP &ROOHJH LQ 5LFKPRQG ,QGLDQD 6KH JUDGXDWHG IURP (DUOKDP &ROOHJH LQ ZLWK D PDMRU LQ KXPDQ UHODWLRQV DQG SV\FKRORJ\ DQG D PLQRU LQ ELRORJ\ 6KH UHFHLYHG KHU &HUWLILFDWH RI 3URILFLHQF\ LQ RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ IURP WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 3HQQV\OYDQLD LQ DQG SDVVHG WKH 1DWLRQDO 5HJLVWHULQJ ([DPLQDWLRQ WR EHFRPH D 5HJLVWHUHG 2Fn FXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDSLVW WKDW VDPH \HDU ,Q $XJXVW VKH UHFHLYHG D 0DVWHU RI 6FLHQFH GHJUHH LQ RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ DQG FRPPXQLW\ KHDOWK IURP %RVWRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ 6KH KDV EHHQ HPSOR\HG DV DQ RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDSLVW DW WKH 6WDWH 3V\FKLDWULF +RVSLWDO LQ 7UHQWRQ 1HZ -HUVH\ DV 'LUHFWRU RI &DUHHU 'HYHORSPHQW IRU WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI 5HKDELOLWDWLRQ 0HGLFLQH DW &ROXPELD 8QLYHUVLW\ DQG DV 'LUHFWRU RI 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ DW +XQWHUGRQ &RPn PXQLW\ 0HQWDO +HDOWK &HQWHU LQ )OHPLQJWRQ 1HZ -HUVH\ +HU SURIHVVLRQDO DQG VFKRODVWLF DIILOLDWLRQV LQFOXGH WKH $PHULFDQ 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ $VVRFLDWLRQ 3KL 'HOWD .DSSD DQG $OSKD /DPEGD 'HOWD DQG &DUGLQDO .H\ KRQRUDU\ VRFLHWLHV

PAGE 136

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLSQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 3URIHVVRU QLVWUDWLRQ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW nLQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ /HOD $ /ORUHQV n /HOD $ /ORUHQV 3URIHVVRU DQG &KDLUSHUVRQ RI 2FFXSDWLRQDO 7KHUDS\ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ -£+HV / :DWWHQEDUJHU URIHVVRU DQG &KDLUSHUVRQ RI (GXFDWLRQDO $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQDO $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ LQ WKH &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH &RXQFLO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUn WLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 'HFHPEHU 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 137

IORULGA cOMpAA


8
Procedures
The investigation was national in scope. Questionnaires were
utilized as the means of gathering information. In the following para
graphs, attention is given to the selection of participants, instrumen
tation and data collection, and data analysis.
Selection of Participants
The participants for this study were drawn from all but one of the
baccalaureate and certificate degree programs listed by the American
Occupational Therapy Association in its pamphlet, "Educational Programs
in Occupational Therapy," (1977). The one exception was the University
of Florida which was used as a test group for the instrument and was
therefore not included in the population for the study itself. There
fore, personnel associated with 48 professional programs were surveyed.
Three classes of participants were included from within each of
these programs:
1. The dean or eauivalent administrator to whom the chairperson
of occupational therapy was administratively accountable (total--48).
2. The chairperson of the occupational therapy education depart
ment (total--48).
3. Four faculty members in occupational therapy--the two oldest
and the two newest in terms of time in that department (total 192).
The chairpersons were asked to select and give questionnaires to these
individuals as it was considered that this was the best way to achieve
a representative sampling of faculty. (Chairperson responses to the
question about the number of full-time faculty indicated that of the
38 programs participating in this study, 21 had fewer than 4 full-time
faculty.)


86
Author
6. Evaluator
Morgan and
Canfield
1. Evaluate faculty effectiveness.
2. Develop evaluation of department input and output.
3. Use consumer input to improve program.
4. Objectively evaluate organizational effectiveness.
5. Use evaluation information to improve system.
Dilley
Evaluate faculty and program.
Euwema
Periodically evaluate all personnel.
Heimler
Evaluate faculty and staff.
Underwood
Be an evaluator.
Smith
1. Evaluate faculty.
2. Implement procedures for reviewing faculty com
plaints.
3. Evaluate college education and administrative pol
icies and/or procedures for purpose of recommending
needed changes.
4. Review statistical data to evaluate department
effectiveness.
Dagenais
1. Utilize techniques for systematic planning and
implementation, e.g. PERT, PPBS, Task Analysis, etc.
2. Collect, analyze, and interpret data related to
administrative problems.


32
The Literature in Retrospect
The literature review for this study encompassed occupational
therapy education, role theory and role conflict theory, and theory
related to the chairperson role. When viewing the occupational therapy
literature, it can be seen that the chairperson role requires differ
ent, and additional skills to those of chairpersons of traditional
academic areas. When this literature is viewed alongside that of role
and role conflict theory there is the question of whether there may be
potentially more or different role expectations for such chairpersons
and consequently more potential role conflicts.
The studies that have been conducted and the theory that has been
generated related to the role of chairpersons formed the basis of the
instrument used in this study to investigate the role expectations and
potential role conflicts among occupational therapy department chair
persons, deans, and faculty.


6
the occupational therapy program. The chairperson, and four faculty,
the two oldest and the two newest in length of service in the depart
ment, were asked to do likewise, in each of the 48 departments included
in this study. Returns indicated that 21 of the 39 programs responding
had fewer than 4 full-time faculty.
In sum, using a researcher developed instrument, perceptions were
sought from 48 deans, 48 chairpersons, and 192 faculty members. Re
sponses were received from 32 deans, 38 chairpersons, and 127 faculty.
A limitation of this study was the reality that full return on
mailed questionnaires is unlikely, and that the results were therefore
skewed by the percentage of non-returns. Also, because of their knowl
edge that they were participating in a research investigation, the
respondents may have been influenced in their answers. In an attempt
to minimize this effect, respondents were assured of complete anonymity
and confidentiality.
Since the study encompasses 48 of the 49 accredited programs in
the United States and since the return rate from chairpersons was 79%,
deans was 67%, and faculty was 66%, it was believed that the general-
izability of this study was not seriously hampered and that there
therefore was still a reasonably high degree of external validity.
Definition of Terms
Allied health. Those professionals that are traditionally consid
ered "allied" to medicine. Generally included are occupational ther
apy, physical therapy, rehabilitation counseling, vocational


75
It is obvious from some of the conclusions drawn that the poten
tial for conflict is present in the proprams included in this study.
Much has been written about the problems which result from lack of
agreement about role expectations. Parsons and Shils (1951) define the
relationship between the role incumbent, or ego (chairperson in this
case) and those who border that role, or alters (deans and faculty in
the present study) as follows:
The essential element in the role is the complementarity
of expectations. The outcome of ego's action, in terms of
its significance to him is contingent on alter's reaction
to what he does. This reaction in turn is not random but
is organized relative to alter's expectation concerning
what is "proper" behavior on ego's part. (p. 154)
In the present study, "complementarity of expectations," particu
larly in actual practice, was infrequent. Even though for the total
responding groups there was general agreement relative to what was
ideal, as the results of statistical tests showed in 20 of the 26 indi
vidual programs included a significant difference existed among the
three respondent groups in their perception of the idealized role of
the chairperson. Also, for the total of responding groups, and in 22
of the 27 individual programs, a significant difference was found in
perception of the actual role behavior of the chairperson.
Getzels (1958) said that the better one understands the role one
plays in an organization and the more congruence which exists between
expectations for that role (of the chairperson in this study) and those
who border it (deans and faculty), the less conflict there is apt to be.
He is supported in this generalization by other theoreticians who have
shown that where disagreement exists about role expectations for the
chairperson, there is potential for conflict (Kahn, 1966, p. 278;
Parson and Shils, 1951, p. 350; Blau and Scott, 1962, p. 195).


55
TABLE 14
T-VALUES BY INSTITUTION FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCEIVED IDEALIZED
AND ACTUAL ROLE OF CHAIRPERSON FOR DEANS, CHAIRPERSONS AND FACULTY
Institution
Deans
Chairpersons
Faculty
T Value
Significant?
T Value
Significant?
T Value
Significant?
A
28
no
4
yes
0
yes
B
0
yes
0
yes
0
yes
C
6
no
0
yes
29
no
D
all ties
no
17
no
0
yes
E
0
yes
0
yes
0
yes
F
0
yes
9
yes
0
yes
G
23.5
no
0
yes
0
yes
H
7
yes
1
yes
6
yes
I
0
yes
0
yes
0
yes
J
0
yes
16
no
0
yes
K
0
yes
11
yes
0
yes
L
0
yes
0
yes
1
yes
M
all ties
no
0
yes
0
yes
N
0
yes
13.5
no
0
yes
0
1
yes
0
yes
4.5
yes
P
0
yes
0
yes
1
yes
Q
0
yes
15
no
0
yes
R
0
yes
20
no
2
yes
S
0
yes
0
yes
0
yes
T
0
yes
2
yes
0
yes
U
0
yes
0
yes
0
yes
V
0
yes
0
yes
0
yes
W
2
yes
0
yes
0
yes
X
1
yes
15.5
no
1
yes
Y
6
yes
0
yes
1
yes
Z
9
yes
0
yes
4
yes
ZZ
0
yes
0
yes
All combinedj
O
yes
4
yes
0
yes


29
Volz's purpose was to "assess and analyze the perceptions of deans
of education, vocational education department heads, and vocational
education faculty concerning the actual and ideal role of the depart
ment head" (p. 4131-A). She used 10 vocational education departments
at major universities as her population. Using ANOVA, the Duncan's
multiple range test, and the correlated t test to analyze her date,
she found the following:
1. The greatest degree of congruency appeared to exist
with the college of education deans regarding the
actual and ideal performance of vocational education
department head's leader behavior. The least amount
of congruency existed with the faculty regarding
their perception of the actual and ideal leader be
havior of vocational education department heads.
2. Incongruency existed for both department heads and
faculty in their perceptions of actual vs. ideal
leader behavior.
3. Congruency existed among all three reference groups
with regard to their perceptions of both the overall
ideal leader behavior as well as the ideal leader
behavior on each of the 12 subscales.
4. The deans, department heads, and faculty perceived
the actual leader behavior of the vocational educa
tion department head congruently.
(p. 4131-A)
Aguon compared the perceptions of deans, department chairpersons,
and faculty about "qualifications for, methods of selection of, major
responsibilities of, and prerequisites of the department chair," on
both actual and ideal scales in a questionnaire consisting of 98 chair
person task descriptions. From a sample of 861 persons at Western
Michigan University she received a 47 percent usable response, and
reported the following results:
1. There were 18 descriptions on which the groups dif
fered significantly in their perceptions as to the
degree of importance that the descriptions had been
accorded in practice (real).


16
The practice of occupational therapy is the heart of our
fieldthe delivery of our particular kind of health care
services to patients or clients is the reason for the
existence of occupational therapy, (p. 74)
The administration of a department of occupational therapy then
requires accountability for the competent delivery of health care and
accountability to the accrediting bodies for the establishment and
maintenance of the program, as well as accountability to the university
administration.
Role Theory
Biddle and Thomas (1966) offered the following definitions of
role:
1. A behavioral repertoire characteristic of a person or
a position;
2. A set of standards, descriptions, norms, or concepts
held (by anyone) for the behaviors of a person or a
position;
3. A position, (pp. 11-12)
But Parsons and Shi 1s (1951) offered the most precise definition of
role as it related to the subject of the study reported herein:
. .the most significant unit of such point structures is not
the person but the role. The role is that organized sector
of an actor's orientation which constitutes and defines his
participation in an interactive process. It involves a set
of complementary expectations concerning his own actions
and those of others with whom he interacts. Both the actor
and those with whom he interacts possess these expectations.
Roles are institutionalized when they are fully congruous
with the prevailing culture patterns and are organized
around expectations of conformity with morally sanctioned
patterns of value-orientations shared by the members of the
collectivity in which the role functions, (p. 23)
They discussed the interaction between the role incumbent and the per
son viewing that role in the following excerpt:


53
TABLE 13
SUM OF RANKINGS OF TASK AREAS BY RESPONDENT GROUPS AND H VALUE FOR EACH
INSTITUTION, BASED ON PERCEPTIONS OF ACTUAL ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON
Institution**
Dean
Chairperson
Faculty
H Value
Significant at
.05 Level
A
*248
240
73
19.08
yes
B
264.5
163.5
133
9.28
yes
C
2.415
170.5
176
1.16
no
D
243.5
245
72.5
19.21
yes
E
199.5
241
120.5
7.35
yes
F
171
295
95
19.88
yes
G
86
298.5
176.5
22.22
yes
H
218.5
96.5
246
103.03
yes
I
164.5
307.5
89
24.04
yes
J
130
210.5
220.5
4.86
no
K
101.5
308
151.5
22.68
yes
L
237.5
146.5
177
4.22
no
M
217
235
109
9.10
yes
N
162.5
153
245.5
5.09
no
0
102.5
293.5
165
18.52
yes
P
241
235
85
15.28
yes
Q
251.5
201.5
108
10.39
yes
R
271.5
184
105.5
13.47
yes
S
228
197.5
135.5
4.38
no
T
171.5
253.5
136
7.11
yes
U
232.5
271.5
87
14.71
yes
V
266.5
156.5
138
9.44
yes
w
227
221
113
8.06
yes
X
254.5
220.5
86
15.52
yes
Y
188.5
118
254.5
9.14
yes
Z
171
304
86
23.67
yes
11
308
184
69
28.02
yes
All combined
162 j
99
295.5
18.01
yes
*Refers to the total of the rankings assigned to the 11 task areas
**Institutions are arranged in random order


24
chairman is and is not, what he should and should not be
.... Unlike the foreman in industry, his job is usually
so ill-defined that at most colleges there is no written
description of his duties. At best he finds himself torn
by loyalty and responsibility among at least three groups
with tremendous differences in goals, attitudes, needs and
criteria for approval: his disciplinary colleagues, his
students, and the administrators above him. (p. 11)
And yet, as Mobley indicated (1971), the department chairperson
fills one of the most important positions in a university. The chair
person holds line responsibility in the university and is therefore at
the point where the administration contacts the faculty. "The chairman
is the key to the success or failure of the departmental program"
(p. 321).
Roach (1976) noted:
The academic department chairperson shifts from being
a subject matter specialist to a developer of departmental
programs and a partner in shaping the educational mission
of the school.
Today the academic department is the key to the suc
cessful achievement of the school's primary mission. The
chairperson functions as chief academic planner and re
source allocator in his role as administrator of all as
pects of the department, (p. 13)
The middleperson position is the cause of considerable role con
flict for chairpersons, as pointed out by Corson (1975), Brann (1972),
and Lee (1972), among others. Lee presented the issue well:
The role. . of the department chairman is an ex
ceedingly difficult one. In his own eyes he is still
primarily a teacher who has assumed certain administrative
tasks and responsibilities. He has not, as it were,
"sold out" completely to the other side by becoming a
dean. He is, therefore, quite often in conflict as to
whether his role is one of spokesman for his colleagues
in the department, or whether it is one of an adminis
trator who must make the decisions not only for the
welfare of his department, but for the welfare of the
college and university as a whole. What is difficult
of course is that he must balance both roles, (p. 54-
55)


19
person should and should not do under various circumstances as the in
cumbent of a particular role in a social system" (Getzels et al.,
1968, p. 64).
The personal dimension in the model consists of the individual,
her/his personality, and her/his need-dispositions. They included this
dimension because it makes the system account for the fact that people
have different personalities and unique styles of dealing with their
roles. They contended that it is not enough to know the nature of the
normative dimension elements to understand a particular person's behav
ior in a system. It is essential to also know about the person indi
vidually, to understand the person's ways of Derceiving and her/his
particular needs (p. 65).
Getzels and associates' definition of personality was a result of
borrowing from Allport and Parsons and inserting some of their own
interpretation: "Personality is the dynamic organization within the
individual of those need-dispositions that determine his unique inter
actions with his environment (Getzels et al., 1968, p. 68).
Need-dispositions were seen as forces within the individual which
are goal-oriented. They determine the cognitive and perceptual styles
which a person brings to any role, they vary in specificity and they
are organized, both horizontally and vertically. This latter charac
teristic means that the very gratification of one need (e.g., landing
a good job) may activate other needs (e.g., to innovate). Getzels and
associates urged that administrators must be aware of this so they do
not inadvertently foster dissatisfaction by putting an employee into a
role and then assuming all will be well (pp. 70-75).


- florid^.
¡lj^^9946


22
contradictory, and create internal strain for the individual. Likewise,
a college professors' students expect a priority on teaching, where her/
his dean may expect a priority on research and publishing. Another
kind of role conflict occurs when the individual attempts to fill two
or more contradictory roles at one time (e.g., principal-counselor,
manager-leader) (Getzels, 1958, p. 161). It is necessary for adminis
trators to facilitate clarification of role and expectations in order
to minimize potential role conflict.
Gross, Mason & McEachern (1958) added the perspective that role
conflict should be defined "according to incompatible expectations by
the actor" (p. 244), in addition to those held by the alter groups.
Thus, this definition of interrole conflict is that situation in which
the role incumbent perceives that others hold different expectations
for her/him as holder of two or more positions.
Kahn and associates (1966), addressed the matter of discovering
the degree of conflict in any given role set.
To understand the degree of conflict or ambiguity in
the role, the total pattern of [expectations of each role
sender and the nature of sent role pressures] must be con
sidered. A thorough investigation into all the role ex
pectations held at a given moment by all the members of
the role set should yield an indication of the potential
in the situation for conflict. The actual degree of ob
jective role conflict will depend on the configuration
of role pressures actually exerted by role senders on the
focal person. His experience of this conflict will in
turn depend upon its objective magnitude and on certain
characteristics of the focal person himself, (p. 278)
The ways in which role incumbents cope with this conflict is
also influenced by four mechanisms listed by Blau and Scott (1962),
as follows:
There are several mechanisms that help to articu
late. . conflicting demands: 1) differences in the
importance and power of the various members of an


REFERENCE LIST
Aguon, F.S. Status of department chairpersons as perceived by academic
college deans, department chairpersons and faculty at Western
Michigan University (Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan
University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International 1977,
38, 1755-A. (University Microfilms No. 77-22,956).
Aldmon, H.F. Critical behavioral requirements of heads of departments
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1959). Disserta
tion Abstracts International, 1960, 20, 3138. (University Micro-
films No. 59-6979).
American Occupational Therapy Association. Educational programs in
occupational therapy, 1977-78. Rockville, Maryland: 1977.
Anderson, K.J. The ambivalent department. Educational Record, 1968,
69, 206-213.
Biddle, 8.J., and Thomas, E.J. (eds.) Role theory: Concepts and
research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966.
Blau, P.M., and Scott, W.R. Formal organizations: A comparative
approach. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962.
Brann, 0. The chairman: An impossible job about the become tougher.
In J. Brann and T.A. Emmet (eds.) The academic department or
division chairman: A complex role. Detroit: Belamp Publishing,
1972.
Brann, J., and Emmet, T.A. (eds.) The Academic Department or Division
Chairman: A Complex Role. Detroit: Belamp Publishing, 1972.
Carnegie, C.D. Role expectations of community junior college depart
ment chairpersons (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer
sity, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 37,
7424-A. (University Microfilms No. 77-11,625).
Carroll, A.B. The role conflict phenomenon: Implications for depart
ment chairmen and academic faculty. Improving College and Univer
sity Teaching, 1976, 24, 245-46.
Chase, F.S., and Cuba, E.G. Administrative roles and behavior. Review
of Educational Research, 1955, 25, 287-98.
122


83
Author
2. Resource Developer (cont'd)
Daqenais
1. Manage personnel.
2. Utilize recruiting and selection procedures.
3. Describe job responsibilities for self and subor
dinates.
4. Plan and execute personnel evaluations.
5. Consider the relationship between school, community,
and government in decisions which affect program
administration.
6. Attempt to influence legislation which influences
allied health education and health care delivery.
3. Communicator
Morgan and
Canfield
1. Be open.
2. Effectively communicate organizational goals,
problems, etc.
3. Keep organization and public informed of health
developments.
4. Prepare effective presentations.
5. Prepare proper articles, etc.
6. Conduct meetings in a democratic manner.
7. Be well educated about language of areas for which
have responsibility.
8. Utilize illustrative techniques in presentations.
Dilley
Interpret.
Doyle
1. State department aims and offerings.
2. Represent department.
3. Maintain department.
Heimler
1. Respond to on and off campus inquiries.
2. Attend meetings and conferences.
3. Requisition texts and library materials.
Lee
Present departmental needs to the dean.
Underwood
Be responsible for curriculum.
Miller
Communicateone-way, two-way, with groups.
Smi th
1. Represent department in community service projects.
2. Prepare departmental public relations program with
program brochures, etc.
3. Report departmental accomplishments to dean.


82
Author
2. Resource Developer
Morgan and
Canfield
1. Maintain capable staff.
2. Recognize and utilize skills
3. Assign work rationally.
4. Balance needs and goals.
5. Educate public.
6. Utilize lay and professional advisory committee for
objectives and evaluation.
7. Identify government resources and directions where
appropriate.
8. Identify and procure supplemental funding.
Dilley
1. Faculty development.
2. Be a fighter.
Doyle
Maintain records.
Euwema
Responsible for selection of new personnel.
Heimler
1. Recruit faculty.
2. Improve instruction.
3. Prepare semester schedules.
4. Maintain department records.
5. Make faculty schedules.
Lee
1. Recruit faculty.
2. Make recommendations for promotion and tenure.
Underwood
Be an organizer.
Mi Her
1. Faculty recruitment, selection, and development.
2. Grantspersonship.
Smi th
1. Assign work space and facilities to faculty.
2. Assign faculty to teaching schedules.
3. Define teaching loads for faculty.
4. Orientate new faculty.
5. Be responsible for maintenance and repair of lab and
classroom equipment and other tangibles.
6. Formulate policies relating to faculty use of mater
ials and equipment.
7. Participate in faculty recruitment.
8. Maintain liaison with community agencies and organ
izations.
9. Encourage faculty to participate in conventions,
conferences, etc.
10. Seek outside funds for the department.
11. Plan for long range department equipment needs.
12. Determine department class size policies.


123
Copeland, B. Jr. Faculty perception of the professional role of the
administrator of the academic department (Doctoral dissertation,
Kansas State University, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts Interna
tional 1976, 36, 4894-A. (University Microfilms No. 76-2925).
Corson, J.J. The governance of colleges and universities (Rev. ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975.
Davis, J.H. Selected perceptions of chairmen in high innovative and
low innovative departments (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Florida, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976,
36, 7831-A. (University Microfilms No. 76-12,061).
Dean, G.W. Role conflict among community college chairpersons and its
relationship to satisfaction and effectiveness (Doctoral disser
tation, University of California in Los Angeles, 1975.) Disser
tation Abstracts International, 1976, 36, 5677-A. (University
Microfilms No. 76-5118).
Diasio, K. The modern era1960 to 1970. American Journal of Occupa
tional Therapy, 1971, 25, 237-42.
Dilley, F.B. The department chairman as academic planner. In J. Brann
and T.A. Emmet (Eds.) The Academic Department or Division Chairman:
A Complex Role. Detroit: Belamp Publishing, 1972.
Doyle, E.A. The status and functions of the department chairman.
Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of American Press, 1953.
Euwema, B. The organization of the department. Educational Record,
1953, 34, 41-2.
Franks, R.J. The role of the department head within selected Wisconsin
vocational, technical and adult education districts (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Wisconsin at Madison, 1976). Disser
tation Abstracts International, 1976, 36, 5682-A. (University
Microfilms No. 75-28,006).
Gerwin, R.H. Role of the department chairperson in the administration
of health education programs in community colleges (Doctoral dis
sertation, Columbia University Teachers College, 1977). Disserta
tion Abstracts International, 1978, 38, 3968-A. (University
Microfilms No. 77-27,885).
Getzels, J.W. Administration as a social process. In A.W. Halpin
(Ed.), Administrative Theory in Education. New York: The Mac
millan Company, 1958.
Getzels, J.W., and Guba, E.G. Role, role conflict, and effectiveness:
an empirical study. American Sociological Review, 1954, 164-
175.
Getzels, J.W., Lipham, J.M. & Campbell, R.F. Educational administra
tion as a social process. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.


124
Gross, N., Mason, W.S., and McEachern, A.W. Exploration in role
analysis: Studies of the school superintendency role. New York:
John Wiley 8 Sons, Inc., 1958.
Heimler, C.H. The college departmental chairman. Educational Record,
1968, 49, 158-63.
Jantzen, A.C. Academic occupational therapy as a career specialty.
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1974, 28, 73-81.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D., 8 Rosenthal, R.A.
Adjustment to role conflict and ambiguity in organizations. In
B.J. Biddle and E.J. Thomas (Eds.) Role Theory: Concepts and
research. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons, Inc., 1966.
Lee, C.B.T. Relationship of the department chairman to the academic
dean. In B.J. Brann and E.J. Emmet (Eds.) The academic department
or division chairman: A complex role. Detroit: Belamp Publish
ing, 1972.
Lewin, K. Field theory in social science. Mew York: Harper and Broth
ers, 1951.
Mishler, E.G. Personality characteristics and the resolution of role
conflicts. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1953, 1_7, 115-35.
Mobley, T.A. Selectino the department chairman. Educational Record,
1971 52, 321-327'.
Morgan, M.K., and Canfield, A.A. (Eds.) Administrative competencies in
education and the allied health professions. Gainesville, Florida:
Center for Allied Health Instructional Personnel, 1972.
Parsons, T., and Shils, E.A. (Eds.) Toward a general theory of action.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951.
Richardson, R.D., Blocker, D.E., 8 Bender, C.W. Governance for the two-
year college. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prnetice-Hall, Inc.,
1972.
Roach, J.H.L. The academic department chairperson: functions and
responsibilities. Educational Record, 1976, 57^ 13-23.
Seigel, S. Non-parametric statistics for the behavior sciences. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956.
Sharpe, R.T. The delimma of leadership. Junior College Journal, 1954,
24, 536-44.
Smith, A.B., III. Role expectations and observations of community col
lege department chairmen: an organizational study of consensus and
conformity (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 31_, 6370-A. (Univer-
sity Microfilms No. 71-15,310).


APPENDIX E
RANKING OF EACH OF THE 87 IDEALIZED ROLE EXPECTATIONS
FOR EACH RESPONDENT GROUP AND FOR ALL GROUPS COMBINED


15
issue of what to teach remained a heavily debated one...
and it wasn't until national registration began in 1929
that occupational therapy had a specific set of creden
tials for their practitioners. (Woodside, 1971, p. 228-
29)
The minimum standards for education which Woodside mentioned were
developed in partnership with the American Medical Association, which
has retained co-control of occupational therapy education. Until 1974
the minimum standards for education declared that clinical subjects
should be formulated and conducted in collaboration with physicians.
This situation led Karen Diasio to declare, in 1971, "The American
Medical Association still controls occupational therapy currculums"
(p. 240).
Occupational therapy departments, for the most part, were located
where there may be considerable input directly from the medical profes-
sion--either within medical schools, or in colleges of allied health or
health related professions which are largely controlled by the medical
education establishment. This relationship removes from the department
chairperson some of the power over curriculum content which is gener
ally held by that position. The accrediting process through the Amer
ican Medical Association and the American Occupational Therapy Associa
tion puts the department chairperson in the position of accepting
directions from individuals who may or may not be qualified to make
the best judgements for the profession of occupational therapy.
The above delineated factors in the development of occupational
therapy education indicate that the administration of such departments
demand different knowledge and skills from those required of tradition
al academic department chairpersons. For instance, as Alice Jantzen
stated in her Eleanor Clarke Slagle Lecture in 1973:


CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
The review of related literature for this study is divided into
three major sections. The first describes briefly the development of
occupational therapy education. This is important for an understanding
of the context within which occupational therapy chairpersons function.
The second section focuses on role theory and role-conflict theory. In
the third and final part the focus is on the theoretical literature and
research relative to chairperson roles.
Development of Occupational Therapy Education
In her article in the American Journal of Occupational Therapy in
1971, Harriet Heitlinger Woodside related that occupational therapy
emerged from two sources. The first was in the psychiatric milieu
where, in the late 1800's, "the therapeutic value of free, pleasant and
profitable occupation developed and the more advanced mental hospitals
began creating recreational and work programs" (p. 227).
Many of the founders of the profession of occupational
therapy were the doctors, nurses, and craftsmen engaged
in adventures in using activities to help mental patients
experience the feeling of productivity. These founders
became convinced that their endeavors speeded the patients'
recovery, (p. 227)
The second source from which occupational therapy sprang was the First
World War.
13


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
Rank
Mean
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
9
3.82
71. Maintaining a receptivity and
accessibility to others
60.5
3.97
72. Learning the language (common
terminology) of areas for which
has responsibility
78.5
4.19
73. Organizing presentations which
effectively convey ideas
39
3.68
74. Striving to resolve conflicts
between faculty and central
administrators
25
3.46
75. Helping to resolve conflicts
among departmental faculty
47.5
3.81
76. Maintaining departmental records
45
3.79
77. Conducting meetings in a manner
to encourage involvement of all
70
4.07
78. Implementing procedures for
reviewing faculty complaints
29
3.54
79. Striving to resolve conflicts
between students and faculty
55.5
3.90
STUDENTS
10
3.84
80. Reviewing trends in student
characteristics
17
3.34
81. Identifying implications of
changing student characteristics
22.5
3.41
for departmental programs
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULTY
Rank Mean
ALL COMBINED
Rank Mean
8
3.95
3.5
3.32
7
3.70
82.5
4.43
59.5
3.66
74.5
4.02
28
3.70
76
3.82
60
3.90
24
3.61
35.5
3.18
31
3.49
40
3.88
30.5
3.10
29
3.48
41.5
3.89
10.5
2.76
31
3.49
61.5
4.14
75
3.79
61.5
3.91
64
4.22
50
3.48
63
3.92
30
3.74
7.5
2.68
19.5
3.32
47
3.94
44
3.34
47
3.73
5
3.73
5.5
3.44
5.5
3.67
34
3.79
23.5
3.04
23
3.39
31
3.76
34
3.17
26
3.45


67
Students, Evaluation, Leadership, Extra-departmental Communication,
and Faculty Development.
7. Faculty members perceived their chairpersons placing actual
importance on 69 of the 87 individual role expectation items. When the
items were organized into the 11 task areas, the following perception
of actual chairperson role behavior emerged. Faculty agreed with deans
in their perception that chairpersons place highest actual importance
on Evaluation, (which chairpersons see themselves placing fourth from
the bottom in actual importance). This was followed in descending
order by Planning, a tie between Leadership and Curriculum, Extra-
departmental Communication, Fiscal Responsibility and Students (tied),
Climate Setting and Inter-departmental Communication (tied), Instruc
tion, and Faculty Development.
8. When data from all groups were combined, it was found that 78
of the 87 individual items were considered to be important in the
actual behavior of the chairperson. The importance, in descending
order, of the 11 task areas for "all groups combined" was as follows:
Curriculum; a tie among Planning, Leadership, and Evaluation; Inter
departmental Communication, Leadership and Students (tied); Climate
Setting; Instruction; Extra-departmental Communication; and Faculty
Development.
9. In 20 of the 26 programs analyzed there was significant dif
ference in perception among the dean, chairperson and faculty in regard
to the idealized role of the chairperson.
10. When all 26 programs were considered together rio significant
difference was found among the way the deans, chairpersons, and faculty
perceived the ideal role of the chairperson.


36
Twenty-nine of the deans had doctoral degrees (Ed.D., Ph.D., M.D.).
Seven doctoral degrees were held by chairpersons and four by faculty
(Table 3).
TABLE 3
GRADUATE DEGREES HELD BY THE RESPONDENTS*
Degree
Deans
(n= 32)
Chairpersons
(n=38)
Faculty
(n=l27)
All
(n=197)
Ph.D.
18
7
4
29
M.D.
4
4
Ed. D.
7
7
Ph.D. Cand.
1
7
2
10
Ed.D. Cand.
1
1
Spec. Ed.
2
2
S.P.H.
1
1
M.O.T.
6
6
M.B.A.
1
1
2
M.P.H.
1
1
2
4
H. Ed.
1
2
15
18
M.P.O.T.
1
1
M.S.
4
15
33
52
M.A.
8
12
40
60
Total
45
47
105
197
*Some respondents indicated two degrees beyond the bachelor's
As shown in Table 4, the deans received the largest number of
their degrees in physical sciences and administration. The majority
of chairpersons and faculty held graduate degrees in occupational ther
apy and education.


95
Rating Scale
Highest importance
Circle 5
Very important
Circle 4
Average importance
Circle 3
Low importance
Circle 2
Unimportant
Circle 1
No opinion/Knowledge
Circle 0
Actual
Importance
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL No
COMMUNICATION
Low High Knowledge
1. Maintaining a receptivity 12345 0
and accessibility to others
2. Learning the language 12345 0
(common terminology) of
areas for which has respon
sibility
3. Organizing presentations 12345 0
which effectively convey
ideas
4. Striving to resolve con- 12345 0
flicts between faculty
and central administrators
5. Helping to resolve con- 12345 0 -
flicts among departmental
faculty
6. Maintaining departmental 12345 0
records
7.Conducting meetings in a 12345 0
manner to encourage involve
ment of all
8. Implementing procedures 12345 0
for reviewing faculty
complaints
9. Striving to resolve con- 12345 0
flicts between students
and faculty
Ideal
Importance
No
Low High Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0


89
Rating Scale
Highest importance
Very important
Average importance
Low importance
Unimportant
No opinion/Knowledge
PLANNING
Circle 5
Circle 4
Circle 3
Circle 2
Circle 1
Circle 0
Actual
Importance
No
Low High Knowledge
1. Defining and clarifying 12345 0
long-range goals and ob
jectives.
2. Considering the implica- 12345 0
tions of alternative models
of allied health education
in terms of their ultimate
effects on health delivery
3. Developing plans to achieve 12345 0
long and short range objec
tives
4. Understanding and imple- 12345 0
menting organizational
policy.
5. Reviewing long-range goals 12345 0
and objectives periodically
6. Collecting, analyzing and 12345 0
interpreting data related
to administrative problems
7. Recognizing the general 12345 0
legal principles that af
fect program administration
such as legal responsibility
and liability
LEADERSHIP
1. Making decisions 12345 0
2. Attempting to influence 12345 0
legislation which effects
allied health education and
health care delivery
3. Delegating authority 12345 0
4. Applying democratic ideas 12345 0
in the directing of the
department
Ideal
Importance
No
Low High Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0


CHAPTER III
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Of the 288 questionnaires mailed for this study, 197, or 68%,
were returned with some usable data. This consisted of returns from
32, or 67%, of the deans; 38, or 79%, of the chairpersons; and 127,
or 66%, of the faculty. There were 27 programs (57%) from which ques
tionnaires were received from the dean, the chairperson, and at least
one faculty member. The responses from the persons associated with
these 27 programs constituted the population used in answering prob
lem questions 4 and 5. However, only 26 programs were used in answer
ing question number 3 because the dean of one program failed to com
plete the idealized portion of the questionnaire. Questions 1, 2, 6,
and 7 were analyzed on the basis of all questionnaires returned (197).
Twenty-one of the 38 responding chairpersons indicated that their
program had fewer than 4 full-time faculty members. There were some
instances in which respondents either left a question unanswered or
circled "0" on the scale. On no one question, however, was the number
of non-respondents or "0's" sufficient to skew the data.
This chapter is organized into six major sections. In the section
immediately following, background data about the subjects are presented,
along with information about the program. This provides the reader
with some basis for understanding the context in which the perceptions
33


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULTY
Rank
Mean
ALL COMBINED
Rank Mean
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY (cont'd)
20. Interpreting salary schedules
and payroll procedures for
faculty and staff
82
4.53
53
4.32
67.5
4.35
71
4.40
21. Reducing duplication and overlap
in activities and expenditures
66
4.30
84.5
4.74
64
4.32
76.5
4.45
22. Communicating budget needs to
staff and higher administration
52
4.17
55
4.38
52
4.20
52.5
4.25
23. Approving departmental purchase
requests
38
4.06
73.5
4.57
58.5
4.27
60.5
4.30
24. Seeking a larger share of college
funds for the department
79
4.45
53
4.32
39.5
4.02
55.5
4.26
EVALUATION
3
3.94
1
3.60
1
3.59
1
3.71
25. Developing and utilizing a system
for curriculum evaluation
46.5
4.13
7
3.62
15
3.69
16.5
3.81
26. Evaluating college education and
administration policies and/or
procedures, for the purpose of
recommending needed changes
70
4.33
3
3.34
43
4.07
26
3.91
27. Utilizing lay and professional
advisory committees for program
evaluation and improvement
27.5
3.93
23.5
3.97
17.5
3.73
22
3.88
28. Reviewing statistical data to
evaluate departmental effective
ness
53
4.18
37
4.14
41.5
4.04
45
4.12


50
hypothesis of no significant difference. As Seigel (1956), has noted,
the Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance Test is useful for de
ciding whether K independent samples are from different populations,
or whether differences among samples just represent chance variations
"such as are to be expected among several random samples from the same
population" (p. 184).
Differences in Perception About Idealized Chairperson Role
The third problem question of this study was:
Is there a difference in perception about idealized
chairperson role among dean, chairperson, and faculty
in each institution and for all institutions?
Table 12 shows the sum of the rankings for the 11 task areas for
the dean, the chairperson, and the faculty for each of the 26 programs
which were analyzed in relation to this question. (As mentioned pre
viously, one dean did not complete the idealized portion of the ques
tionnaire.) As can be seen from this table, in 20 of the 26 programs
analyzed there was significant difference among the dean, chairperson,
and faculty in the way the idealized role of the chairperson was per
ceived. When all 26 institutions were considered together, however, no
significant difference appeared among deans, chairpersons, and faculty
(H = 2.41).


3
One cause of this turnover may be that occupational therapy is an
applied area rather than an academic one, and the related continuing
disregard for the need to prepare individuals in professional education
for roles in faculty and administration of occupational therapy educa
tion (Jantzen, 1974).
The practice of occupational therapy is the heart of
our fieldthe delivery of our particular kind of health
care services to patients or clients is the reason for the
existence of occupational therapy. ... I would like to
have you consider academic occupational therapy as a career
specialty in our field, grounded in the basic bodies of
knowledge required of clinical specialties, but requiring
additional knowledge for competent performance in the
academic setting. (p.74)
Carrying this point further, most persons who come to the chair
person role have training and experience as clinicians, and many as
faculty; but almost none have experience or training as academic admin
istrators. This may result in their being less confident of what
their role is in the academic setting. The better one understands the
role one plays in an organization and the more congruence which exists
between expectations for that role (of the chairperson) and those who
border it (deans and faculty), the less conflict there is apt to be
(Getzels, 1958, p. 160).
By using all the professional level occupational therapy education
programs accredited by the American Occupational Therapy Association as
the population for the study reported herein, the results can be gener
alized and applied appropriately to examination of problems in any one,
or number of, these problems. The results of this study show where
areas of both agreement and disagreement exist about role-expectations
for chairpersons. Where disagreement exists, there is potential for
conflict (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek & Rosenthal, 1966, p. 278; Parsons
& Shils, 1951, p. 350; Blau & Scott, 1962, p. 195).


31
health administrator competencies which had been developed in Califor
nia. He surveyed a national sample of allied health administrators in
community colleges and in senior colleges, and presidents of community
colleges, and had each rate the usefulness of each of the California
developed competency statements. Most of the items were rated toward
the high or "useful" end of the scale, with the senior college adminis
trators rating them highest. He also compared the California state
ments with those developed at the University of Florida, and found
major overlap, with differences primarily in wording and in grouping
concept.
Literature As It Related to Occupational Therapy Department
Chairperson's Role Expectations and Potential Areas of Conflict
The proceedings and paper just mentioned formed the base for
the development of the list of role-expectations for the present study
since they both dealt specifically with allied health education. The
competencies, or role-expectations, identified in those two sources
were compared with department chairperson role-expectations enumerated
by other sources in educational administration, including Dilley (1972),
Doyle (1953), Euwena (1953), Heimler (1968), Lee (1972), Smith (1970),
Underwood (1972), and Miller (Note 3). All competencies were listed
in tabular form, with the allied health administrator competencies of
Morgan and Canfield forming the pattern into which all others were
organized (See Appendix A).


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEAN
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSON
Rank Mean
FACULTY
Rank Mean
ALL COMBINED
Rank Mean
CLIMATE SETTING (cont'd)
49. Maintaining a capable support
staff
14
3.26
12
3.32
16
2.88
12
3.15
50. Maintaining a departmental
library
87
4.59
38.5
3.86
23.5
3.04
55
3.83
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
1
3.50
1
3.61
1
3.05
1
3.39
51. Encouraging faculty to
participate in conventions,
conferences, and meetings
68
4.03
85
4.53
78
3.89
82
4.15
52. Leading the faculty in
establishing goals for growth
55.5
3.93
37
3.81
61
3.67
50.5
3.80
53. Encouraging research and
publication
30
3.56
38.5
3.86
74
3.74
46
3.72
54. Making recommendations for
promotion and tenure
33
3.60
44.5
3.92
17.5
2.95
31
3.49
55. Orienting new faculty
19.5
3.38
21
3.54
32
3.12
21
3.35
56. Developing in-service education
for new faculty
12
3.18
6
2.81
6
2.62
7
2.88
57. Recruiting faculty
9.5
3.12
9
3.14
4
2.42
8.5
2.89
58. Providing a rewarding environ
ment for mobility within the
department
11
3.17
7
2.94
2
2.25
2
2.79
59. Involving faculty in decision
making
27.5
3.53
51.5
3.97
13
2.81
24.5
3.44


74
that role. It can be suggested, however, that the similarity in back
grounds of chairpersons and faculty provides a basis for the similarity
in idealized perceptions about chairperson role. It can be further
suggested that the divergence in perception of actual chairperson be
havior may be the result of a lack of understanding on the part of
faculty about the demands placed on the chairpersons in their role as
"middle-managers." The deans, as administrators, may be more likely
than faculty to understand the pressures the chairpersons experience in
the actual performance of their role. Thus, the deans may appraise the
chairpersons more realistically relative to how the chairpersons per
ceived themselves actually functioning.
The findings of the study partially support what Smith (1970)
found in his study of community college chairpersons:
The results support the conclusion that community
college faculty members on the average,are in basic dis
agreement with department chairmen and upper echelon
administrators over their expectations for and observa
tions of the role behavior of incumbents of the community
college chairman's position, (p. 317)
According to Lee (1972), there are other variables apart from role
itself and personal demographics which effect that role, including size
of department (in both number of faculty and number of students), place
of department in the institution, type of department, and the time in
the department's history the chairperson is appointed. In the present
study the six largest departments in terms of number of faculty and/or
students included three of the four departments where no significant
differences about actual chairperson behavior were found among the
three respondent groups, and three of the six programs where no signi
ficant differences were found in idealized behavior. This is the only
such association which seems logical.


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEAN
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULTY
Rank Mean
ALL
Rank
COMBINED
Mean
INSTRUCTION
6
3.70
6
3.79
2
3.15
3
3.55
38. Working with faculty to improve
instruction
50
3.87
51.5
3.97
30.5
3.10
41
3.65
39. Assigning faculty to teaching
schedules
6
3.06
16
3.42
28.5
3.08
15
3.19
40. Participating in development
of departmental admissions
standards
74
4.13
74.5
4.38
82
4.03
85
4.18
41. Determining departmental class
size policies
55.5
3.90
48.5
3.95
20
3.01
38.5
3.62
42. Defining teaching loads for
faculty
7
3.08
5
2.74
1
2.20
1
2.67
43. Assigning work space and
facilities to faculty
80
4.25
71
4.31
67
3.70
77.5
4.09
44. Taking responsibility for
maintenance and repair of lab
36
3.64
36
3.80
17.5
2.95
27.5
3.46
and classroom equipment
CLIMATE SETTING
4.5
3.66
7
3.82
3.5
3.32
4
3.60
45. Recognizing problems in department
76
4.14
82.5
4.43
77
3.86
81
4.14
46. Attempting to minimize barriers to
maximum departmental efficiency
1
2.61
19
3.48
12
2.79
10
2.96
47. Recognizing and utilizing employee
skills
19.5
3.38
17
3.46
42
3.29
22
3.38
48. Striving to balance needs and
goals for department
64.5
4.00
74.5
4.38
85
4.11
83
4.16


43
TABLE 10
PERCEPTIONS OF THE IDEALIZED ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON
Task Area
Deans
(n=31)
Rank Mean
Chairpersons
(n=38)
Rank Mean
Faculty
(n=127)
Rank Mean
All
(n=l96)
Rank Mean
Planning
9
4.23
11
4.49
10
4.23
11
4.32
Fiscal
Responsibi1ity
11
4.32
9.5
4.37
8
4.17
10
4.29
Leadership
7
4.08
9.5
4.37
9
4.20
9
4.22
Instruction
10
4.24
7.5
4.28
6
4.12
8
4.21
Curriculum
6
4.03
7.5
4.28
11
4.24
7
4.18
Inter-departmental
Communication
8
4.14
5
4.18
7
4.14
6
4.15
Climate Setting
5
4.02
6
4.25
5
4.07
5
4.11
Faculty
Development
2
3.93
4
4.11
4
4.03
4
4.02
Extra-departmental
Communication
1
3.81
3
4.00
3
3.94
3
3.92
Students
4
4.01
2
3.94
2
3.77
2
3.91
Evaluation
3
3.94
1
3.60
1
3.59
1
3.71
As can be seen from Table 10, the most important task area for
"all groups combined" was Planning. This was followed by Fiscal Re
sponsibility, Leadership, Instruction, Curriculum, Inter-departmental
Communication, Climate Setting, Faculty Development, Extra-departmental
Communication, Students, and Evaluation respectively.
The deans, when considering the idealized role of the chairperson,
placed the task area of Fiscal Responsibility first, followed in
descending order by Instruction, Planning, Inter-departmental Communi
cation, Leadership, Curriculum, Climate Setting, Students, Evaluation,
Faculty Development, and Extra-departmental Communication.


51
TABLE 12
SUM (IF RANKINGS OF TASK AREAS BY RESPONDENT GROUPS AND H VALUE FOR EACH
INSTITUTION, BASED ON PERCEPTIONS OF IDEALIZED ROLE OF THE CHAIRPERSON
Institution**
Dean
Chairperson
Faculty
H Value
Significant at
.05 level
A
*154.5
281.5
125
13.51
yes
B
272
193
96
15.27
yes
C
155
290.5
115.5
16.49
yes
D
139
177
245
5.67
no
E
152.5
237
171.5
3.88
no
F
175
292.5
93.5
19.58
yes
G
68
295
198
25.53
yes
H
221
168.5
171.5
1.34
no
I
108
297
156
18.83
yes
J
136.5
144
280.5
12.85
yes
K
92
305.5
163.5
23.07
yes
L
299.5
115
146.5
19.56
yes
M
147.5
208.5
205
2.34
no
N
157.5
121
282.5
14.02
yes
0
127.5
287
146.5
14.84
yes
P
188
302
71
27.00
yes
Q
223.5
87.5
250
14.86
yes
R
299
119
143
18.65
yes
S
167.5
253.5
140
6.89
yes
T
81.5
220
259.5
17.06
yes
U
275
216
70
25.14
yes
V
179
159.5
222.5
2.07
no
W
217.5
110
233.5
8.84
yes
X
228.5
98
234.5
11.65
yes
Y
193
131
237
5.58
no
Z
216
269.5
75.5
20.00
yes
All combined
194.5
149
217.5
2.41
no
Refers to the total of the rankings assigned to the 11 task areas
Institutions are arranged in random order


61
TABLE 16
CHAIRPERSON PERCEIVED CONFLICT, BY AREA
(n = 35)
Areas
No Conflict
Some
Confl ict
Much
Conflict
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Planning
25
71
6
17
4
11
Leadership
21
60
12
34
2
6
Fiscal
Responsibi1ity
26
74
8
23
1
3
Evaluation
23
66
10
29
2
6
Curricul urn
26
74
8
23
1
3
Instruction
29
83
5
14
1
3
Climate Setting
19
54
13
37
3
9
Faculty
Development
27
77
7
20
1
3
Extra-departmental
Communication
28
80
5
14
2
6
Inter-departmental
Communication
26
74
8
23
1
3
Students
28
80
7
20


As can be seen by examination, in 7 of the 11 instances over 25%,
or a fourth, of the department chairpersons reported some or much con
flict with either faculty or dean relative to the task area in question
In order to determine if this related to differences in perception of
idealized or actual role, it was worthwhile to compare the data in
Table 15 with each of these seven areas. For example, in the case of
Planning, where 28% of chairpersons reported some conflict, it can be
seen from Table 15 that, in terms of idealized perception of the Plan
ning area, the deans ranked it 9, chairpersons 11, and faculty 10.


23
individual's role-set help to determine whose expectations
will govern his actions; 2) the fact that a person usually
does not have contact with all members of his role-set at
once enables him to live up to the expectations of some at
one time and to the conflicting expectations of others at
a different time; 3) when the others realize that they are
making conflicting demands. . they will themselves often at
tempt to resolve their differences; and 4) several indivi
duals occupying the same social status can combine for
mutual support. . (p. 195)
It is clear, from this presentation of role conflict theory, that
1) such conflict is common, and 2) the first step toward resolving it
is to recognize its existence. The present study was intended to de
termine in part the source of possible role conflict for chairpersons
by determining where there is incongruence in expectations about chair
person role between and among themselves and those who border that role
(i.e., deans and faculty). Additionally, chairpersons were asked to
identify what they perceived as areas of conflict between themselves
and those two alter groups.
Department Chairperson Role
This section is devoted to a) an overview of general literature
addressing the topic, b) a presentation of several related studies,
and c) the development of a list of chairperson role-expectations taken
from a number of sources and synthesized into the instrument for the
present study.
Overview
Joy Hastings Davis (1975) began discussion of this topic in her
dissertation with the following paragraph:
Perhaps the most accurate description of the role of
the university department chairman is ambivalent as there
exists a plethora of literature describing what the


93
Rating Scale
Highest importance
Circle
5
Very important
Circle
4
Average importance
Circle
3
Low importance
Circle
2
Unimportant
Circle
1
No opinion/Knowledge
Circle
0
Actual
Importance
Mo
CLIMATE SETTING Low High Knowledge
1. Recognizing problems in 12345 0
department
2. Attempting to minimize bar- 12345 0
riers to maximum departmen
tal efficiency
3. Recognizing and utilizing 12345 0
employee skills
4. Striving to balance needs 12345 0
and goals for department
5. Maintaining a capable sup- 12345 0
port staff
6. Maintaining a departmental 12345 .0
library
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
1. Encouraging faculty to 12345 0
participate in conventions,
conferences, and meetings
2. Leading the faculty in es- 12345 0
tablishing goals for growth
3. Encouraging research and 12345 0
publication
4. Making recommendations for 12345 0
promotion and tenure
5. Orienting new faculty 12345 0
6. Developing in-service ed- 12345 0
ucation for new faculty
7. Recruiting faculty 12345 0
8. Providing a rewarding en- 12345 0
vironment including oppor
tunities for mobility within
the department
9. Involving faculty in 12345 0
decision making
Ideal
Importance
No
Low High Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0


As can be seen from Table 11, "all groups combined" saw Curriculum
as the task area on which they perceived the chairperson actually plac
ing most importance. This was followed by a tie among Planning, Fiscal
Responsibility, and Evaluation (which was ranked lowest in idealized
importance.) The remaining task areas in descending order of impor
tance were Inter-departmental Communication, Students and Leadership
(tied), Climate Setting, Instruction, Extra-departmental Communication,
and Faculty Development.
Deans ranked Evaluation as the task area on which they saw the
chairperson placing greatest importance. This was followed by Students,
Inter-departmental Communication, Curriculum, Fiscal Responsibility,
Instruction, Planning and Climate Setting (tied), Leadership, Extra-
departmental Communication, and Faculty Development.
Chairpersons saw themselves placing greatest actual importance on
the area of Curriculum (which they ranked fourth in ideal importance).
They considered Fiscal Responsibility next, followed by Planning,
Inter-departmental Communication, Climate Setting, Instruction, Stu
dents, Evaluation, Leadership, Extra-departmental Communication, and
Faculty Development.
Faculty agreed with deans in their perception that chairpersons
placed greatest actual importance on the task area of Evaluation
(chairpersons saw themselves placing this area fourth from the bottom
in actual importance). Faculty perceived chairpersons placing next
greatest importance in the areas of Leadership and Curriculum, followed
by Extra-departmental Communication, a tie between Fiscal Responsibil
ity and Students, then another tie between Inter-departmental Communi
cation and Climate Setting, and finally Instruction, and Faculty
Development.


85
Author
4. Educator (cont'd)
Smi th
(cont1d)
8. Determine which department courses and/or sections
will be offered, added, or canceled each term.
9. Approve additional class cards for department
course or section enrollments.
Dagenais
Consider the implications of alternative models of
allied health education in terms of their ultimate
effects on health delivery.
5. Fiscal Officer
Morgan and
Canfield
1. Understand budget system.
2. Use cost/benefit effectiveness.
3. Communicate budget needs.
4. Relate objectives to costs.
5. Reduce overlap.
Doyle
Prepare a departmental budget.
Heimler
Prepare a departmental budget and administer it.
Mi Her
Administer a budget.
Smith
1. Approve departmental purchase requests.
2. Seek larger share of college funds for department.
3. Prepare department's budget for submission to cen
tral administrator.
4. Oversee internal allocation of budget funds.
Dagenais
1. Utilize knowledge of financial aspects of adminis
tration.
2. Utilize knowledge of public and private funding
bases to secure financial support.
3. Utilize principles of accounting in the management
of a departmental or program budget.
4. Interpret salary schedules and payroll procedures.


APPENDIX D
CONFLICT AND JOB SATISFACTION SECTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE


26
Faculty members in allied health units have additional re
sponsibilities not necessarily essential to those affili
ated with arts and science departments. For example, our
faculty is expected to have competencies in the pragmatic
and relevant areas of patient or client care. (p. 4)
. . the influence of departmental chairman among other
university colleages may vary due to lack of the doctorate
and/or due to some chauvinistic prejudices against female
department chairman (sic) or faculty members, (p. 5)
In spite of all the aforementioned restraints and conflicts, the
chairperson is crucial to the strength or weakness of the department,
since she or he
. . has a great deal of authority in selection of faculty,
teaching assignments, and curricular content, and serves
as the formal intermediary between the faculty and the ad
ministration. (Suzuki, 1972, p. 6)
Related Studies
There are several major studies, one proceedings, and a paper
which are directly relevant to the present study. The earliest of
these was a dissertation done in 1953 by Doyle entitled The Status
and Functions of the Department Chairman. This was a study of 33
selected liberal arts colleges. He compiled descriptive information
on methods of selection of chairpersons; relationships between chair
person and faculty, chairperson and administration, and chairperson
duties. He found the following duties of department chairpersons:
1) teaching and supervisory functions
2) administrative duties such as
a) preparation of department budget
b) responsibility for statement of department aims
and offerings
c) proper maintenance of a departmental library
d) maintenance of faculty records of department
e) maintenance of student academic and personnel records


59
education and health care delivery"; #42, "Defining teaching loads for
faculty"; #56, "Developing in-service education for new faculty"; #57,
"Recruiting faculty"; #58, "Providing a rewarding environment including
opportunities for mobility within the department"; #61, "Keeping the
institution and public informed of health developments"; and #62,
"Preparing quality articles and communiques." The two items perceived
as ideally of "low importance," which were #30, "Evaluating faculty and
staff effectiveness"; and #36, "Reviewing occupational trends and iden
tifying implications for curriculum" are the other two items.
When each group of respondents was considered alone, it was found
that the faculty group marked 18 individual items as being of low or
no actual importance to their chairpersons. In comparison, seven such
items were so marked by the chairpersons, and four by the deans.
As can be seen from Appendix E, these 18 items marked by the
faculty included 8 of the 9 items perceived by "all groups combined"
as being of "low importance"; plus #24, "Seeking a larger share of
college funds for the department," and 2 items in Instruction, 1 in
Climate Setting, 2 additional in Faculty Development (making a total
of 5 out of the 9 items in that task area considered of "low importance"
by faculty); 2 in Extra-departmental Communication, and 2 in Inter
departmental Communication.
The 7 items perceived by chairpersons to reflect "low importance"
in their actual behavior include 6 of the 9 so marked by "all groups
combined," plus 1 in the area of Instruction, which is the same as 1 of
the 2 in that area rated low by faculty ("Defining teaching loads for
faculty").


60
Three of the four items marked of "low importance" by deans are
included in the nine so marked by "all groups combined." The one
unique item deans rated of "low importance" was #6, "Collecting, ana
lyzing, and interpreting data related to administrative problems."
In sum, when actual behavior is compared to the theory one must
note that from the perspective of "all groups combined", in 76 of 85
cases there is a high degree of congruence between what ought to be
done (idealized rankings), and what is actually being done. However,
this differs from the perspective of the faculty, chairpersons, and
deans themselves.
Chairperson Role Conflict
Question number 7 was as follows:
What do chairpersons identify as areas of conflict and
how do these relate to possible areas of conflict iden
tified in the results of this study?
In order to ascertain conflict perceived by chairpersons between
themselves and their dean and/or faculty they were asked to complete
a third section of the questionnaire which was not included in those
sent to the other two categories of respondents. This section con
sisted of two parts. In the first they were asked to indicate for each
of the 11 areas of role behaviors the amount of conflict (none, some,
or much) they felt existed between themselves and their dean and/or
faculty. In the second part, using a 5-point scale, they were re
quested to indicate the level of overall satisfaction they had with
their present job. Thirty-five chairpersons answered the conflict
part of the questionnaire. Their responses are presented in Table 16.


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 dissertatipn
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Professor
nistration
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.
Lela A. Llorens '
Lela A. Llorens
Professor and Chairperson of
Occupational Therapy
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.
JHes L. Wattenbarger
rofessor and Chairperson of
Educational Administration
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Department of Educational Administration in the College of
Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as par
tial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy.
December, 1978
Dean, Graduate School


APPENDIX B
ROLE EXPECTATION SECTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE


52
Differences in Perception About Actual Chairperson Role
The fourth problem question was:
Is there a difference in perception about actual chair
person role behavior among dean, chairperson, and faculty
in each institution and for all institutions?
The sum of the rankings for the 11 task areas for the dean, chair
person, and faculty for each of the 27 programs which were analyzed in
relation to this question are presented in Table 13. The results show
that there was a significant difference in perception about actual
chairperson role in 21 of the 27 programs included in this analysis,
and for all institutions combined.


JU
2. There were 24 descriptions on which the groups dif
fered significantly in their perceptions as to the
degree of importance that the descriptions should
be accorded in the future (ideal).
3. There were perceived differences between the "real"
and the "ideal" for:
(a) 27 descriptions according to the academic college
deans,
(b) 44 descriptions according to the department
chairpersons, and
(c) 77 descriptions according to the faculty.
(p. 1755-A)
Tucker, at the Institute for Departmental Leadership at Florida
State University conducted a study of all departmental chairpersons in
the Florida University System. The purpose was to ascertain through
questionnaire areas in which chairpersons needed enhancement of their
planning, management, and leadership competencies (Note 2). Relevant
to this study, he found that 68 percent had no^ administrative experi
ence prior to becoming chairpersons.
In 1972, a conference was held at the University of Florida in
which the speakers addressed themselves to the issue of competencies
for administrators in allied health education. One hundred and fifty
competency statements were identified, shared, discussed, and re
written into a list of 52. These were organized under the headings of
administrator as 1) group leader, 2) resource developer, 3) communica
tor, 4) educator, 5) health care supervisor, 6) fiscal officer, and
7) evaluator. These competencies and the remaining conference proceed
ings were compiled and published by the Center for Allied Health In
structional Personnel in 1972 (Morgan & Canfield, 1972).
Three years later, in 1975, Fred Dagenais from the University of
California, San Francisco, presented a paper at the American Society of
Allied Health Professions convention in which he gave a list of allied


2
therapy. Ronald Gerwin did study the "Role of the Department Chair
person in the Administration of Health Education Programs in Community
Colleges," in 1977, but this focused on two year programs, not profes
sional level ones.
Morgan and Canfield (1972) produced the only publication to pro
ject role-expectations for administrators in allied health education,
and this was not the result of an empirical investigation, but rather
the proceedings of a conference. There was only one other paper known
to the researcher in which the competencies for administration in
allied health education were addressed, and it was unpublished
(Dagenais, Note 1).
The study reported herein was proposed partially to fill this
void, and as a beginning effort to define the role of the chairperson
of the academic occupational therapy department.
That the outcome of such a study would be beneficial to the pro
fession is evidenced by the high rate of turnover of chairpersons in
occupational therapy education departments, and in the difficulty of
recruiting qualified individuals into these positions. The American
Occupational Therapy Association listing of Occupational Therapy Educa
tional Programs for 1975 showed five acting directors, out of the 48
basic professional programs. In the 1977-78 edition of this list, six
completely different programs listed their chairpersons as "acting."
Advertisements for individuals to fill several of these positions ran
continuously in the American Journal of Occupational Therapy and/or the
American Occupational Therapy Association Newspaper during 1977-78.
These numbers show a 23 percent turnover rate in a three year period.


78
Another type of research which would be a fruitful outgrowth of
this study is of a quasi-experimental nature. If there is, in fact, a
lack of adequate communication at the basis of the differences identi
fied in the study, it might be productive to determine whether one can
lower the degree of potential conflict and achieve greater congruence
in role expectations by undertaking certain specified patterns of com
munication.


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULTY
Rank Mean
ALL COMBINED
Rank Mean
STUDENTS (cont'd)
82. Evaluating student applications
84
4.33
15
3.36
70
3.72
50.5
3.80
83. Involving students in decision
making
22.5
3.41
25.5
3.64
40.5
3.26
24.5
3.44
84. Reviewing student petitions
49
3.85
34
3.79
58
3.65
49
3.76
85. Counseling and advising students
78.5
4.19
56.5
4.03
70
3.72
68
3.98
86. Teaching students
82
4.29
32
3.78
47.5
3.40
52.5
3.82
87. Writing student recommendations
for employment and graduate school
51
3.88
27
3.65
51.5
3.52
43.5
3.68


5
4. Is there a difference in perception about actual
chairperson role behavior among dean, chairperson,
and faculty in each institution and for all insti
tutions?
5. Is there a difference between idealized and actual
chairperson role behavior as perceived by a) deans,
b) chairpersons, and c) faculty, for each institu
tion and for all institutions?
6. How does the actual role behavior of chairpersons
as perceived by each of the aforementioned groups
compare with the theoretical role of department
chairpersons found in the literature?
7. What do chairpersons identify as areas of conflict,
and how do these results relate to possible areas
of conflict identified in the results of this study?
Delimitations and Limitations
This study was conducted on a national level, with cooperation
sought from every occupational therapy education department offering
at least a baccalaureate degree and/or a professional certificate pro
gram in occupational therapy, and listed by the American Occupational
Therapy Association (AOTA) in their pamphlet, "Educational Programs in
Occupational Therapy" (AOTA, 1977). Forty-nine such departments were
listed in the September, 1977-78, version of this pamphlet. One, the
University of Florida program, was included in the test group used in
development of the instrument for this study, and was therefore not
included in the final study. Thus, 48 programs were surveyed by means
of questionnaires mailed to designated responsible individuals in each
program.
For each of these departments the dean or equivalent administrator
to whom the chairperson was accountable was asked to indicate through
the mailed instrument developed for this study, how she or he perceived
the ideal role and the actual role performance of the chairperson of


12
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Chapter Two which follows immediately is focused on a review of
the relevant literature which provides the theoretical framework in
context of which the present study was conducted. In Chapter Three the
findings obtained from the questionnaire are reported and results of
statistical tests are presented as they relate to the problem state
ments in this study. The results are discussed, conclusions are made,
and the total study is summarized in Chapter Four.


RANKINGS FOR EACH OF THE 87 ACTUAL ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR EACH RESPONDENT GROUP AND FOR ALL GROUPS COMBINED
ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
7=3T)
Rank Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
(n=38)
Rank Mean
FACULTY
(n=l27)
Rank Mean
ALL COMBINED
(n=196)
Rank Mean
PLANNING
4.5
3.66
9
4.01
10
3.46
9
3.71
1. Defining and clarifying long-
range goals and objectives
64.5
4.00
68
4.29
67
3.70
70.5
4.00
2. Considering the implications of
alternative models of allied
health education in terms of
their ultimate effects on health
delivery
9.5
3.12
14
3.35
35.5
3.18
16.5
3.22
3. Developing plans to achieve long
and short range objectives
71
4.09
66
4.26
55
3.59
68
3.98
4. Understanding and implementing
organizational policy
40
3.69
79
4.41
70
3.72
64.5
3.94
5. Reviewing long-range goals and
objectives periodically
53
3.88
59
4.05
43
3.33
48
3.75
6. Collecting, analyzing and
interpreting data related to
administrative problems
4
2.91
34
3.79
20
3.01
18
3.24
7. Recognizing the general legal
principles that affect program
administration such as legal
responsibility and liability
59
3.96
41.5
3.89
67
3.70
57
3.85
LEADERSHIP
3
3.64
3
3.65
8.5
3.39
5.5
3.67
8. Making decisions
72
4.10
82.5
4.43
65
3.69
76
4.07


28
chairmen at a large university" (p. xiv). He constructed a question
naire based on that model and administered it to all department chair
persons at the University of Florida. Zucker's findings, limited by
their applicability to only one university, indicated that "the Uni
versity of Florida department chairman saw his main tasks as those of
recruiting faculty, developing programs, improving instruction, evalu
ating faculty and staff, and preparing the departmental budget"
(p. 6929A).
In 1976, Clyde Carnegie completed his dissertation on "Role Expec
tations of Community Junior College Department Chairpersons." He sent
questionnaires, consisting of 35 administrative activities grouped
under 6 administrative functions, to departmental faculty, department
chairpersons, and upper echelon administrators in 10 community junior
colleges in Michigan. Respondents were asked to indicate both actual
and desired chairperson behaviors for each of the 35 administrative
activities listed. He found that there was no significant difference
in perception about chairperson role between the different responding
groups. He did find a significant difference between actual perceived
behavior (Tq) and desired behavior (T2) with pcr.0001. Respondents
tended to agree that the 35 administrative activities listed were im
portant tasks for departmental chairpersons.
Two dissertations dealing with different aspects of chairperson
role expectations were completed in 1977. Ruth Volz completed "An
Analysis of the Actual and Ideal Roles of Vocational Education Depart
ment Heads as Perceived by Deans, Heads, and Faculty"; and Frances
Aguon investigated the "Status of Department Chairpersons as Perceived
by Academic College Deans, Department Chairpersons, and Faculty at
Western Michigan University."


90
Ratinq Scale
Highest importance
Circle
5
Very important
Circle
4
Average importance
Circle
3
Low importance
Circle
2
Unimportant
Circle
1
No opinion/knowledge
Circle
0
Actual
Importance
No
(LEADERSHIP) Low High Knowledge
5. Motivating faculty, stu- 12345 0
dents, and peers to in
crease cooperation and job
satisfaction
6. Describing job responsibil- 12345 0
ities for self and faculty/
staff
7. Formulating policies relat- 12345 0
ing to faculty use of mater
ials, equipment, and other
tangibles
8. Fighting for the department 12345 0
9. Exerting influence where 12345 0
needed
Ideal
Importance
No
Low High Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
1. Relating objects to costs 12345
through cost benefit analy
sis
2. Utilizing knowledge of pub- 12345
lie and private funding
bases to secure supplemen
tal funding
3. Preparing and administer- 12345
ing a departmental budget
4. Interpreting salary sched- 12345
ules and payroll procedures
for faculty and staff
5. Reducing duplication and 12345
overlap in activities and
expenditures
6. Communicating budget needs 12345
to staff and higher admin
istration
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5 0


CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION
Summary
The general focus of this study was to determine and define role
expectations for chairpersons of occupational therapy education pro
grams as held by the role incumbents and those who border that role.
As a means of determining what these role expectations were, answers
were sought to the following questions:
1. What is the idealized role of the chairperson as
perceived by a) the deans or equivalent adminis
trators, b) the chairpersons, c) a representative
number of faculty, and d) all groups combined?
2. What is the actual role behavior of the chairperson
as perceived by a) the deans or equivalent admin
istrators, b) the chairpersons, c) a representative
number of faculty, and d) all groups combined?
3. Is there a difference in perception about idealized
chairperson role among dean, chairperson, and fac-
ulty in each institution and for all institutions?
4. Is there a difference in perception about actual
chairperson role behavior among dean, chairperson,
and faculty in each institution and for all insti
tutions?
5. Is there a difference between idealized and actual
chairperson role behavior as perceived by a) deans,
b) chairpersons, c) faculty, for each institution
and for all institutions?
6. How does the actual role behavior of chairpersons
as perceived by each of the aforementioned groups
compare with the theoretical role of department
chairpersons found in the literature?
64


73
the results of the study can be explained on the basis of demographic
data collected? For instance, even though it was not statistically
significant, the faculty perceived the idealized role of the chairper
son more closely to the way chairpersons themselves perceived their
idealized role than did deans. On the other hand, the faculty percep
tions of their chairpersons' actual role behavior was further from the
chairpersons' perceptions of their actual behavior than was the deans'.
Do the demographic data collected shed any light on this puzzling find
ing? As the demographic data show, chairpersons and faculty have much
more in common in their background than either group has with deans.
For instance, nearly all chairpersons and faculty were women, and most
deans were men. All chairpersons and faculty, with one exception,
shared the same professional background in occupational therapy, where
as it appeared that none of the deans were occupational therapists.
The greatest number of both chairpersons and faculty graduate degrees
were in the areas of occupational therapy and education, whereas the
largest number of deans had degrees in the physical sciences and admin
istration. The only demographic items chairpersons shared more with
deans than with faculty were age (the greatest percent of both deans
and chairpersons were 46-50, and the largest percent of faculty were
in the 31-35 age group), and length of time employed in their present
position (the largest percent of deans and chairpersons were in the 1-2
year category, and among faculty the greatest number were in the under
1 year group).
The demographic data, then, do not seem to provide a substantive
rationale for the difference in faculty perception of the idealized
and actual chairperson role, relative to how the other two groups view


Page
APPENDIX A LIST OF CHAIRPERSON ROLE EXPECTATIONS TAKEN FROM
THE LITERATURE 81
APPENDIX B ROLE EXPECTATION SECTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE 88
APPENDIX C DEAN/FACULTY DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION AND
CHAIRPERSON DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION SECTIONS .... 98
APPENDIX D CONFLICT AND JOB SATISFACTION SECTION OF
QUESTIONNAIRE 100
APPENDIX E RANKING OF EACH OF THE 87 IDEALIZED ROLE
EXPECTATIONS FOR EACH RESPONDENT GROUP AND FOR
ALL GROUPS COMBINED 103
APPENDIX F RANKING OF EACH OF THE 87 ACTUAL ROLE
EXPECTATIONS FOR EACH RESPONDENT GROUP AND FOR
ALL GROUPS COMBINED 114
REFERENCE LIST 122
REFERENCE NOTES 126
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 127
iv


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My most special thanks and appreciation to Dr. Michael Nunnery,
who chaired my committee. His basic decency and respectfulness together
with his great competence and high standards inspired both optimism and
productivity in our working relationship.
Dr. Lela Llorens has always given generously of her time and ex
pertise. I appreciate her assistance in this study, and her example
in our profession.
I want to thank Dr. James Wattenbarger for his contribution to my
education and this study.
Dr. Margaret Morgan has shared her enthusiasm, experience and sup
port in ways which have significantly influenced my learning. I greatly
appreciate her help and friendship.
Alice Ann Gill has given her loving support, inspiration, enlight
enment and assistance in many ways, over many years. I can never thank
her enough.
My parents--Ralph and Adelaide Miller, have always shown their
unfailing faith in me. That--above all else outside myself--has brought
me to this point.
Finally, I want to thank a family of friends and supporters, and
to particularly acknowledge Linda Bassham, Gerry Green, Sallie Ann
Harrison, Pat Paul, and Linda Wilson for their significant assistance
in my finishing this dissertation.


11
Kruskal-Wal1 is One-Way Analysis of Variance test to see if the differ
ences were significant.
The responses for each subject were tabulated for each of the 11
major role categories or task areas, and for the total instrument.
Thus, a "score" for each task area and for the total instrument was
determined. In this example, the total score of the deans' perceptions
of the idealized chairperson role was computed and compared with the
total score of chairpersons' perceptions. The same basic procedure was
repeated for all groups for questions 1 through 5. For questions 3 and
4 the Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance was used because it
is valid for three or more groups. These questions focused on the dif
ferences among the groups. For question 5 the Wilcoxon T was used.
This test indicates magnitude and direction of differences within pairs.
In regard to questions 6 and 7, the responses were collected and
examined logically in relation to role theory, role conflict theory,
and role expectations of department chairpersons, for the purpose of
noting areas of agreement and difference.
Question 7, dealing with chairperson perception of conflict, was
additionally analyzed by comparing areas the chairperson identified as
areas of conflict with areas of potential conflict identified in the
central part of the questionnaire through means of the Kruskal-Wallis
Test.


70
faculty 10. Fiscal Responsibility was ranked 10 by "all groups com
bined", 11 by deans, 9.5 by chairpersons, and 8 by faculty. "All
groups combined" ranked Leadership 9, deans ranked it 7, chairpersons
9.5, and faculty 9.
2. In actual practice the relevant reference groups perceive the
chairpersons to place primary emphasis on Curriculum, Evaluation, Fis
cal Responsibility, and Planning. Support of this conclusion is found
in that "all groups combined" ranked curriculum 11 (highest), deans
ranked it 8, chairpersons 11, and faculty ranked 8.5. "All groups
combined" ranked Evaluation, Fiscal Responsibility, and Planning 9,
tied for second most important area in perception of actual role behav
ior of the chairpersons. Deans ranked these areas 11, 7, and 4.5 re
spectively. Chairpersons ranked these three task areas 4, 10, and 9
respectively in terms of their actual role behavior. Faculty ranked
these areas 11, 5.5, and 10 in terms of the actual role behavior of
their chairpersons.
3. The task areas of Evaluation and Students were least impor
tant to the idealized role of the chairperson as perceived by deans,
chairpersons, and faculty. In this study "all groups combined" ranked
those areas 1 (lowest) and 2 respectively. Deans ranked Evaluation 3
and Students 4, while both chairperson and faculty ranked these areas
like "all groups combined."
4. In actual practice, the relevant reference groups perceive the
chairpersons as placing least importance in the areas of Faculty Devel
opment and Extra-departmental Communication. The results showed both
the dean and chairperson groups ranking these two areas last. The
faculty groups also placed Faculty Development lowest on the list of
task areas and ranked Extra-departmental Communication 7.


72
9. There is potential conflict between the departmental chairper
son and their dean and/or faculty in those areas where there is a lack
of agreement about actual chairperson role behavior. This seems sup
ported by the fact that of the 8 task areas in which a significant dif
ference was found in perception of actual chairperson role behavior 7
of these areas were identified by over 25% of chairpersons as areas
where they felt some degree of conflict with their dean and/or faculty.
Discussion
As was mentioned in Chapter I, there are several reasons the pre
sent study was important and timely. For example, at the time of the
study there was a high turn-over rate among chairpersons in occupation
al therapy education programs. Also, no prior studies had been done to
ascertain the role of the chairperson in such programs. The results of
the present study showed areas of agreement and of disagreement among
the respondent groups about the chairperson's role. Because of this,
areas of potential conflict can be identified. Forty-eight of the 49
approved occupational therapy education programs in the United States
were included in the study and returns were received from a majority of
these. Thus, a case can be made that the results are generalizable and
can be used to examine problems of the total population of programs.
The appropriate question at this point is, how can some of the findings
and conclusions be explained, what do they mean in terms of the depart
mental chairperson's role, and needed further research in the area?
As was noted in Chapter III, certain demographic data about the
respondents were gathered,' along with other data about the programs
included in the study. Is it possible that certain patterns seen in


ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR CHAIRPERSONS OF
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY EDUCATION PROGRAMS
By
Rosalee Jane Miller
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


39
TABLE 6
LENGTH OF TIME
RESPONDENTS
HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED
IN PRESENT
POSITION
Years
Deans
(n=31)
Chairpersons
(n=33)
Faculty
(n=124)
All
(n=188)
Under 1 year
4
8
41
53
1-2
8
9
16
33
3-4
7
4
25
36
5-6
4
5
15
24
7-8
2
2
9
13
9-10
1
2
2
5
11-12
1
3
4
8
Over 12 years
4
12
16
Total
31
33
124
188
From Table 7 it can be seen that of the 36 chairpersons answering
the question, the greatest number (11) indicated that their program had
5-6 full-time faculty members, and 1-2 part-time faculty. One depart
ment employed over 16 full-time faculty.


3a
TABLE 5
OFFICIAL TITLES OF THE RESPONDENTS
Title
Deans
(n= 32
Chairpersons
(n= 38)
Faculty
(n=l24)
All
(n=194)
Dean,
Vice President
20 (3)*
20
Associate or Assistant
Dean, Division Head
3 (2)
3
Director, Professor,
Chairperson
3 (0)
33 (29)
36
Interim, Acting
6 (5)
5 (4)
11
Associate Professor
15 (13)
15
Assistant Professor
66 (60)
66
Associate, Specialist
3 (2)
3
Instructor, Lecturer
35 (32)
35
Field Work Coordinator,
Grant Director
5
5
Total
32 (10)
38 (33)
124(107)
194
Figures in parentheses indicate the number of women
As can be seen from Table 6, the largest number of both deans and
chairpersons responding had been employed in their present position
for one to two years. The next greatest number of deans had been in
that position three to four years, where the next greatest number of
chairpersons had been in that position less than one year. The great
est number of faculty had been in the job they held when participating
in this study for under one year. No chairperson among the respondents
had been employed in that position more than 12 years, while 4 deans
and 12 faculty had held their position at the time of this study for
over that length of time.


4
Such conflict is generally not productive, as stated by Kahn and
associates (1966) in the following:
When pressures from associates are especially strong
and directed toward changes in the behavior of the focal
person, or when they are contradictory to one another, the
experience is apt to be fraught with conflict and ambigu
ity, and to evoke responses of tension, anger, or indeci
sion. (p. 278)
In a more general sense, Parsons and Shi 1s (1951) maintained that
. . dynamic analysis of the role or role-constellation
where value pattern, social structure, and personality
come together. . is, without a doubt, the most strategic
point at which to attempt to extend dynamic knowledge in
such a way that it will promise a maximum of fruitful gen
eral results for the theory of action, (p. 243)
This, then, was further justification for this study.
The Problem
Statement of the Problem
The general focus of this study was to determine and define role
expectations held for chairpersons of occupational therapy education
programs by the role incumbants and those who border that role. As a
means of determining what these role-expectations were, answers were
sought to the following questions:
1. What is the idealized role of the chairperson as per
ceived by a) the deans or equivalent administrators,
b) the chairpersons, c) a representative number of
faculty, and d) all groups combined?
2. What is the actual role behavior of the chairperson
as perceived by a) the deans or equivalent administra
tors, b) the chairpersons, c) a representative number
of faculty, and d) all groups combined?
3. Is there a difference in perception about idealized
chairperson role among dean, chairperson, and faculty
in each institution and for all institutions?


ROLE EXPECTATIONS
DEANS
Rank
Mean
CHAIRPERSONS
Rank Mean
FACULTY
Rank
Mean
ALL COMBINED
Rank Mean
LEADERSHIP (cont'd)
9. Attempting to influence legisla
tion which effects allied health
education and health care deli
very
9.5
3.60
17
3.86
16
3.70
10.5
3.72
10. Delegating authority
46.5
4.13
60.5
4.43
66
4.34
60.5
4.30
11. Applying democratic ideals in
the directing of the department
43
4.10
75
4.58
60.5
4.29
62
4.32
12. Motivating faculty, students,
and peers to increase cooperation
and job satisfaction
74.5
4.39
80
4.67
77.5
4.46
80
4.51
13. Describing job responsibilities
for self and faculty/staff
46.5
4.13
59
4.42
56.5
4.24
55.5
4.26
14. Formulating policies relating to
faculty use of materials, equip
ment and other tangibles
12
3.64
5
3.57
2
3.30
3
3.50
15. Fighting for the department
31
3.97
56.5
4.39
73.5
4.43
55.5
4.26
16. Exerting influence where needed
61.5
4.27
86
4.75
84
4.56
81
4.53
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
11
4.32
9.5
4.37
8
4.17
10
4.29
17. Relating objectives to costs
through cost benefit analysis
29
3.94
13
3.66
11
3.61
12
3.74
18. Utilizing knowledge of public
and private funding bases to
secure supplemental funding
64
4.29
29
4,06
27.5
3.87
37.5
4.07
19. Preparing and administering a
departmental budget
87
4.80
87
4.91
87
4,74
87
4.82


62
The Kruskal-Wallis-H test showed that a significant difference did
exist in actual perception of the chairperson Planning role (H = 7.03).
Forty percent of chairpersons indicated feeling conflict in the
area of Leadership. Again, the Kruskal-Wallis-H showed no significant
difference in idealized perception about chairperson role in this area,
but did show a significant difference (H = 7.05) among the three groups
in their perception of the importance the chairperson actually placed
on this task area.
In the area of Fiscal Responsibility, 26% of chairpersons per
ceived some or much conflict with the dean and/or faculty. No signi
ficant difference was indicated by the Kruskal-Wallis-H test on the
idealized rankings of these three groups for this task area, but a
significant difference (H = 7.70) was found for the actual perceptions
about this area.
Conflict was perceived by 35% of chairpersons in the area of
Evaluation. Again, the statistical test showed no significant differ
ence in idealized perceptions about this area, but did show a signifi
cant difference (H = 20.69) in perceptions of actual behavior, among
deans, chairpersons, and faculty.
Twenty-six percent of chairpersons indicated feeling conflict
with the dean and/or faculty in the area of Curriculum. The difference
among the three groups was not significant in the idealized rankings,
but was significant in the actual rankings (H = 8.45).
Nearly half of the chairpersons (46%) indicated feeling conflict
with their dean and/or faculty about Climate Setting. However, no sig
nificant difference was found among these three groups in either ideal
ized or actual perceptions of this task area.


77
The above observations seem to suggest that individuals going into
a position of chairperson should be aware of possible conflict in these
areas identified and be particularly mindful of the need to communicate
in these areas. There seems to be a special need to communicate with
faculty about the fiscal and administrative demands of the position,
and with deans about the particular needs and demands of the program,
profession, and faculty.
It would be desirable and useful to compare the results of the
present study with the findings from a similar study with a 100% re
sponse rate. However, such a return rate seems unrealistic and to ex
pend the necessary energy in attempting such a study would be wasteful.
There are more fruitful areas which need exploration.
One fruitful area of further investigation would be to try to de
termine why the three respondent groups considered Planning, for in
stance, to be the ideall.y most important area for chairpersons, Fiscal
Responsibility next in importance, and so on. Another area to investi
gate further would be to determine, in an age of growing accountability
and of increasing concern with students, why the areas of Evaluation
and Students were the task areas rated the lowest in terms of idealized
importance by each group of respondents.
In addition, what is the significance, in a time of increasing
government regulation and intervention in health care, of the fact that
each group of respondents saw the chairpersons placing little or no im
portance, both ideally and actually, on items such as "Attempting to
influence legislation which effects allied health education and health
care delivery," and "Reviewing occupational trends and identifying im
plications for curriculum?"


44
The chairperson rankings agreed most closely with that for "all
groups combined." They considered Planning to be the ideally most im
portant task area, followed by a tie between Fiscal Responsibility and
Leadership, another tie between Instruction and Curriculum, the Climate
Setting, Inter-departmental Communication, Faculty Development, Extra-
departmental Communication, Students, and Evaluation.
Faculty considered Curriculum to be the most important task area,
and indicated Planning as second. They then ranked in descending order
Leadership, Fiscal Responsibility, Inter-departmental Communication,
Instruction, Climate Setting, Faculty Development, Extra-departmental
Communication, Students, and Evaluation.
As previously noted, each of the aforementioned task areas was
composed of individual items which are shown in Appendix E. As can be
seen from Appendix E, the highest ranked individual item for all groups
combined was number 19, in the area of Fiscal Responsibility. It
reads, "Preparing and administering a departmental budget." This was
followed by "Developing plans to achieve long and short range objec
tives," both in the area of Planning.
The highest ranked individual item for deans was "Preparing and
administering a department budget," followed by "Developing plans to
achieve long and short range objectives," and "Determining departmental
class size policies."
Chairpersons ranked "Preparing and administering a departmental
budget" highest of the individual items. They ranked "Exerting influ
ence where needed" second highest, followed by a tie between "Reducing
duplication and overlap in activities and expenditures" and "Presenting
departmental needs to the dean."