Citation
An Analysis of the decision making process used by university administrators on selected issues in higher education

Material Information

Title:
An Analysis of the decision making process used by university administrators on selected issues in higher education
Creator:
Dougan, Thomas R., 1949- ( Dissertant )
Sandeen, C.A. ( Thesis advisor )
Wattenbarger, James L. ( Reviewer )
Riker, Harold C. ( Reviewer )
Smith, David C. ( Reviewer )
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1984
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 114 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College students ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
Community colleges ( jstor )
Decision making ( jstor )
Decision making models ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Higher education ( jstor )
Political institutions ( jstor )
Recommendations ( jstor )
Universities ( jstor )
Decision making ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF
Education, Higher -- Decision making ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to test the political decision making model of Victor Baldridge by comparing this model to Weber's bureaucratic decision making model and Millett's collegial decision making model. Three administrative positions within higher education were selected for investigation: chief business affairs officers, chief academic affairs officers and chief student affairs officers. Three types of postsecondary institutions were selected for investigation: private baccalaureate degree granting, public baccalaureate degree granting and public community colleges. To collect data relevant to the focus of this study, the researcher developed an instrument consisting of several critical incidents depicting realistic problems in higher education. The instrument was mailed to a randomly selected sample of 270 administrators. The sample was composed of three types of administrative positions by three types of postsecondary education institutions, with a population of 30 administrators in each group. The sample was taken from selected higher education institutions in the Southern United States. A two-way analysis of variance was calculated to determine if significant differences existed. If a significant difference was found, the Duncan multiple range test was used to determine where the significant differences existed. A chi-square for each response was calculated to determine if differences existed on individual response items or if the differences were cancelled by the non-significant items in the mean analysis. The statistical analysis indicated the following major findings: 1. Baldridge's political decision making model did not emerge as the dominant model used by administrators. The study indicated that all three decision making models (bureaucratic, collegial and political) were useful and provided a framework by which administrators made decisions. 2. Chief academic affairs officers and chief business affairs officers do not differ significantly from each other in their use of bureaucratic decision making but both are significantly more likely to use bureaucratic decision making than chief student affairs officers. was composed of three types of administrative positions by three types of postsecondary education institutions, with a population of 30 administrators in each group. The sample was taken from selected higher education institutions in the Southern United States. A two-way analysis of variance was calculated to determine if significant differences existed. If a significant difference was found, the Duncan multiple range test was used to determine where the significant differences existed. A chi-square for each response was calculated to determine if differences existed on individual response items or if the differences were cancelled by the non-significant items in the mean analysis. The statistical analysis indicated the following major findings: 1. Baldridge's political decision making model did not emerge as the dominant model used by administrators. The study indicated that all three decision making models (bureaucratic, collegial and political) were useful and provided a framework by which administrators made decisions. 2. Chief academic affairs officers and chief business affairs officers do not differ significantly from each other in their use of bureaucratic decision making but both are significantly more likely to use bureaucratic decision making than chief student affairs officers.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1984.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 110-113.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available on World Wide Web
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Thomas R. Dougan.

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:
030570123 ( alephbibnum )
11886084 ( oclc )
ACQ5174 ( notis )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text














AN ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION MAKING
PROCESS USED BY UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS
ON SELECTED ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION











BY

THOMAS R. DOUGAN


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






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1984











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I wish to express sincere appreciation to many people who have in

their own way contributed to this study.

Dr. Art Sandeen, my committee chairman, was a source of encouragement

throughout the study and an invaluable advisor during the graduate

program. Dr. James Wattenbarger and Dr. Harold Riker provided direction

and support through the study. Dr. Tom Goodale and Dr. Phyllis Meek

offered me the professional encouragement to start the project and the

personal encouragement needed to finish.

I wish to thank Ms. Betty Anderson for typing the rough draft of the

study and to Carolyn Suggs, whose skill in typing and editing the final

copy were invaluable, goes my sincere appreciation.

Special personal thanks and appreciation are due my wife Karen. Her

patience, understanding and personal sacrifice were the major reasons

this study was able to be completed. To Brian, Katie and Jennifer, my

children, go my appreciation for their curiosity, their understanding of

the time away from them and for their sense of humor all of which made

this study an easier task.

To my parents Ralph and Millie Dougan special thanks are due for

their always believing this project was possible.

Thanks are also due to nany friends and colleagues in the Office of

Student Services who have provided encouragement and special assistance

throughout the study.











TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................... ii

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

ABSTRACT ........................................................... vii

CHAPTER I..... INTRODUCTION .........................................

Statement of the Problem ....................................... 2
Theoretical Background................................... 4
Delimitations............................................ 5
Limitations .............................................. 6
Assumptions.............................................. 6
Definition of Terms...................................... 7
Research Methodology........................................... 8
Selection of the Research Sample......................... 9
Instrumentation and Data Collection...................... 9
Treatment and Analysis of the Data....................... 10
Organization of the Study by Chapters.......................... 11

CHAPTER II .....REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................ 13

Introduction ................................................... 13
Bureaucratic Decision Making................................... 13
Collegial Decision Making...................................... 19
Political Decision Making...................................... 24

CHAPTER III.....DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE INSTRUMENT....... 29

Selection of the Critical Incidents............................ 29
Construction of the Decision Making Responses.................. 45
Validation of the Response Items............................... 46
Design and Printing of the Instrument.......................... 48

CHAPTER IV.....PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA............... 49

The Research Sample ............................................ 51
Analysis of the Data........................................... 53
Analysis of the Bureaucratic Responses................... 55
Analysis of the Collegial Responses...................... 59
Analysis of the Political Responses...................... 64









TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
PAGE
CHAPTER V.....SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................. 75

Major Findings .................................................. 76
Conclusions.................................................... 78
Discussion...................................................... 79
Possible Implications for Further Research...................... 80

APPENDIX A.....COVER LETTER TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS.............. 84

APPENDIX B.....SECOND COVER LETTER TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS ...... 86

APPENDIX C.....JUDGES SELECTED TO VALIDATE INSTRUMENT............... 88

APPENDIX D.....COVER LETTER AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDY TO THE JUDGES.. 90

APPENDIX E.....RESPONSE OF JUDGES TO THE INSTRUMENT................. 93

APPENDIX F..... RESEARCH INSTRUMENT .......... ................. .... 96

REFERENCES......................................................... .. 110

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH................................................. 114











LIST OF TABLES


PAGE


TABLE 2.....Research Sample that Returned
Valid Responses .........................................

TABLE 3..... Frequency Mean, Standard Deviation
F-Value, and Significance Level of
Bureaucratic Decision Making as a
Function of Institutional Type and
Administrative Type.....................................

TABLE 4.....Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation
F-Value, and Significance Level of
Bureaucratic Decision Making as a
Function of Administrative Type .........................

TABLE 5..... Frequency and Mean of Bureaucratic
Decision Making as a Function of
Administrative Type.....................................

TABLE 6.....Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation,
F-Value, and Significance Level of
Bureaucratic Decision Making as a
Function of Institutional Type..........................


.Frequency, Mean, Standard
F-Value, and Significance
Collegial Decision Making
Function of Institutional


Deviation,
Level of
as a
Type ..........................


TABLE 8....





TABLE 9....


TABLE 10...


.Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation
F-Value, and Significance Level of
Collegial Decision Making as a Function
of Administrative Type..................................

.Frequency and Mean of Collegial Decision
Making as a Function of Administrative Type.............

..Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, and
Significance Level of Collegial Decision
Making as a Function of Institutional Type..............


TABLE 7....









LIST OF TABLES (continued)
PAGE

TABLE 11....Frequency and Mean of Collegial Decision
Making as a Function of Institutional Type.............. 63

TABLE 12....Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value,
and Significance Level for Political Decision
Making as a Function of Administration Type
and Institutional Type .................................. 64

TABLE 13....Mean, Frequency, Standard Deviation, F-Value,
and Significance Level of Political Decision
Making as a Function of Administrative Type............. 65

TABLE 14....Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value,
and Significance Level of Political Decision
Making as a Function of Institutional Type.............. 66

TABLE 15....Frequency and Mean Comparison of Political
Decision Making as a Function of Institutional
Type .................................................... 67

TABLE 16....Cumulative Means by Administrator Type for the
Three Dependent Variables (Collegial, Bureaucratic,
and Political) .......................................... 67

TABLE 17....Chi-Squares and Probability for Bureaucratic Response
Items by Administrator and by Institution............... 71

TABLE 18....Chi-Squares and Probability for Collegial Response Items
by Administrator and by Institution..................... 72

TABLE 19.... Chi-Squares and Probability for Political Response Items
by Administrator and by Institution..................... 73












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

AN ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION MAKING
PROCESS USED BY UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS
ON SELECTED ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

BY

Thomas R. Dougan

December, 1984

Chairman: Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen
Major Department: Educational Administration
and Supervision



The purpose of this study was to test the political decision making

model of Victor Baldridge by comparing this model to Ileber's bureaucratic

decision making model and Millett's collegial decision making model.

Three administrative positions within higher education were selected for

investigation: chief business affairs officers, chief academic affairs

officers and chief student affairs officers. Three types of

postsecondary institutions were selected for investigation: private

baccalaureate degree granting, public baccalaureate degree granting and

public community colleges.

To collect data relevant to the focus of this study, the researcher

developed an instrument consisting of several critical incidents

depicting realistic problems in higher education. The instrument was

mailed to a randomly selected sample of 270 administrators. The sample










was composed of three types of administrative positions by three types of

postsecondary education institutions, with a population of 30

administrators in each group. The sample was taken from selected higher

education institutions in the Southern United States.

A two-way analysis of variance was calculated to determine if

significant differences existed. If a significant difference was found,

the Duncan multiple range test was used to determine where the

significant differences existed. A chi-square for each response was

calculated to determine if differences existed on individual response

items or if the differences were cancelled by the non-significant items

in the mean analysis.

The statistical analysis indicated the following major findings:

1. Baldridge's political decision making model did not emerge as the

dominant model used by administrators. The study indicated that

all three decision making models (bureaucratic, collegial and

political) were useful and provided a framework by which

administrators made decisions.

2. Chief academic affairs officers and chief business affairs

officers do not differ significantly from each other in their use

of bureaucratic decision making but both are significantly more

likely to use bureaucratic decision making than chief student

affairs officers.


viii











3. Administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting

institutions are significantly more likely than administrators in

public community colleges and public baccalaureate degree

granting institutions to use collegial decision making.

4. Administrators in public community colleges and public

baccalaureate degree granting institutions do not differ

significantly in their use of political decision making but both

are more likely to use political decision making than

administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting

institutions.

5. Chief business affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic in

their decision making than collegial and political.

6. Chief academic affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic

and collegial in their decision making than political.

7. Chief student affairs officers tended to be more collegial in

their decision making than bureaucratic and political.
















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Higher education in the 1980s faces increasing challenges and

concerns. Declining enrollments, reductions in resources available to

education and decreasing institutional autonomy are but a few problems

facing higher education administrators. In the final report to the

Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, Three Thousand

Futures (1980), Kerr refers to these concerns as fears, and urges

administrators to engage in careful, long range planning. Other

publications, including the Carnegie Council on Higher Education report,

Priorities for Action (1973), Ebel's, The Art of Administration (1978)

and Hogkinson's and Bloy's, Identity Crisis in Higher Education (1971)

describe similar concerns for higher education and for college and

university administrators.

The ways in which these administrators react to these critical issues

will have an important effect on the successful operation of their

institutions and will affect students, faculty, staff, and ultimately all

of higher education. The importance of administrators to higher

education has been well documented. Roy, in the Administrative Process,










(1958) says, "administration is an art, refined and matured in the clinic

of experience" (p. 3). Other authors, including Nunnery and Kimbrough

(1976), Morphet, Johns and Rellers (1967), and Balderston (1975), have

supported the notion that administrators play a key institutional role

and that the study of administration is critical to the success of higher

education.

How can higher education administrators cope effectively with the

problems currently facing higher education? Simon (1959) suggests that

decision making is "the heart of administration" (pp. XIV), and can

indeed make a difference in the successful resolution of concerns facing

higher education. Griffiths (1959) states, "decision making is central

to administration and is more important than other functions" (p. 74).

Consequently, a key to coping with the pressures, "fears" and problems

facing higher education administrators today and in the future is

understanding of how these individuals make decisions. If a better

understanding of how decisions are reached can be made, improvements in

the decision making process may result and this may have a significant

impact on resolving the issues facing higher education today, and in the

future.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to test the decision making model as

described by Victor Baldridge (1971), in order to determine whether

Baldridge's decision making model is supported by the responses of

administrators in three types of positions (chief business affairs

officer, chief academic affairs officer and chief student affairs









officer) at three types of institutions (public baccalaureate degree

granting colleges, private baccalaureate degree granting colleges, and

public community colleges). The study further tested Baldridge's

decision making model by contrasting this theory to Millett's (1962)

collegial decision making model and Weber's (1947) bureaucratic decision

making model. Specifically, the following questions were addressed in

this study:

1. What are the differences in the decision making process among the

three administrators according to their assigned area of

responsibility?

2. What are the differences in the decision making process among the

three administrators by institutional type?

3. Do the decision making processes used by the three administrative

positions support either Baldridge's, Weber's or Millett's

decision making model?

The following null hypotheses were developed and tested in this study:

Hypothesis 1. There is no two way interaction between type of

administrator and type of institution regarding use of the

bureaucratic decision making model.

Hypothesis 2. There are no differences among administrators in the

three institutional positions regarding their use of the bureaucratic

decision making model.

Hypothesis 3. There are no differences by type of institution among

administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use










of the bureaucratic decision making model.

Hypothesis 4. There is no cwo way interaction between type of

administrator and type of institution regarding use of the collegial

decision making model.

Hypothesis 5. There are no differences among administrators in the

three institutional positions regarding their use of the collegial

decision making model.

Hypothesis 6. There are no differences by type of institution among

administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use

of the collegial decision making model.

Hypothesis 7. There is no two way interaction between type of

administrator and type of institution regarding use of the political

decision making model.

Hypothesis 8. There are no differences among administrators in the

three institutional positions regarding their use of the political

decision making model.

Hypothesis 9. There are no differences by cype of institution among

administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their

use of the political decision making model.

Theoretical Background

The theory tested in this scudy was the political decision making

model developed by Baldridge (1971) and later elaborated by Baldridge and

Riley (1977). Baldridge postulated that decisions made by higher









education administrators are political in nature and that the university

is best understood as a political institution.

Baldridge (1971), in his work Academic Governance, states, "when we

look at campuses today we see neither the rigid formal aspects of

bureaucracy nor the calm, consensus directed elements of an academic

collegium. On the contrary, student riots crippled the campus,

administrators defend their traditional positions and external interest

groups and irate governors invade the academic halls. These groups

articulate their interests in many different ways, bringing pressure to

bear on the decision making process. All of this is a dynamic process

clearly indicating that the university is best understood as a

politicized institution (p. 8). Baldridge further states, "the

bureaucratic and collegial models should not be completely cast aside, as

both offer helpful suggestions about the organizational nature of a

university. However, by themselves, they gloss over the essential

aspects of the university's structure and decision making processes" (p.

81).

A more detailed description of the political, collegial and

bureaucratic decision making models, together with major studies

conducted about them, can be found in Chapter II.

Delimitations

There were two major delimitations associated with this study:

1. The critical incidents used in the study to describe

administrative problems are limited to administrative activities

as defined by Gulick's and Urick's (1937) administrative model

"PODSCORB,"










(planning, organizing, directing, staffing, coordinating,

reporting and budgeting).

2. This research is confined to only three areas of administrative

responsibility in higher education: academic affairs, business

affairs, and student affairs.

Limitations

This study has limitations which should be recognized. They are as

follows:

1. Since there is no established or standardized instrument wnich

can be used for this research, the researcher developed an

instrument tested by a panel of expert judges.

2. The population selected for this study included those

institutions in the Southern United States (Virginia, Kentucky,

South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana,

Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) and which appeared in the 1983-84

edition of the Education Directory of Colleges and Universities.

Assumptions

The following assumptions were made in conducting this research:

1. Comparative decision making processes can be analyzed relative to

bureaucratic, collegial, and political orientations among

practicing administrators.

2. The expert judges are capable of evaluating the critical

incidents and the three types of decision making responses for

each incident.










3. The instrument developed and tested was appropriate for

identifying the three decision making models.

Definition of Terms

Decision Making. "Decision making is a judgement made relative to

affairs that influence the course of action that follows and the acts

necessary to put the decision into effect" (Griffiths, 1959, p. 74)

Critical Incident. "A critical incident is an abbreviated case study

which provides managers with challenges similar to the real world

environment" (Deitzler and Schilliff, 1977, p. XVII).

Bureaucratic. This decision making mode assumes that institutions

are networks of social groups dedicated to limited goals and organized

for maximum efficiency. The structure is hierarchial and is tied

together by formal chains of command and systems of communication.

Regulation of the institution is based on the concept of legal

rationality (Baldridge, 1971, p. 2).

Collegial. The decision making mode assumes that a community of

scholars exists and should participate fully in the administration of the

institution. Under this concept, the community of scholars would

administer its own affairs and bureaucratic rules would have little

influence (Baldridge, 1971) p. 5).

Political. This decision making mode assumes that the institution is

fragmented into many interest groups or power blocks and that these small

groups govern most of the decisions made by administrators of higher










education institutions (Baldridge, 1971, p. 10).

Chief Student Affairs Officer. The highest ranking administrator at

each institution is the person whose major responsibility is the

management of non-classroom activities and services for students. This

person will have the title of Vice President or Dean for Student Affairs

or Chief Student Personnel Officer.

Chief Business Affairs Officer. The highest ranking administrator at

each institution is the person whose major responsibility is the

management of the budget and related fiscal activities. This person will

have the title of Vice President for Business or Administrative Affairs

or the Chief Business Affairs Officer.

Chief Academic Affairs Officer. The highest ranking administrator at

each institution is the person whose major responsibility is the

management of classroom and research activities. This person will have

the title of Vice President for Academic Affairs, Provost or Chief

Academic Affairs Officer.

Research Methodology

The major purpose of this study was to test the decision making model

as described by Victor Baldridge (1971) and to determine whether

Baldridge's decision making model is supported by the responses of

administrators in three types of positions at three types of

institutions. This section of the chapter is divided into three parts:

the selection of the research sample, the instrumentation and the data

collection, and the data analysis.











Selection of the Research Sample

The institutions used in this study were randomly selected from a

population of institutions located in the Southern United States

(Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina,

Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) as defined

by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools which appeared in the

Education Directory of Colleges and Universities. Three steps were taken

in this selection process. First, the institutions in the population

were classified into three categories: public community colleges, public

baccalaureate degree granting colleges, and private baccalaureate degree

granting colleges. Second, by means of a table of random numbers and a

random selection process with replacement, the researcher obtained a

sample of 270 administrative titles, 90 vice presidents for business

affairs (30 from each institutional category), 90 vice presidents for

academic affairs (30 from each institutional category), and 90 vice

presidents for student affairs (30 from each institutional category).

Third, the researcher used the Yearbook of Higher Education (1983-84)

to obtain the names and addresses of the persons in each of the 270

administrative lines.

Instrumentation and Data Collection

A survey instrument was developed by the researcher. Information

regarding the development and validation of the instrument is included in

Chapter III. The critical incident approach was the method used in the











development of the instrument. Flanagan (1966) suggested that if enough

such incidents were collected, reasonably complete categories of

effective decisions could be derived which could then be used as a basis

for measurement. A total of 13 critical incidents was developed using

Gulick's and Urick's (1937) "PODSCORB" model as the basis for the

incident. For each critical incident three decision making responses

were written, each response reflecting one of the three decision making

processes being tested. A panel of expert judges, listed in Appendix C,

was used to test and validate the instrument.

Each of the 270 administrators was mailed a copy of the survey for

collection of the data. An accompanying cover letter (Appendix A) signed

by Dr. James Wattenbarger, Director, Institute of Higher Education,

indicated his support for the research. Respondents were provided with a

self-addressed, stamped envelope for the purpose of returning the

survey. Each survey was coded to reflect administrative type and

institutional type and to determine whether a second mailing was

necessary. A second mailing was sent to nonrespondents with a copy of

the survey and cover letter (Appendix B). This letter urged their

participation and was accompanied by a self-addressed, return stamped

envelope.

Treatment and Analysis of the Data

Administrators particiD.ting in the research were asked to rank order

the responses to each critical incidents. The purpose by rank order

reflected the following:











1. That response which is MOST reflective of your position.
2. That response which is MODERATELY reflective of your position.
3. That response which is LEAST reflective of your position.


The data from each survey (rank-ordered responses, type of

institution, and administrative position) were placed on data process

coding sheets for input into the statistical analysis system (SAS). This

programming system was used for statistical treatment of the data.

The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed using a .05

level of probability. The purpose of the ANOVA was to determine if one

of the three decision making models was used more by administrative

position or by institutional type or both. The researcher rejected the

null hypothesis if a probability of less than .05 did occur. If a null

hypothesis was rejected, the researcher used the Duncan multiple range

test to find out exactly where the significant differences existed. A

Chi-square for each response was calculated to determine if

administrators differed significantly on individual response items or if

the differences were cancelled by the non-significant items in the mean

analysis generated by the ANOVA. The Statistical Analysis System (SAS)

program performed all statistical calculations.

Organization of the Study by Chapters

Chapter II is a review of the related literature and includes a

review of the three decision making models used in this study: the

collegial decision making model, the bureaucratic decision making model

and the political decision making model.








12



Chapter III reviews the development and validation of the research

instrument and includes the selection of the critical incidents, the

construction of the decision making responses and the validation of the

response items.

Chapter IV includes the presentation of the data and the results of

the study.

Chapter V presents the summary and conclusions, and includes

suggestions for further research.















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter presents the review of the literature. The researcher

tested the political decision making model of Victor Baldridge by

comparing this model to Weber's bureaucratic decision making model and

Millett's collegial decision making model. Thus, the review of the

literature pertains to the following three areas: the bureaucratic

decision making model, the collegial decision making model and the

political decision making model.

Bureaucratic Decision Making

This section represents a description of the bureaucratic theory of

decision making as outlined by Weber. Several empirical studies which

test this theory are discussed, and studies which relate the

applicability of this decision making model to institutions of higher

education are also presented.

Max Weber (1947), the "father of bureaucracy," is well known for his

fundamental concept of rational legal authority. This concept has been

the foundation for subsequent research and theory concerned with

bureaucratic decision making. Weber's concept of rational legal

authority viewed bureaucracy as the most pure form of such authority.

The major elements of bureaucracy identified by Henderson and Parsons

(1947) are listed below:











1. A continuous organization of official functions bound by rules.

2. A specified sphere of competence which involves: an obligation
to perform functions which have been marked off as part of a
systematic division of law, the provision of the incumbent with
the necessary authority to carry out these functions, and the
necessary means of compulsion that are clearly defined.

3. The organization of offices follows the principle of hierarchy;
that each lower office is under the control and supervision of a
higher one. There is right to appeal and a statement of
grievance from the lower to the higher.

4. The rules which regulate the conduct of an office may be
technical rules or norms. In both cases, if their application is
to be fully rational, specified training is necessary.

5. In the rational type it is a matter of principle that the members
of the administrative staff should be completely separated from
ownership of the means of production or administration.

6. In the rational type case, there is also a complete absence of
appreciation of his official position by the incumbent.

7. Administrative acts, decisions and rules are formulated and
recorded in writing, even in cases where oral discussion is the
rule or is even mandatory.

8. Legal authority can be exercised in a wide variety of different
forms. (p. 330)

According to Weber, bureaucracy was one of the significant structures

that has furthered the development of rationality.

In addition to Weber, other researchers have contributed to the

understanding of bureaucracy. Pugh and Hickson (1976) developed an

empirical analysis of the structured variables of bureaucratic

organizations. Known as the Ashton Studies, Pugh and Hickson tested five

bureaucratic features of Weber's theory. These five elements outlined by

Pugh and Hickson are specialization, standardization, formulation,











centralization and configuration (p. 43). The findings of Pugh and

Hickson indicated that the five elements could be classified into two

predominant dimensions: (1) the structuring of activity factor, and (2)

the concentration of authority factor (p. 157). Pugh and Hickson found

that some organizations had more elements of bureaucracy than others and

thus challenged the unitary concept of Weber. The Ashton Studies pointed

out that an organization with more specialists tended to have more

standard routines, more documentation and a larger supportive hierarchy

(Pugh and Hickson, 1976). The Ashton Studies found that centralization

and autonomy were opposites in that as decisions were centralized or

referred to upper levels, the autonomy of a particular organization

declined.

Holdaway, Newberry, Hickson and Heron (1976) abbreviated the Ashton

instrument and tested it on four Canadian Colleges and Institutes of

Technology. The significance of this study was that it was the first

attempt to use the Ashton scale on an educational institution. The

Holdaway et al. study was an attempt to use the basic Ashton methodology

to differentiate among four types of similar institutions. An important

similarity found by Holdaway et al. was that autonomy and centralization

were negatively correlated. Holdaway et al. also found that different

patterns among some scale items emerged in educational organizations when

contrasted to the business organizations in the Ashton Studies. The

author speculated that this may be because the educational organizations

were more homogeneous than those in the Ashton sample.











Blau (1973), using a different methodology, conducted a study

relating academic organizations to other types of organizations. Blau's

study, The Organization of Academic Work, tested the question: do

specific theoretical assumptions and the empirical relationship used to

test these assumptions produce formal structured patterns in academic

institutions similar to those produced in other bureaucracies? The issue

as stated by Blau was: "the basic problem under investigation is how the

organization of an academic enterprise affects academic work and how the

administrative structure established to organize students and faculty in

a university influences academic pursuits" (p. 8). Blau found that

universities and colleges have administrative structures similar to those

of other bureaucracies. In Blau's view, the degree to which decisions

were centralized reflected the degree to which the decision making model

was bureaucratic. Blau found that

1. educational policies were less centralized in institutions with
superior reputations.

2. centralization of educational matters had a minimal relationship
to either the degree to which faculty appointments were
centralized or the extent of a president's authority.

3. a highly active faculty governance system curtailed bureaucratic
centralization of policy matters.

4. a high administrative-faculty ratio fostered centralization. (p.
250)


With reference to bureaucratic structure, Blau's research indicated


that











1. the size of an institution correlated highly with academic
division of labor into departments and horizontal differentiated
in major units such as colleges and schools.

2. large universities and colleges had a more complex structure than
did small colleges.

3. the faculty administrative ratio was higher in small colleges
than it was in large universities.

4. an impersonal bureaucratic administration was less likely to have
centralized control than was an administration exhibiting strong
paternalistic elements.

5. a large administrative structure strengthened centralized
authority.

6. extensive administrative use of computers caused human
relationships to seem more mechanical. (p. 279)

In another finding related to bureaucracy, Blau concluded that large

academic institutions were, in most cases, structured less

bureaucratically than small ones. Evidence gathered by Blau suggested in

large institutions there was less centralized authority and innovation in

new fields occurred because departments were added. Blau found that such

bureaucratic features as a multi-level hierarchy, a large clerical staff,

and a high rate of presidential involvement promoted centralization

rather than decentralization.

Riley and Baldridge (1977) summarized, in a different study, the

bureaucratic elements in higher educational institutions as follows:

1. A university, like other bureaucracies, is an organization under
state charter.

2. There is a formal hierarchy and there are rules identifying the
relationship between offices.











3. There are formal channels of communication.

4. There are definitive authority relationships.

5. Much of the work is governed by formal policies and rules.

6. Registration, record keeping, graduation requirements, and other
activities which process individuals are the most apparent
bureaucratic elements of the university.

7. Bureaucratic decision making processes are most often used by
officials delegating responsibility through the formal
administrative structure. (p.10)

Riley and Baldridge assumed that the decision making was rational and

was concerned with standard operating procedures. Their discussion of

bureaucracy was not tested empirically but was descriptive. Baldridge,

Curtis, Ecker, and Riley (1978) measured bureaucracy by testing faculty

participants using three questions: first, whether or not the faculty

contract was specific about academic work to be performed; second,

whether course work was assigned by the administration or whether they

chose their teaching assignments; and, third, whether or not the

university had strict accounting procedures regarding travel. The

assumption was made that these questions were directly related to the

work environment. The results indicated that the greatest differences

existed between elite institutions and less prestigious institutions.

Fewer rules existed in prestigious institutions than in community

colleges. The only two types of institutions that had fewer travel

regulations were elite liberal arts colleges and private

multi-universities.











The Baldridge et al. study indicated that institutions that had more

expert faculty had stronger departments based on evaluations of peers,

course control, autonomy in decisions regarding promotion, faculty

appointment power, and budgetary allocation responsibility.

Baldridge et al. used three concepts to explain the differences in

bureaucratic structure among colleges and universities; first, there was

a positive relationship between strong external environmental influences

and greater bureaucracy--strong external influence reduced autonomy;

second, faculty expertise increased autonomy and reduced bureaucracy;

third, large institutions were able to buffer environmental pressures

better, thus maintaining more faculty autonomy.

For the purpose of this study, the literature on bureaucratic

decision making provided the basic concept (Weber, 1947), the methodology

(Ashton Studies), empirical evidence challenging theory (Ashton Studies),

and the application of bureaucratic research to colleges and universities

(Holdaway et al., (1974), Blau, (1973), Baldridge et al., (1978).

No studies were found that compared the bureaucratic decision making

process to the collegial decision making process and the political

decision making process by comparing higher education administrators by

area of responsibility (academic affairs, student affairs, and business

affairs) or higher education administrators by institutional type (four

year private, four year public, and community college).










Collegial Decision Making

This section presents descriptions of the collegial decision making

model, a collegial university model, and research that applies the model

to higher education. Also discussed are differences between the

collegial and bureaucratic decision making models.

The collegial decision making model was outlined by Riley and

Baldridge (1977) under three main headings; first, collegial decision

making is fully participatory and not hierarchial as in the bureaucratic

model; second, the collegial model is supported by the literature on

professionalism because it stresses the educator's right to make

decisions within his/her area of competency (faculty are major

participants in the decision making process and third, the collegial view

serves as an alternative to the bureaucratic model.

Millett (1962), a supporter of collegial decision making, has argued

that

"the concept of community presupposes an organization in which
functions are differentiated and in which specialization must be
brought together in a harmonious whole. But this process of bringing
together, of coordination if you will, is achieved not through a
structure of super-ordination, and subordination of persons and
groups, but through a dynamic of consensus" (p. 57).
Millett (1974) stressed wide participation in decision making through

the departmental unit and in matters that are administrative Millett

emphasized extensive consultation and effective communication. Millett

introduced the academic "community council" which was based on a common

commitment among all members within the college or university.











Demerath, Stevens, and Taylor (1976) saw participants in the

collegial decision making process as faculty members who served on

committees which affected policy and administrators who remained active

as scholars and teachers. Demerath et al. viewed specialists who did not

participate in aspects of the university except academic work and

administrators who remained in their own area as nonparticipants in the

institutional decision making process.

The Demerath et al. study examined a sample of thirty universities,

with a focus on departments, chief executive officers of forty-five major

universities, and one institution in depth by the use of a case study.

The study assumed that a mix of bureaucratic and collegial decision

making elements was necessary in the governance of a university. The

principal implications of the study were that

Universities adapting to societal needs cannot rely
on bureaucratization of structure, upon more formal
organization or upon more line administrators with
greater official authority. No large enterprise
with as many varied functions as the major university
which performs under the omnibus headings of teaching,
research, and service can operate effectively without
formal structure and line managers to perform the
organization's tasks. At the same time there are equally
compelling reasons today for a complementary social
ordering that is designed to make university management
more responsive to the needs and interests of
academicians. This can be done by means of clear and
known procedures which serve to define the faculty's
participation in policy making. (p. 216)


Parsons and Platt (1971) studied several colleges and universities

and assumed that departments and other faculty academic organizations










were collegial. Their study viewed the structure of collegiality as a

combination of association and occupation. To them the academic value

system was a role system related to a broader social value system. The

term "cognitive rationality" was used by Parsons and Platt to describe a

major value that had been institutionalized. This value pattern linked

the personality, social, and cultural systems. In an academic context

the commitment and implementation of this value system shaped a

participant's priorities. Parson and Platt saw the major value pattern

in academic institutions as academic freedom and defined it as "the

normative condition for opportunity and obligation to contribute to the

advancements, transmission, and application of knowledge" (p. 39). In

summary, Parsons and Platt claim

that the academic faculties tend to be more associ-
ational and collegial than bureaucratic, and that the
principal mechanism of their operation in the service
of the implication of commitment to academic values
is influence rather than political type power.

Burns (1976) presented a summary of the important characteristics of

both the bureaucratic and professional (collegial) aspects of an

organization. The main elements are as follows:

Bureaucratic or Mechanistic

1. Specialized differentiation of functional tasks.
2. Abstract individual tasks.
3. Performance reconciliation by immediate super-
visor.
4. Precise definition of role rights, obligations
and technical methods.







5. Rights, obligations, methods translated into
position.
6. Hierarchial control, authority and
communication structure.
7. Exclusive top hierarchial knowledge.
8. Vertical interaction.
9. Work and operations governed by supervisors.
10. Insistence on loyalty and obedience.
11. Local rather than cosmopolitan orientation.

Professional or Organismic

1. Special knowledge and experience contributed to
common task.
2. Realistic individual task.
3. Continuous redefinition of tasks through
interaction.
4. Fluid rights, obligations, and methods.
5. Broad commitment rather than technical.
6. Network control, authority, and communication
structure.
7. Mobile knowledge and authority.
8. Lateral communication.
9. Communication of information and advice.
10. Commitment.
11. Affiliation and expertise important.


Much of the literature suggests that institutions are in constant

change because of the conflict that exists between bureaucratic and

collegial elements. Some of the literature however indicated that the

conflict between these two elements was more harmonious than

dysfunctional (Benson, 1973; Montagna, 1973; and Ritzer, 1975).

The literature concerning the collegial decision making process

relevant to this study consisted of (1) college and university models

(Millett (1962), Riley and Baldridge (1977), (2) research which applied a

model to higher education (Demerath, Stevens, and Taylor), (3) theory

(Parsons and Platt) and (4) concepts about professionals (Burns).










No studies were found that attempted to compare the collegial model

to the bureaucratic or political models by comparing perceptions of

higher education administrators by area of responsibility (academic

affairs, business affairs, and student affairs) or by type of institution

(four year private, four year public, and community college).

Political Decision Making

Three major studies which focused on political decision making in

higher education were identified. Baldridge (1971) conducted a political

case study of a university. Olsen (1976) used a conflict resolution

model which was essentially a political model of decision making, and

Benson (1973) discussed an approach specifically concerned with the

conflict between bureaucratic and collegial elements in organizations.

The works of all three are presented.

Baldridge's political model was taken from two main sources, research

on community power and interest group, and group theory. Baldridge's

model contained a cycle of decision making which consisted of six

phases: (1) an emerging issue; (2) interest by different groups that

want to express their opinion; (3) surfacing conflict followed by; (4) a

legislative process whereby decision makers translated demands into

policy; then (5) policy implementation; and (6) feedback. Baldridge, in

addition, compared the political, collegial and bureaucratic elements on

decision-making. These are presented in Chart 1, page 25. In a

subsequent study, Riley and Baldridge (1977) indicated Baldridge's

original political model may have overstated the role of conflict and

negotiation in decision making. They refined this concept












TABLE 1


Political


Basic Image

Change
Processes

Conflict




View of the
Social
Structure



Basic
Theoretical
Foundations


View of
Decision



Goal setting
and policy;
formulation
or execution


Political System

Primary Concern


Normal, key to
analysis of
policy influence


Pluralistic;
fractured by sub-
cultures; diver-
gent interest
groups

Conflict theory,
interest group
theory, open
community theory

Negotiating,
bargaining, and
political influence


Emphasis on
formulation


Bureaucratic

Hierarchial

Minor Concern


Abnormal, con-
trolled by
bureaucratic
sanctions

Unitary, inte-
granted by
formal
bureaucracy


Weberian
bureaucratic
model; class
systems model

Rationalistic,
formal, bureau-
cratic
procedures

Emphasis on
execution


Collegial


Professional

Minor Concern


Abnormal, elim-
inated in a
true community of
of scholars

Unitary; united
by a community
of scholars



Human relations
approach;
literature on
professionalism

Shared collegial
decisions



Unclear, probably
on formulation


Baldridge (1971)











by placing emphasis on the importance of routine decision making

processes and also indicated that the political model should not be

viewed as a substitute for the bureaucratic and collegial models of

decision making in that the bureaucratic and collegial models offer

helpful suggestions about the organizational nature of the university but

by themselves gloss over the essential aspects of university structure

and the decision making processes. The revised assumptions of

Baldridge's political model stated that (1) most organizational

participants were not active in the political process; (2) active people

moved in and out of the decision making process; (3) colleges and

universities contained fragmented interest groups with different goals

and values; (4) conflict was normal and did not necessarily indicate a

breakdown in the organization; (5) authority was limited by political

pressure; and (6) external interest groups had a substantial impact on

the process of establishing policy.

Olsen (1976) discussed three models of choice operative in

organizations. These were the rational decision making model, the

conflict resolution model, and the artifactual model. A discussion of

the first two models is presented since they are related to political,

bureaucratic, and collegial models.

In the conflict resolution model, Olsen described an organization as

consisting of rational individuals and subgroups with diverse

perspectives, demands, and resources. Events in the organization and the

desires of decision makers were closely linked. According to the model,











a coalition of participants benefited if a decision were made; however,

no single alternative satisfied all coalition participants. In addition,

no value consensus was possible--participants used a bargaining process.

A basic premise of the rational decision making model, Olsen's second

model, was that people knew what they wanted and, with the knowledge and

power, could obtain the desired results. The bureaucratic and collegial

decision making models were based on this premise. Means and ends as

well as the reasoning process were emphasized in this model. Events were

viewed as a willed product of the decision maker's activity. Value

consensus was achieved before a decision was made. Decisions were a

product of (1) a priori preferences with defined rules for comparing

criteria; (2) a priori alternatives with an unlimited search or the

evaluation of the search having calculable costs and returns; and (3)

established techniques for relating preferences and alternatives. The

rational decision model was in sharp contrast to Olsen's conflict

resolution model and Baldridge's political model.

Benson (1973) viewed his conflict theory approach to organizational

analysis in a similar manner to the conflict resolution model of Olsen.

Benson's summary of his approach follows

1. Every organization contains fundamental contradictions. From
a dialectical perspective, the organizations are
characterized by an unstable social order with a tendency
toward dissolution. The instability of the organization
grows out of inconsistencies and incompatibilities which are
never really fully resolved. There always exist
contradictions which have not been resolved, and that provide
the basis for organizational change.











2. The social order of every organization is politically
negotiated. The structural patterns in the organization are
to be understood on the basis of political rather than
administrative models.

3. The social orders constantly are undergoing change and must
be understood on the basis of a process approach. (p. 383)

Benson indicated that his framework was a conflict resolution approach

and argued that it should replace the functional approach to the study of

formal organizations.

This section presented the political decision making model tested

through a case study in a university setting (Baldridge), presented a

conflict theory approach specifically related to bureaucratic and

collegial segments of organizations (Burns), and presented a conflict

theory approach specifically related to bureaucratic segments of

organizations (Benson and Olsen).

This review of the literature has emphasized the bureaucratic,

collegial, and political decision making processes. A gap exists in the

literature in that there was no study which compared the decision making

process used by higher education administrators by area of

responsibility, nor was there a study which compared the decision making

process used by administrators by institutional type. It is reasonable

to test the political decision making theory of Baldridge by designing a

study to fill this gap in the literature, which may contribute further to

an understanding of the decision making process.















CHAPTER III

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE INSTRUMENT



This chapter includes the following sections: the selection of the

critical incidents, the construction of the decision making responses,

the validation of the responses, and the design and printing of the

instrument.

Selection of the Critical Incidents

The material used in the critical incidents was gathered from various

sources: professional faculty and staff members of the University of

Florida and Santa Fe Community College, the Chronicle of Higher

Education, professional journals, and the researcher's own experience.

Thirteen critical incidents were written to reflect the areas as outlined

by Gulick's and Urick's (1937) "PODSCORB" model. "PODSCORB" is a

representation of the following administrative functions: planning,

organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting.

The incidents were written to reflect the various administrative

functions as outlined by Gulick and Urick and to permit the respondents

to identify with a realistic administrative problem.











Critical incidents I and II and the three responses for each follow.

Both incidents are reflective of Gulick's administrative function,

coordination.

Critical Incident I

This public four year institution has received a request from a

student lesbian and gay society to use meeting space in the college's

student union building. Recently, two state legislators and various

community and church groups have expressed displeasure at using state

facilities and resources to support such groups. Some legislators have

also expressed concern about recognizing such groups. The president,

before making a decision on this matter, has asked for your input.

Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your

approach to this issue:

R.1 "The issue should be handled in accordance with state

policy, and the appropriate administrator should make the

decision after receiving advice from the university

attorney."

R.2 "This is a matter which needs full discussion and

participation by students, faculty, and staff. The issue

should be referred to the Committee on Student

Organizations for its recommendation."

R.3 A careful assessment must be made by the President of the

possible ramifications of this decision. If the

institution might be damaged by recognizing the

organization, the President should deny the request."











Critical Incident II

The daughter of a state senator applied for admission to this state

university but did not meet the admission standards expected of other

incoming freshmen. She was denied admission by the Admissions

Committee. The state senator holds a very important position as Vice

Chairman of the Senate's Higher Education Committee. The senator has

contacted the President and has requested the admission of the daughter.

Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your

approach to this issue:

R.4 "The President should refer the matter to a

representative group of faculty and consult with them

regarding their views on the situation."

R.5 "The matter should be referred to the Dean of Admissions,

who should make the decision in accordance with

university policy."

R.6 "The President should weigh the impact that the decision

may have upon the institution, and base his decision on

how it may hinder or assist the institution."

Critical Incident III and the three responses follow. This incident

is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, reporting.











Critical Incident III

The Vice President for Academic Affairs at a four year private

university has proposed recently that the student financial aid office be

transferred from student affairs to academic affairs. During the past

three years the financial aid office has been criticized by students,

faculty and parents. Complaints have focused on long lines and delays in

processing. The Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Vice

President for Student Affairs have worked well together in the past but

this recommendation has caused a problem in their working relationship.

The President has asked each Vice President for a recommendation

regarding the proposal. Please rank the following responses which might

reflect your approach to this issue:

R. 7 "The complaints of students, faculty and parents must be

addressed, and the institution should make a visible

effort to assure these groups that it is going to correct

the problem."

R.8 "The matter should be referred to the Standing University

Committee on Student Financial Aid, which will enable

faculty, students and staff to submit their

recommendation, in an effort to reach consensus."

R.9 "There are written guidelines provided by the

professional associations that indicate the best

direction the institution should take. These should be

provided to the President and all should abide by his/her

decision."












Critical incident IV and the three responses follow. This incident

is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, planning.

Critical Incident IV

As part of an institutional long range planning effort, the faculty

senate of a publicly supported community college has recommended to the

President a plan that would require all community college sophomores, in

an academic track, to complete successfully a sophomore competency

examination before receiving the Associate of Arts degree. The test has

been labeled "racially biased" by some minority organizations in the

community and the student government association is also opposed to the

examination. Recent complaints from four-year institutions in the state

have alleged the community college students are not adequately prepared

for the rigors of a four year college or university. The President,

before making a decision on the matter, has asked for input from the

administrative staff. Please rank order the following responses which

might refect your approach to this issue:

R. 10 "The President should consult with experts on this

matter. Their professional competence is essential to

any decision made. After consultation with the experts

consensus can be reached and a decision made."











R.ll "Pressure can be expected from external groups to become

very intense. Based on previous encounters, an open and

impartial public forum should be held, and the decision

will have to reflect the influence these groups have."

R.12 "The faculty senate should be supported. They have

followed institutional policy, procedures and rules in

making their recommendation and have a record of

responsible actions in the past."

Critical Incident V is reflective of Gulick's administrative

function, budgeting, and is as follows:

Critical Incident V

Recent legislation has been passed which removes all funding of

remedial education programs at all four year public colleges and

universities in the state. The legislature has declared that funds are

being provided for high schools to develop these skills and refuses to

fund colleges to do the same. Community leaders and students in

continuing and remedial education courses have urged the President of the

state supported community college to support these programs by using

private funds. The faculty of the community college is split on the

issue. The President, before making a decision, has asked for

recommendations from the administrative staff. Please rank order the

following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:












R.13 "The President should follow the intent of the recently

passed legislation. While state funds would not be used,

the institution, if it funds these programs from private

sources, would violate the intent of state law and

policy."

R.14 "The President should refer this matter to the academic

deans and department chairmen for a decision. These

individuals have the professional competency to make the

decision."

R.15 "Local community groups have been very supportive of the

President and the local community college's effort and

programs in the past. The community college's image may

suffer irreparable damage if remedial education programs

are not funded."

Critical incident VI is reflective of Gulick's administrative

function, organizing, and is as follows:

Critical Incident VI

The President of a large private institution has proposed the

establishment of a new position, Vice President for Research. The

President has been concerned about the lack of direction that has been

provided to this area, citing the current decentralization of this

responsibility as the major reason for the lack of direction and

progress. The President has asked each Vice President to respond to this

proposal before deciding what to do. Please rank order the following

responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:











R.16 "The President's proposal should be supported. If the

President believes there is a need for a Vice President

for Research, he/she has the ultimate authority and

responsibility for the success of the institution;

therefore the President's proposal should be supported."

R.17 "The President should be encouraged to refer this matter

to a representative group of research faculty for their

study and recommendation. The President's decision

should be based on this recommendation."

R.18 "The President should be encouraged to discuss this issue

with all interest groups. The creation of a new Vice

Presidency could bring criticism from students, faculty,

staff and the university's governing board unless they

are given the opportunity to be heard. The President's

decision will reflect the influence these groups have."

Critical Incident VII is reflective of Gulick's administrative

function, directing, and is as follows:

Critical Incident VII

The Vice President for Academic Affairs of a comprehensive public

university has directed the Deans of each college to develop a

comprehensive academic advising program. This is a response to student,

parent and staff complaints about academic advising. There are charges

of long lines at registration, inadequate faculty office hours and

incorrect academic advice. The Vice President for Academic Affairs has











stated that faculty should be rewarded with tenure and promotion for

academic advising as well as teaching and research. However, faculty are

upset about this possibility and have voiced their concerns to the

President. The President has asked each Vice President for a

recommendation concerning this issue. Please rank order the following

responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:

R.19 ____ "The president should refer this matter to a

representative group of faculty, department chairmen, and

academic deans. The President should be willing to

compromise and seek consensus regarding this issue."

R.20 "The President should refer this matter to the Vice

President for Academic Affairs and expect him/her to

resolve the issue within existing university policies and

procedures."

R.21 "The President must be responsive to the serious

complaints about academic advising. The President must

weigh the impact these groups might have on the

institution if he/she does not support the new academic

advising program."

Critical incident VIII is reflective of Gulick's administrative

function, planning, and is as follows:

Critical Incident VIII

The Status of Women's Committee and several student groups have

requested the President of a public community college to implement a












proposal that would provide child care facilities for the children of

faculty, students and staff. Recently, the state legislature has

authorized the use of state allocated funds for child care. The

college's position has been that there are other priorities more

important than child care at this time and that the money available for

child care should be used for these higher priority items. The President

in considering the request of the Status of Women's Committee has asked

for your recommendation regarding child care. Please rank order the

following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:

R.22 __ "The President should review the priority needs of the

institution and study the child care issue by appointing

a task force of faculty, students, and administrative

staff. The decision should be based on the task force's

recommendation."

R.23 ____ "The college's priority list was developed over a long

period of time within the normal policies and procedures

of the college. It would be inappropriate now to fund

child care ahead of other priorities and thus deviate

from established policy. The President should reject the

proposal."

R.24 "The Status of Women's Committee has been supportive of

the President in the past. The President should weigh

the impact that this decision may have on the institution

and base his/her decision on how it may hinder or assist

the institution."











Critical Incident IX is reflective of Gulick's administrative

function, staffing, and is as follows:

Critical Incident IX

The Faculty Senate of a private university has proposed new

guidelines for determining tenure and promotion. The plan passed the

Faculty Senate by a narrow margin and increases the proportion of faculty

who have been awarded tenure and promotion in recent years. However, the

Vice President for Academic Affairs has been seriously concerned about

the high percentage of tenured faculty, which does not permit many new

younger faculty to be hired by the university. In fact, 75 percent of

all existing faculty are tenured. Please rank order the following

responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:

R.25 "The Vice President for Academic Affairs has authority to

make this decision and in accordance with institutional

policy, should exercise his/her prerogative."

R.26 "The President should appoint a special task force of

distinguished faculty, alumni and board members to

closely examine the Faculty Senate's proposal. The

decision should be based on the recommendations of this

representative group."

R.27 "The President must recognize the concerns of the faculty

and weigh the implications if the new guidelines for

tenure and promotion are not approved. The Faculty

Senate has been supportive of the President in the past

and this continued support is critical to the President.

The President should approve the plan."











Critical incident X and the three responses follow. This incident is

reflective of Gulick's administrative function, planning.

Critical Incident X

The Physical Plant Division of this two year public institution has

recently come under attack by the faculty, students and staff.

Criticisms point to the allegedly poor job being done by the Physical

Plant in virtually all areas of responsibility--housekeeping, the campus

grounds and maintenance. In addition, departments have complained about

high costs charged by Physical Plant when work is performed. Some

departments claim that the work could be done at a savings by an outside

contractor. They have presented a plan to the President to study the

possible elimination of the Physical Plant Division in favor of

contracting with a private company. Please rank order the following

responses which might reflect your approach to this issue.

R.28 "The President should meet with a team of professional

consultants regarding this issue. A thorough study of

the Physical Plant Divison must be made by persons with

professional competency in this area. After consultation

with these experts, consensus should be reached."

R.29 "The complaints are coming from very influential groups,

and the President must take strong action to assure these

groups that the problems is going to be corrected. The

President should implement the proposal."











R.30 "The President should refer this matter to the Vice

President for Business Affairs for a decision. The Vice

President is administratively responsible for this

program and should make the decision within established

university rules and guidelines."

Critical incident XI is reflective of Gulick's administrative

function, directing, and is as follows:

Critical Incident XI

The State Board of Regents and the State Legislature have received a

recommendation from the state's Higher Education Coordinating Committee

directing that the admission requirements of all state universities be

raised. In particular, this recommendation requires all high school

students to have a SAT score of 850 and a high school grade point average

of 2.5. In addition, high school graduates must have two years of

foreign language, three years of math, and four years of english. This

recommendation is one of several aimed at improving the quality of the

state university system. The President of this state university in

deciding whether to support the recommendation has asked the Vice

Presidents for their input. Please rank order the following responses

which might reflect your approach to the issue:

R.31 "The President should refer this matter to the University

Admissions Committee for recommendations. After

consultation with this group of faculty and students, a

decision can be made."











R.32 "This is a decision that will affect several interest

groups, including students, faculty, alumni and other

university constituencies. The President must carefully

weight the impact these new standards will have on the

university. If the impact will damage the university,

the President should not support the recommendation."

R.33 "The State Board of Regents is the ultimate authority

regarding state education policy development for the

university system. It is the President's responsibility

to support the position of the State Board of Regents."

Critical incident XII is reflective of Gulick's administrative

function, staffing, and is as follows:

Critical Incident XII

As a response to recent budget cuts and in a move to save money, the

Vice President for Business Affairs at this four year private university

has changed the work schedules of several physical plant employees. The

large majority of housekeeping staff have been switched to the night

shift. The labor union has strongly objected to this move, suggesting

that many of its employees have part-time jobs and families that will be

negatively affected. The Vice President for Business Affairs has stated

that this policy was made to save money and that the only other

alternative is to lay off employees. The union has countered, saying











several employees will have to resign anyway as many cannot work the

night shift. The union charges the Vice President with making this

change without consulting employees or the union, and to avoid laying

people off, changing their hours, knowing that many would resign. The

union has appealed the decision to the President. Please rank order the

following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue.

R.34 __ "The President should support the Vice President for

Business Affairs. He/She is administratively responsible

for this area and has made this change in accordance with

the rules, procedures and policies of the contract with

the union."

R.35 "The President should appoint a task force staff to study

this issue and to make recommendations to him/her for

other possible solutions to the budget problem. The

President's decision will be based on this

recommendation."

R.36 __ "The labor union has been supportive of the President and

the university in the past. The most effective way to

resolve this issue is to bargain with them and reach a

mutually acceptable decision."

Critical Incident XIII and the three responses follow. This incident

is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, organizing.











Critical Incident XIII

Recent trends in higher education have made it necessary for this

private university to examine closely the allocation of space, money, and

personnel in various academic programs. Student enrollment is rapidly

increasing in the engineering, computer science, business, and

preprofessional curricula and declining in liberal arts and in

education. Space, money, and personnel must be reorganized and

reallocated to meet these increasing demands. Resources from departments

with declining enrollments must be shifted to areas of growing demands.

Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your

approach to this issue:

R. 37 "The President should encourage the full participation of

all Vice Presidents. He/she should consult with each

Vice President individually and as a group seeking

consensus.

R.38 "The President by virtue of his/her position is

ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the

university. The President should use the authority of

his/her position and make the decision."

R.39 "This decision will have a significant impact on the

institution and requires careful assessment by the

President. The President can expect to receive

conflicting points of view by various interest groups and

must base the decision on this input."










A summary of the incidents reflective of Gulick's classification follow:

Planning: Critical Incidents IV X

Organizing Critical Incidents VI, XIII

Directing Critical Incidents VII, XI

Staffing: Critical Incidents IX, XII

Coordinating: Critical Incidents I, II

Reporting: Critical Incidents III

Budgeting: Critical Incidents V, VIII

Construction of the Decision Making Responses

The researcher reviewed the literature on each of the decision making

processes used in the research. From the review of the literature, the

following key words or phrases were selected which reflected the type of

decision making process:

1. Bureaucratic--written rules; policies; chain of command;

norms; functions regulated by rules and by laws.

2. Collegial--faculty are major decision makers; full

participation; professional competency; committee of

peers; consensus; consultation; communication.

3. Political--fragmented interest groups; different goals

and values; power blocs; small external interest groups

govern most decisions; expediency.











The responses to each incident were then constructed to contain key

words or phrases that reflected a particular decision making style.

Three responses were developed for each critical incident; one response

item reflecting the bureaucratic decision making process, one response

the collegial, and one the political. The critical incidents were then

sent to a panel of expert judges for testing.

Validation of the Response Items

In an effort to insure that the instrument was measuring what it was

intended to measure, the researcher submitted the instrument to a panel

of seven expert judges, each of whom was selected because of his or her

professional expertise in the area of administrative decision making (see

Appendix C). The researcher determined that agreement among five of the

seven judges would establish an item as being valid.

Each judge was selected in advance and advised of the research and

his/her role as a judge in the research project. Each person who agreed

to act as a judge was mailed a letter and a brief description of the

study (Appendix D) which provided the following directions:


1. Read each critical incident and the selected responses for each.

2. Mark each of the three responses as you believe it is
representative of B = bureaucratic, C = collegial, P = political.

3. Do not apply the process of elimination. Judge each response in
its own right.

4. Completed responses and comments should be returned in the
enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope.











The responses of the seven judges are presented in Appendix E.

Appendix E reports the 18 critical incidents, the three response

items for each, the researcher's classification of the decision making

response and the classification of the seven judges. (There is no

relationship between the order of the judges in Appendix C and Appendix

E.) Of the 54 responses the judges were asked to validate, there was

consensus (five of seven) on all of the items.

Three of the judges commented that the instrument was too lengthy.

The researcher in response to this concern conducted a pilot study.

Fifteen University of Florida administrators were asked to participate.

These fifteen individuals were asked to suggest improvements for each

critical incident, to make comments on the overall research instrument,

and to determine how long the survey took to complete.

Nine of the 15 participants in the pilot study indicated the survey

took too long to complete. One person asked the question, "Do you really

need all 18 critical incidents?"

The researcher consulted with the chairman of his committee and

considered two issues raised by the pilot study participants: the overall

length of the survey, 20 typed written pages, and the necessity to use

all 18 critical incidents.











A decision was reached that five critical incidents could be deleted

in order to reduce the length of the survey. The researcher, when

reducing the number of incidents to 13, took into consideration and made

sure that the remaining incidents reflected Gulick's PODSCORB model, the

type of institutions surveyed and the type of administrative positions

surveyed.

Design and Printing of the Instrument

A decision was reached that a conventional typed copy of the survey

(14 pages) was too lengthy to be useful as a mail survey. The researcher

decided to use typesetting and off set printing as a means to reduce the

bulkiness of the survey. This arrangement would also increase the

chances for a successful return rate from the research sample.

The 14 typewritten pages were typeset to four pages and a single fold

four-sided printing format was selected. This format kept the survey to

one sheet of paper and avoided the potential loss or misplacement of a

part of the survey once it was in the field. A copy of the survey is

contained in appendix F.

In chapter III the researcher has discussed the development and

validation of the instrument including the selection of the critical

incidents, the construction of the decision making responses, the

validation of the research items and the design and printing of the

ins'.rument. Chapter IV is titled "Presentation and Analysis of the Data"

and includes a discussion of the research sample and analysis of the

bureaucratic, collegial and political responses.


















CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA



The purpose of this study was to test the political decision making

theory of Victor Baldridge by comparing it to Millett's collegial

decision making theory and Weber's bureaucratic decision making theory.

An instrument, consisting of thirteen critical incidents depicting

realistic problems in higher education, was designed and used to test the

theory. Major academic, business and student affairs administrators at

Southern colleges and universities were selected as the research sample.

Specifically, answers to the following questions were sought:

1. What are the differences in the decision making process among

administrators by area of responsibility: chief business affairs

officer, chief student affairs officer, chief academic affairs

officer?

2. What are the differences in the decision making process among

administrators by the type of institution: public baccalaureate

degree granting, private baccalaureate degree granting, and public

community college?










3. Are the decision making processes used by the three administrative

positions supported by the decision making models of Baldridge,

Millett or Weber?

The researcher developed and tested the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. There is no two way interaction between type of

administrator and type of institution regarding use of the

bureaucratic decision making model.

Hypothesis 2. There are no differences among administrators in the

three major institutional positions regarding their use of the

bureaucratic decision making model.

Hypothesis 3. There are no differences by type of institution among

administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use

of the bureaucratic decision making model.

Hypothesis 4. There is no two way interaction between type of

administrator and type of institution regarding use of the collegial

decision making model.

Hypothesis 5. There are no differences among administrators in the

three institutional positions regarding their use of the collegial

decision making model.

Hypothesis 6. There are no differences by type of institution among

administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use

of the collegial decision making model.

Hypothesis 7. There is no two way Interaction between type of











administrator and type of institution regarding use of the political

decision making model.

Hypothesis 8. There are no differences among administrators in the

three institutional positions regarding their use of the political

decision making model.

Hypothesis 9. There are no differences by type of institution among

administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their

use of the political decision making model.

The researcher sought to answer the questions and test the hypotheses

by selecting a random sample of administrators from higher education

institutions in the Southern United States. In the following sections,

the sample, the selection process and the rate of return of the survey

instrument are discussed.

The Research Sample

A research sample of 270 administrators was randomly selected from a

population of private baccalaureate degree granting institutions, public

baccalaureate degree granting and public community colleges located in

the Southern United States (Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi,

Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana,

Texas) as defined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. A

list of random numbers was then used to select 30 institutions for each

of the three administrative positions in the study. A random selection

with substitutions was used to obtain a sample of 270 administrative

titles.











A mailed survey was used for the collection of the data. The first

round of surveys was mailed to the sample of 270 administrators. Two

weeks later a second mailing was sent to the non-respondents. A return

rate of 71.9 percent was received from the sample, or a total of 192

surveys. Six of the 192 surveys could not be analyzed, because they were

incomplete or incorrectly completed. The 188 valid responses represent a

return rate of 69.6 percent of the research sample. The sample that

returned valid responses is described in Table 1.

TABLE 2

Research Sample that Returned
Valid Responses:
Administrator by Institution


INSTITUTION

Private Public Community
Administrators Baccalaureate Baccalaureate College Total


Business Affairs 15 20 20 55
29.3%

Student Affairs 19 19 27 65
34.6%

Academic Affairs 21 21 26 68
36.1%


55 60 73 188
29.3% 31.9% 38.8%




As table 2 indicates, the chief academic affairs officer was the

administrative position that returned the largest number of surveys (68)











which represented 36.1 percent of all valid responses. Public community

college administrators as a category were those by type of institution

that returned the largest number of surveys (73), which represented 38.8

percent of the valid responses. The administrative position by type of

institution that returned the largest number of surveys (27) was the

chief student affairs officer in the public community college. The chief

business affairs officer in private institutions returned the lowest

number of surveys 15. Administrators in public baccalaureate degree

granting institutions returned 60 surveys representing 31.9 percent of

all valid responses followed by administrators in the private

baccalaureate degree granting institution 55 surveys or 29.3 percent of

all valid responses. Chief student affairs administrators returned 65

surveys, 34.6 percent of the valid responses followed by chief business

officers' 55 surveys which represented 29.3 percent of all valid

responses.

Analysis of the Data

This section reviews the data that are relevant to rejecting or

failing to reject the null hypotheses developed in Chapter I.

The 39 response statements reflected in the survey instrument

represented three decision making models-bureaucratic, collegial and

political. Each of the three decision making models was represented in

the 13 sets of responses to the critical incidents. Respondents were

asked to rank order the responses as follows: (1) most reflective; (2)

moderately reflective; and (3) least reflective of their position. The











lower the mean score (minimum 13) the more reflective those responses

appeared to be of the administrator's decision making process and the

higher the mean score (maximum 39) che less likely the responses

reflected the position of the administrator.

To test the null hypotheses developed in Chapter I, a computed

F-value was calculated and its probability of occurrence under the null

case was determined. The criterion for statistical significance was set

equal to .05. If che probability of the F-value was less than .05, the

null hypothesis was rejected. The data were analyzed by the two-way

analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each of the dependent variables,

bureaucratic, collegial, and political decision making. If a hypothesis

was rejected, the researcher used the Duncan multiple range test to

determine where differences between administrators or institutions

existed. The Duncan multiple range test compared the means between type

of administrators and between types of institutions. The closer the mean

values were between types of administrators or between types of

institutions, the less likely was there a significant difference. The

larger the differences in the mean values between administrators or

between institutions, the more likely a significant difference existed.

The researcher was further interested in knowing if significant

differences existed between administrators on the individual response

items in each group of independent variables (bureaucratic, collegial and

political) or if they were negated by the non-significant items in the

mean analysis generated by the ANOVA. To answer this question an

analysis of each response item was conducted using chi-square by

administrator and by institution.











Analysis of the Bureaucratic Responses

In the effort to determine if administrators and administrators by

institution type institutions differed significantly in their use of

bureaucratic decision making and to test hypotheses 1, 2 and 3, the first

dependent variable that was analyzed was bureaucratic decision making.

Hypothesis 1. There is no two way interaction between type of

administrator and type of institution regarding use of the

bureaucratic decision making model.



TABLE 3

Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value and
Significance Level of Bureaucratic Decision Making as
a Function of Institutional Type and Administrative Type


Frequency
Mean Four Year Four Year Community Cumulative
Std. Deviation Private Public College Mean


21 21 26
Academic Affairs 23.76 24.86 25.15 24.63
3.61 4.22 3.16

15 20 20
Business Affairs 25.00 23.25 24.65 24.24
3.63 4.22 4.68

19 19 27
Student Affairs 27.53 27.58 26.33 27.04
3.08 4.49 2.90

25.40 25.18 25.45


F-Value (1.34) Significance Level (.26)











As Table 3 indicates, an F-Value of 1.34 was completed for the

dependent variable bureaucratic decision making. The probability of

obtaining a computed F-value of this size is .26. Since the probability

is greater than .05, the hypothesis should not be rejected. Thus, no two

way interaction exists between type of administrator and type of

institution regarding their use of bureaucratic decision making. Table 3

also reports the frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three

administrative positions and the three types of institutions using

bureaucratic decision making as the dependent variable. The sample sizes

are consistent with the daca reported on Table 2.

Hypothesis 2. There are no differences among administrators in

the three major institutional positions regarding their use of the

bureaucratic decision making model.



TABLE 4

Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and
Significance Level of Bureaucratic Decision Making
as a Function of Administrative Type


Standard Significance
N Mean Deviation F-Value Level


Academic 68 24.63 3.64
Affairs

Business 55 24.24 4.24
Affairs

Student 65 27.04 3.48
Affairs
(10.18) (0.0001)











For this dependent variable an F-value of 10.18 was computed with

a probability of .0001. Since the probability is less than .05, the

hypothesis is rejected. Table 4 reports the frequencies, means and

standard deviations for the three administrative positions using

bureaucratic decision making as the dependent variable. The sample sizes

are consistent with the data reported on Table 2.

Since the hypothesis was rejected, the researcher sought to

determine where the differences among administrators existed. The Duncan

multiple range test, a follow up test to the ANOVA, was used for the

bureaucratic variable.

TABLE 5

Frequency And Mean of Bureaucratic
Decision Making as a Function of Administrative Type


N Mean Significant
*Difference


Academic 68 24.63 B
Affairs

Business 55 24.24 B
Affairs

Student 65 27.04 A
Affairs

*Means with the same letter are not significantly different


As Table 5 indicates, by comparing means, the chief academic affairs

officers and chief business affairs officers do not differ significantly

from each other in their use of bureaucratic decision making. However,











both are significantly more likely to the use bureaucratic decision

making than are chief student affairs officers.

Hypothesis 3. There are no differences by type of institution among

administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their

use of the bureaucratic decision making model.

For this hypothesis an F-value of .08 was calculated with a

probability of .92. Since the probability is greater than .05, null

hypothesis 3 should not be rejected. Thus, no differences exist by type

of institutions among the three administrators regarding their use of the

bureaucratic decision making model. Table 6 reports the frequences,

means and standard deviations for the three institutions using

bureaucratic decision making as the dependent variable. The frequencies

are consistent with the data reported in Table 2.

TABLE 6

Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-value and
Significance Level of Bureaucratic Decision Making as
a Function of Institutional Type


Standard Significant
N Mean Deviation F-Value Level


Four Year 55 25.40 3.75
Private

Four Year 60 25.18 4.59
Public

Community 73 25.45 3.58
College
(.08) (.9221)











Analysis of the Collegial Responses

To determine if administrators and institutions differed

significantly in their use of collegial decision making and to test null

hypotheses 4, 5 and 6, the second dependent variable that was analyzed

was collegial decision making.

Hypothesis 4. There is no two way interaction between type of

administrator and type of institution regarding use of the collegial

decision making model.

For this hypothesis an F-value of .93 was calculated. The

probability of obtaining this F-value is .45. This indicates that null

hypothesis 4 should not be rejected. Thus, no two way interaction exists

between type of administrator and type of institution regarding use of

collegial decision making. Table 7 (page 60) reports the frequencies,

means and standard deviations for the three administrative positions and

the types

of institutions using collegial decision making as the dependent variable.

Hypothesis 5. There are no differences among administrators in the

three institutional positions regarding their use of collegial

decision making model.

For this hypothesis an F-value of 8.93 was calculated. The

probability of obtaining an F-value of this size is .0002 indicating that

null hypothesis 5 is rejected. Table 8 (page 60) reports the

frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three administrative

types using collegial decision making as the dependent variable. The

frequencies are consistent with the data reported on Table 2.











TABLE 7


Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value and
Significance Level of Collegial Decision Making as
a Function of Institutional Type and Administrative Type


Frequency
Mean Four Year Four Year Community Cumulative
Std. Deviation Private Public College Mean


21 21 26
Academic Affairs 24.38 24.09 25.73 24.81
2.99 3.49 3.38

20 15 20
Business Affairs 27.40 24.60 26.85 26.44
3.27 4.01 4.94

19 19 27
Student Affairs 22.10 24.05 24.11 23.51
3.49 3.82 3.94

23.65 25.18 25.44


F-Value (.93) Significance Level (.45)

TABLE 8


Frequence Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and
Significance Level of Collegial Decision Making as
a Function of Administrative Type


Standard Significance
N Mean Deviation F-Value Level


Academic 68 24.81 3.33
Affairs

Business 55 26.44 4.23
Affairs

Student 65 23.51 3.83
Affairs

(8.93) (0.0002)











Since this hypothesis was rejected the researcher sought to determine

where the differences among administrators existed. The Duncan follow-up

test to the ANOVA was used for the collegial variable.


TABLE 9

Frequency and Mean of Collegial Decision
Making as a Function of Administrative Type

*Significance
N Mean Difference


Academic 68 24.81 B
Affairs

Business 55 26.44 A
Affairs

Student 65 23.51 B
Affairs

* Means with the same letters are not significantly different.



When the means in Table 9 were compared, the Duncan test indicated

that chief academic affairs officers and chief student affairs officers

do not differ significantly in their use of the collegial decision making

process but both are significantly more likely to use this process than

are chief business officers.

Hypothesis 6. There are no differences by type of institution among

administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use

of the collegial decision making model.











For this hypothesis an F-value of 3.66 and a probability of .03 were

calculated. Since the probability of obtaining an F-value of 3.66 is

less than .05, hypothesis 6 is rejected. Table 10 reports the

frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three institutional

types.

TABLE 10

Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and
Significance Level of Collegial Decision Making
as a Function of Institutional Type



Standard Significance
N Mean Deviation F-Value Level


Four Year 55 23.65 3.59
Private

Four Year 60 25.18 3.81
Public

Community 73 25.44 4.15
College
(3.66) (0.03)



Since hypothesis 6 was rejected the researcher sought to determine

where the difference among institutions existed. The Duncan multiple

range test was used for the collegial variable. When the means of the

institutions were compared (Table 11) they indicated that administrators

in private baccalaureate degree granting institutions are significantly

more likely than administrators in public community colleges and public

baccalaureate degree granting institutions to use the collegial decision

making process.












TABLE 11

Frequency And Mean of Collegial Decision
Making as a Function of Institutional Type


Significance
N Mean Difference


Four Year 55 23.65 B
Private

Four Year 60 25.18 A
Public

Community 73 25.44 A
College
Means with same letters are not significantly different.


Analysis of the Political Responses

To determine if administrators and institutions differed

significantly in their use of the political decision making model and to

test hypothesis 7, 8, and 9, the third dependent variable that was

analyzed was political decision making.

Hypothesis 7. There is no two way interaction between type of

administrator and type of institution regarding use of the political

decision making model.

For hypothesis 7 an F-value of 1.21 was calculated. The probability

of obtaining this F-value was .31. Since the probability is greater than

.05, hypothesis 7 should not be rejected. Therefore no two-way

interaction exists between type of administrator and type of institution

regarding their use of political decision making. Table 12 reports the

frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three administrative












positions and the three institutional types using political decision

making as the dependent variable.

TABLE 12

Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and
Significance Level for Political Decision Making
as a Function of Administrative Type and Institutional Type


Frequency
Mean Four Year Four Year Community Cumulative
Standard Deviation Private Public College Means


21 21 26
Academic Affairs 29.86 29.05 27.08 28.54
3.37 3.56 3.31

15 20 20
Business Affairs 28.40 27.35 26.50 27.32
4.44 2.98 3.52

19 19 27
Student Affairs 28.37 26.32 27.56 27.43
3.32 3.50 3.51

28.95 27.62 27.10


F-Value (1.21) Significance Level (.31)


Hypothesis 8. There are no differences among administrators in the

three institutional positions regarding their use of the political

decision making model.

For this hypothesis an F-value of 2.32 and a probability of .10 were

calculated. Since the probability is greater than .05, null hypothesis 8











should not be rejected. Thus, there are no differences among the three

administrative types in their use of the political decision making

model. Table 13 reports the frequencies, means and standard deviations

for the three administrative types using political decision making as the

dependent variable. The frequencies are consistent with the data

reported on Table 2.

TABLE 13

Mean, Frequency, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and
Significance Level of Political Decision Making as a
Function of Administrative Type


Standard Significance
N Mean Deviation F-Value Level


Academic Affairs 68 28.54 3.56

Business Affairs 55 27.32 3.63

Student Affairs 65 27.43 3.49

(2.32) (0.10)


Hypothesis 9. There are no differences by type of institution among

administrators in the three major institutional positions regarding their

use of the political decision making model.

An F-value of 4.46 and a probability of .01 were calculated for this

hypothesis. Since the probability of obtaining this F-value (.01) is less

than .05, hypothesis 9 should be rejected. Table 14 reports the frequencies,

means and standard deviations for the three institutional types using

political decision making as the dependent variable. The frequencies are

consistent with the data reported on Table 2.











TABLE 14

Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and
Significance Level of Political Decision Making
as a Function of Institutional Type


Standard Significance
N Mean Deviation F-Value Level


Four Year 55 28.95 3.67
Private

Four Year 60 27.62 3.49
Public

Community
College 73 27.10 3.42
(4.46) (0.01)



Since hypothesis 9 was rejected, the researcher sought to determine

where the differences among institutions existed. The Duncan follow-up

test to the AITOVA was used for the political variable.

Table 15 indicates by comparison of means that administrators in

public baccalaureate degree granting institutions and public community

colleges do not differ significantly in their use of the political

decision making but both are more likely to use the political decision

making process than administrators in private baccalaureate degree

granting institutions.












TABLE 15

Frequency and Mean Comparison of Political
Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type


*Significance
N Mean Level


Four Year 55 28.95 A
Private

Four Year 60 27.62 B
Public

Community
College 73 27.10 B

* Means with same letters are not significantly different


Table 16 reports the cumulative means by administrative type for the

three dependent variables. The lower the cumulative mean score for each

dependent variable the more reflective those responses appeared to be of

the administrator's decision. The higher the cumulative mean, the less

likely the responses appeared to be reflected of the administrator's

decision.

TABLE 16

Cumulative Means by Administrator Type for the Three
Dependent Variables (Collegial, Breaucratic, and Political)


Administrator Collegial Bureaucratic Political


Academic Affairs 24.81 24.63 28.54

Business 26.44 24.44 27.32

Student Affairs 23.51 27.04 27.42












Table 16 indicated, as did previous analyses, that chief academic

affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic and collegial in their

decision making than political. Chief business affairs officers tended

to be more bureaucratic in their decision making than collegial or

political and chief student affairs officers appeared to be more

collegial in their decision making than bureaucratic or political.

The researcher was further interested in knowing if administrators

differed significantly at the .05 level on the 39 individual responses

(13 for each of the 3 dependent variables: bureaucratic, collegial,

political or if the differences were cancelled by the mean analysis

generated by the ANOVA.

To answer this question, an item analysis using chi-square by

administrator and by institution was conducted. The chi-square and

probability coefficients for each response to the dependent variables are

reported on Tables 17, 18, and 19.

Table 17 reports the 13 responses that were developed to measure

bureaucratic decision making. Of the 13 responses as a function of the

independent variable administrators, four responses (R.12, R.13, R.20 and

R.33) yielded chi squares of 10.0, 23.48, 19.62 and 11.27 with

probability coeffecients of .04, .0001, .0006 and .02 respectively. This

indicated that a difference existed between administrators on each of

these bureaucratic response items. Of the 13 responses that were

developed to measure bureaucratic decision making as a function of

institutional type, no response yielded chi-squares that had a

probability level which met the criteria for statistical significance of

less than .05.












Table 18 reports the 13 responses that were developed to measure

collegial decision making. Of the 13 responses as a function of the

independent variable administrators, four responses (R.2, R.4, R14 and

R.35) yielded chi-squares of 16.16, 10.74, 10.74, and 11.04 with

probability coefficients of .003, .03, .03 and .03 respectfully. This

indicated that a difference existed between administrators on collegial

response items. The chi-squares were calculated for the collegial

responses as a function of institutional type. This yielded one response

(R.14) with a chi-square of 11.40 and a probability coefficient of .02.

This indicated that a difference existed on this response item among

administrators by institutional type.

Table 19 reports the 13 responses that were developed to measure

political decision making. Of the 13 responses as a function of the

independent variable administrators three responses (R.6, R.11 and R.36)

yielded chi-squares of 10.84, 12.31 and 12.42 with probability

coefficients of .03, .02 and .01. This indicated that a difference

existed on these response items between administrators and political

decision making.

The chi-square were calculated for the political responses as a

function of institutional type. This yielded one response (R.15) with a

chi-square of 13.12 and a probability coefficient of .01. This indicated

that a difference on this item existed among administrators by

institutional type.












The chi-square was calculated to determine if administrators differed

on individual response items or if the differences were cancelled by the

non-significant items in the mean analysis. The researcher found this to

be true in one instance. The chi-square found differences among three

response items by administrators in their use of political decision

making. However the non-significant items in the mean analysis cancelled

these differences found in the individual response items.

Chapter IV has discussed the research sample, the selection process,

and the rate of return of the survey instrument. In addition the

analysis of the data was reported. The analysis indicated the following:

1. Chief academic affairs officers and chief business affairs

officers do not differ significantly from each other in their use

of bureaucratic decision making but both are significantly more

likely to use bureaucratic decision making than chief student

affairs administrators.

2. Chief academic affairs officers and chief student affairs

officers do not differ significantly in their use of collegial

decision making but both are significantly more likely to use

this process than are chief business officers.

3. Administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting

institutions are significantly more likely than administrators in

public community colleges and public baccaleureate degree

granting institutions to use the collegial decision making

process.











TABLE 17

Chi-Squares and Probability for
Bureaucratic Response Items by Administrator and
by Institution


By Administrator By Institution

Bureaucratic
Response Chi-Square PX2 Chi-Square
pX2


R.1 4.64 0.34 3.86 0.43

R.5 9.25 0.06 7.15 0.13

R.9 3.92 0.42 4.77 0.31

R.12 10.00 0.04 4.72 0.32

R.13 23.48 0.0001 7.78 0.10

R.16 6.28 0.18 7.98 0.09

R.20 19.62 0.0006 9.19 0.06

R.23 6.33 0.18 0.33 0.99

R.25 1.72 0.79 3.84 0.43

R.30 8.87 0.07 4.14 0.39

R.33 11.27 0.02 7.95 0.09

R.34 7.86 0.10 2.88 0.58

R.38 6.80 0.15 2.40 0.66











TABLE 18

Chi Squares and Probability for
Collegial Response Items by Administrator and
by Institution


By Administrator By Institution
2 2
Collegial Response Chi Square PX Chi Square PX


R.2

R.4

R.8

R. 10

R. 14

R.17

R.19

R.22

R.26

R.28

R.31

R.35

R.37


16.16

1.33

10.74

7.70

10.74

4.81

6.48

.883

9.08

9.15

3.71

11.04

3.63


0.003

0.86

0.03

0.10

0.03

0.31

0.17

0.93

0.06

0.06

0.45

0.03

0.46


9.33

7.58

6.88

4.62

11.40

6.56

5.14

5.28

4.08

2.77

3.40

1.54

2.93


0.053

0.11

0.14

0.33

0.02

0.16

0.27

0.26

0.40

0.59

0.49

0.82

0.57












TABLE 19

Chi Squares and Probability for
Political Response Items by Administrator and
by Institution


By Administrator By Institution
2 2
Political Response Chi Square PX Chi Square PX


R. 3

R.6

R. 7

R.1

R.15

R.18

R.21

R.24

R.27

R.29

R.32

R.36

R.39


8.26

10.84

3.28

12.31

7.28

2.55

9.21

7.11

4.20

2.89

7.06

12.42

4.84


0.08

0.03

0.51

0.02

0.12

0.64

0.06

0.13

0.38

0.58

0.13

0.01

0.30


6.52

7.99

6.19

4.56

13.12

3.96

4.59

7.93

4.85

5.95

4.90

4.47

2.77


0.16

0.09

0.19

0.34

0.01

0.41

0.33

0.09

0.30

0.20

0.30

0.35

0.60











4. Administrators in public community colleges and public

baccalaureate degree granting institutions do not differ

significantly in their use of the political decision

making but both are more likely to use this process than

administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting

institutions.

5. Chief academic affairs officers tended to be more

bureaucratic and collegial than political in their

decision making.

6. Chief business officers tended to be more bureaucratic in

their decision making than either collegial or political.

7. Chief student affairs officers tended to be more collegial

in their decision making than either bureaucratic or

political.

Chapter V is titled "Summary and Conclusions." In Chapter V the

results of the study are discussed in relationship to the three different

dependent variables (bureaucratic, collegial, political decision making)

and the independent variables (administrator and institutional type). In

addition, conclusions are stated and recommendations are suggested.


















CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS



The final chapter of this study consists of five sections. Section

one is a review of the study followed by a summary of the major findings

in section two. Section three presents the conclusions with discussion

of the results in section four and section five addressing the possible

implications for further research.

The study utilized an instrument developed by the researcher. The 13

critical incidents and 39 decision making responses which comprised the

instrument were validated by a national panel of expert judges. Each of

the 13 critical incidents had three responses with each response

reflecting one of the three decision making models under investigation.

The research sample was selected from colleges and universities in

the Southern United States as defined by the Southern Association of

Colleges and Schools. A total of 270 chief administrators from three

different areas of administrative responsibility (academic affairs,

business affairs and student affairs) and from three types of

institutions (private baccalaureate degree granting, public baccalaureate

degree granting and public community college) was selected to participate

in the study. The Yearbook of Higher Education was used to











identify the names and addresses of the randomly selected administrators.

The research instrument was mailed to each of the 270 administrators

and produced a return rate of 69.6 percent. The rank ordered responses

of the 188 administrators were statistically analyzed using the two-way

analysis of variance. A probability coefficient of less than .05 was

established to reject the null hypothesis. The Duncan multiple range

test was used to find out exactly where significant differences existed

if the researcher rejected the null hypothesis. A chi-square for each

response was calculated to determine if administrators differed

significantly on individual response items.

Major Findings

The researcher analyzed three problem statements for each of the

three dependent variables (bureaucratic, collegial and political decision

making). The problem statements were analyzed by stating them in null

hypothesis form. Of the nine hypotheses tested four were rejected at the

established probability level of .05 or less.

The statistical analysis indicated the following major findings:

1. Chief academic affairs officers and chief business affairs

officers do not differ significantly in their use of bureaucratic

decision making. However, both are more likely to use the

bureaucratic decision making model than chief student affairs

administrators.

2. Chief academic affairs officers and chief student affairs











officers do not differ significantly in their use of collegial

decision making. However, both are significantly more likely to

use the collegial decision making model than chief business

affairs officers.

3. Administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting

institutions are significantly more likely than those working in

public community colleges and public baccalaureate degree

granting institutions to use collegial decision making.

4. Administrators in public baccalaureate degree granting

institutions and public community colleges do not differ

significantly in their use of the political decision making

model. However, administrators in both institutions are more

likely to use the political decision making model than

administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting

institutions.

5. Chief student affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic and

collegial in their decision making than political.

6. Chief business officers tended to be more bureaucratic in their

decision making than either collegial or political.

7. Chief student affairs officers tended to be more collegial in

their decision making than either bureaucratic or political.











Conclusions

The findings of the study led the researcher to the following

conclusions:

1. Of the three decision making models under investigation (Weber's

bureaucratic model, Millett's collegial model, and Baldridge's

political model) no single model emerged as the dominant decision

making model. The study indicated that all three models are

useful and provide a framework by which administrators make

decisions.

2. The instrument developed by the researcher does clearly

discriminate for statistical purposes the significant differences

among administrators as to the decision making processes used.

3. There are significant differences among the three types of

administrators participating in this study regarding their use of

the bureaucratic and collegial decision making models.

4. There are significant differences among administrators by

institutional type regarding their use of the collegial and

political decision making models.

5. Chief academic affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic

and collegial in their decision making. Chief business officers

tended to be more bureaucratic and chief student affairs tended

to be collegial in their decision making. No single group of

administrators tended to be political in their decision making.











Discussion

The results of the study indicated that no single group of

administrators tended to use Baldridge's political decision making model

but instead favored the collegial or bureaucratic models of decision

making. One factor that could explain this tendency is the fact that

Baldridge's decision making model was developed in 1971 when higher

education institutions were faced with student protests and outside

influences that bordered on turmoil. Higher education institutions

survived this disruptive period of time and institutions today may be the

more reflective of the times when both Millett (1962) and Weber (1947)

developed their collegial and bureaucratic decision making models. Thus

this may explain why administrators tended to favor the collegial and

bureaucratic models of decision making.

The study found that chief business affairs and chief academic

affairs officers were more likely to use bureaucratic decision making

than were chief student affairs officers. One might speculate that this

difference may be due to the types of decisions made by each type of

administrator on a day to day basis. For example chief business affairs

officers typically make decisions as they relate to accounting,

budgeting, unionized personnel and the physical plant. Chief academic

affairs officers make decisions as they relate to faculty unions,

graduation requirements and the curriculum. These types of decisions may

be more reflective of a bureaucratic decision making response. Chief

student affairs officers deal with students on a day to day basis and

their decisions often times are not based strictly on rules, regulations











or procedures. Thus, the chief student affairs officer often times may

use a collegial approach.

Chief academic affairs officers were found to be both collegial and

bureaucratic in their decision making. One might speculate that this

could be the result of working with faculty (collegial) while at the same

time working with faculty unions (bureaucratic).

Administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting institutions

were more likely to be collegial in their decision making when compared

with administrators in public community colleges and public baccalaureate

degree granting institutions. Administrators in the two types of public

institutions were more likely to use the political decision making model

than their counterparts in the private institutions. Speculation

regarding this finding is difficult. The researcher suggests however

that public institutions tend to be more politicized in nature than their

private counterparts since funding for public institutions comes from the

state legislatures as a result of the political process. It is

conceivable that this political process is continued at the institutional

level. Most private institutions, on the other hand, receive little or

no direct funding from public funds and thus may be less likely to be

influenced by the political process.

Possible Implications for Further Research

The study indicates the need for further research in several areas.

The study found differences in the decision making process among

administrators and among administrators by institutional type but did not











attempt to answer the questions of how or why these differences existed.

Could the differences be the result of the types of decisions

administrators make or a result of their varied responsibilities? Are

there institutional characteristics that contribute to an administrator's

tendency to use one particular decision making model? Futher research

could address these issues as well as the following:

1. The study was limited to the comparison of three decision making

model (bureaucratic, collegial and political). Additional

research could focus on the same plus different decision making

models such as Chaffee's (1983) rational decision making and

organized anarchy.

2. The critical incidents used in the study to describe

administrative problems are limited to administrative activities

as defined by Gulick's and Urick's 1937 PODSCORB model. Future

research could focus on administrative activities using a

different administrative model.

3. The sample for the study could be changed or expanded to include

additional educational staff and various demographic factors

(sex, age, race, level of education and years of service) could

be used as independent variables to determine possible

interaction with the decision making process.

4. Different types of institutional categories including the

multicampus could be studied and used for the sample.

Demographic information about institutions regarding age, sex,

race and degrees offered is a possibility.











5. Sample populations from the same institution could be studied to

determine similarities and differences in their decision making

process.

6. A study could be conducted co determine if a relationship exists

between types of decisions made and the use of a particular

decision making model.

7. Since Chief Academic Affairs officers were found to be both

collegial and bureaucratic in their decision making further

research is needed to clarify this finding.





















APPENDIX A

COVER LETTER TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS











March 15, 1984


Dear

Mr. Tom Dougan is conducting a study of administrative decision
making in higher education under the sponsorship of the Institute of
Higher Education.

The purpose of this letter is to request your participation in this
study. The study seeks to compare the decision making processes used by
higher education administrators by area of responsibility and by
institutional type.

The critical incidents presented by Mr. Dougan's survey are relevant
and reflective of situations in which your president/chancellor expects
that you will provide recommendations in accordance with administrative
operations of the institution. Although the alternatives do not exhaust
the possibilities, please confine yourself to rank ordering the responses
specified in the survey according to your best judgement.

We will appreciate very much your cooperation and assistance with the
study and will provide you a copy of the findings if you so indicate on
the survey. In order to tabulate all the replies, we are requesting the
return of your completed survey by March 29, 1984.

Cordially,


James L. Wattenbarger, Director
Institute of Higher Education

























APPENDIX B

SECOND COVER LETTER TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS











April 2, 1984


Dear

Several weeks ago the Institute of Higher Education mailed a survey
to a selected sample of chief business affairs administrators at colleges
and universities of the Southeast. To date we have had a good response.

To the best of our knowledge, we have not yet received your survey.
However, it is possible that it is in the mail at this time. If you have
returned the survey please disregard this letter.

We are most anxious to insure that a representative sample of chief
business affairs administrators are included in this study. If you would
take several minutes to complete the enclosed study, we would be most
grateful. We expect to begin tabulation of the data in mid April and
would appreciate receiving your survey as soon as possible.

Your participation in this study is greatly appreciated.

Cordially,


James L. Wattenbarger, Director
Institute of Higher Education






























APPENDIX C

JUDGES SELECTED TO VALIDATE INSTRUMENT

















Judges Selected to Validate the Research Instrument


Dr. Louis Bender
Florida State University

Dr. Fred F. Harcleroad
University of Arizona

Dr. Ralph Kimbrough
University of Florida

Dr. S. V. Martorana
Pennsylvania State University

Dr. Michael Nunnery
University. of Florida

Dr. Richard Richardson
Arizona State University

Dr. James Wattenbarger
University of Florida


































APPENDIX D
COVERED LETTER AND
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY TO THE JUDGES





5620 N. W. 25th Street
Gainesville, FL 32607
November 29, 1983


Dr. Louis W. Bender, Director
Department of Educational Leadership
Room 107, Stone Building
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306

Dear Dr. Bender:

As per our phone conversation of last week, Dr. James Wattenbarger,
Director of the Institute of Higher Education at the University of
Florida, suggested that I contact you to participate as a judge in this
research project. I appreciate your willingness to participate and I have
attached a brief description of the study and a copy of the survey to this
letter with the following directions:

1. Read each critical incident and the responses for each.

2. Mark each of the responses as you believe it is representative of
B = bureaucratic, C = collegial, P = political.

3. Do not apply the process of elimination. Judge each response in
its own right.

4. Completed responses and comments should be returned in the
enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.

Again, Dr. Bender, thank you for your interest and willingness to
participate in this research project.

Sincerely,



Thomas R. Dougan












BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY



The purpose of this study is to test the decision making model as

described by Victor Baldridge (1971) and to determine whether Baldridge's

decision making model is supported by the responses of administrators in

three types of positions at three types of institutions. The study

further tested Baldridge's decision making model by contrasting this

theory to Millett's (1962) collegial decision making model and Weber's

(1946) bureaucratic decision making model. The researcher developed a

questionnaire composed of eighteen critical incidents and three responses

for each incident that was used to test Baldridge's decision making theory.




Full Text
AN ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION MAKING
PROCESS USED BY UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS
ON SELECTED ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
BY
THOMAS R. DOUGAN
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1984

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express sincere appreciation to many people who have in
their own way contributed to this study.
Dr. Art Sandeen, my committee chairman, was a source of encouragement
throughout the study and an invaluable advisor during the graduate
program. Dr. James Wattenbarger and Dr. Harold Riker provided direction
and support through the study. Dr. Tom Goodale and Dr. Phyllis Meek
offered me the professional encouragement to start the project and the
personal encouragement needed to finish.
I wish to thank Ms. Betty Anderson for typing the rough draft of the
study and to Carolyn Suggs, whose skill in typing and editing the final
copy were invaluable, goes my sincere appreciation.
Special personal thanks and appreciation are due my wife Karen. Her
patience, understanding and personal sacrifice were the major reasons
this study was able to be completed. To Brian, Katie and Jennifer, my
children, go my appreciation for their curiosity, their understanding of
the time away from them and for their sense of humor all of which made
this study an easier task.
To my parents Ralph and Millie Dougan special thanks are due for
their always believing this project was possible.
Thanks are also due to nany friends and colleagues in the Office of
Student Services who have provided encouragement and special assistance
throughout the study.
11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES v
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Theoretical Background 4
Delimitations 5
Limitations 6
Assumptions 6
Definition of Terms 7
Research Methodology 8
Selection of the Research Sample 9
Instrumentation and Data Collection 9
Treatment and Analysis of the Data 10
Organization of the Study by Chapters 11
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 13
Introduction 13
Bureaucratic Decision Making 13
Collegial Decision Making 19
Political Decision Making 24
CHAPTER III DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE INSTRUMENT 29
Selection of the Critical Incidents 29
Construction of the Decision Making Responses 45
Validation of the Response Items 46
Design and Printing of the Instrument 48
CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 49
The Research Sample.. 51
Analysis of the Data 53
Analysis of the Bureaucratic Responses 55
Analysis of the Collegial Responses 59
Analysis of the Political Responses 64
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Major Findings
Conclusions
Discussion
Possible Implications for Further Research
APPENDIX A COVER LETTER TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS
APPENDIX B SECOND COVER LETTER TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS
APPENDIX C JUDGES SELECTED TO VALIDATE INSTRUMENT
APPENDIX D COVER LETTER AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDY TO THE JUDGES..
APPENDIX E RESPONSE OF JUDGES TO THE INSTRUMENT
APPENDIX F RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
REFERENCES
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
PAGE
75
76
78
79
80
84
86
88
90
93
96
110
114
IV

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2 Research Sample that Returned
Valid Responses
TABLE 3 Frequency Mean, Standard Deviation
F-Value, and Significance Level of
Bureaucratic Decision Making as a
Function of Institutional Type and
Administrative Type
TABLE 4 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation
F-Value, and Significance Level of
Bureaucratic Decision Making as a
Function of Administrative Type
TABLE 5 Frequency and Mean of Bureaucratic
Decision Making as a Function of
Administrative Type
TABLE 6 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation,
F-Value, and Significance Level of
Bureaucratic Decision Making as a
Function of Institutional Type
TABLE 7 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation,
F-Value, and Significance Level of
Collegial Decision Making as a
Function of Institutional Type
TABLE 8 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation
F-Value, and Significance Level of
Collegial Decision Making as a Function
of Administrative Type
TABLE 9 Frequency and Mean of Collegial Decision
Making as a Function of Administrative Typ
TABLE 10 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, and
Significance Level of Collegial Decision
Making as a Function of Institutional Type

LIST OF TABLES (continued)
PAGE
TABLE 11....Frequency and Mean of Collegial Decision
Making as a Function of Institutional Type 63
TABLE 12....Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value,
and Significance Level for Political Decision
Making as a Function of Administration Type
and Institutional Type 64
TABLE 13....Mean, Frequency, Standard Deviation, F-Value,
and Significance Level of Political Decision
Making as a Function of Administrative Type 65
TABLE 14....Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value,
and Significance Level of Political Decision
Making as a Function of Institutional Type 66
TABLE 15....Frequency and Mean Comparison of Political
Decision Making as a Function of Institutional
Type 67
TABLE 16.... Cumulative Means by Administrator Type for the
Three Dependent Variables (Collegial, Bureaucratic,
and Political) 67
TABLE 17....Chi-Squares and Probability for Bureaucratic Response
Items by Administrator and by Institution 71
TABLE 18....Chi-Squares and Probability for Collegial Response Items
by Administrator and by Institution 72
TABLE 19....Chi-Squares and Probability for Political Response Items
by Administrator and by Institution 73
vi

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the
Graduate School of the University of Florida in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
AN ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION MAKING
PROCESS USED BY UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS
ON SELECTED ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
BY
Thomas R. Dougan
December, 1984
Chairman: Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen
Major Department: Educational Administration
and Supervision
The purpose of this study was to test the political decision making
model of Victor Baldridge by comparing this model to Weber's bureaucratic
decision making model and Millett's collegial decision making model.
Three administrative positions within higher education were selected for
investigation: chief business affairs officers, chief academic affairs
officers and chief student affairs officers. Three types of
postsecondary institutions were selected for investigation: private
baccalaureate degree granting, public baccalaureate degree granting and
public community colleges.
To collect data relevant to the focus of this study, the researcher
developed an instrument consisting of several critical incidents
depicting realistic problems in higher education. The instrument was
mailed to a randomly selected sample of 270 administrators. The sample
vii

was composed of three types of administrative positions by three types of
postsecondary education institutions, with a population of 30
administrators in each group. The sample was taken from selected higher
education institutions in the Southern United States.
A two-way analysis of variance was calculated to determine if
significant differences existed. If a significant difference was found,
the Duncan multiple range test was used to determine where the
significant differences existed. A chi-square for each response was
calculated to determine if differences existed on individual response
items or if the differences were cancelled by the non-significant items
in the mean analysis.
The statistical analysis indicated the following major findings:
1. Baldridge's political decision making model did not emerge as the
dominant model used by administrators. The study indicated that
all three decision making models (bureaucratic, collegial and
political) were useful and provided a framework by which
administrators made decisions.
2. Chief academic affairs officers and chief business affairs
officers do not differ significantly from each other in their use
of bureaucratic decision making but both are significantly more
likely to use bureaucratic decision making than chief student
affairs officers.
viii

3. Administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting
institutions are significantly more likely than administrators in
public community colleges and public baccalaureate degree
granting institutions to use collegial decision making.
4. Administrators in public community colleges and public
baccalaureate degree granting institutions do not differ
significantly in their use of political decision making but both
are more likely to use political decision making than
administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting
institutions.
5. Chief business affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic in
their decision making than collegial and political.
6. Chief academic affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic
and collegial in their decision making than political.
7. Chief student affairs officers tended to be more collegial in
their decision making than bureaucratic and political.
IX

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Higher education in the 1980s faces increasing challenges and
concerns. Declining enrollments, reductions in resources available to
education and decreasing institutional autonomy are but a few problems
facing higher education administrators. In the final report to the
Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, Three Thousand
Futures (1980), Kerr refers to these concerns as fears, and urges
administrators to engage in careful, long range planning. Other
publications, including the Carnegie Council on Higher Education report,
Priorities for Action (1973), Ebel's, The Art of Administration (1978)
and Hogkinson's and Bloy's, Identity Crisis in Higher Education (1971)
describe similar concerns for higher education and for college and
university administrators.
The ways in which these administrators react to these critical issues
will have an important effect on the successful operation of their
institutions and will affect students, faculty, staff, and ultimately all
of higher education. The importance of administrators to higher
education has been well documented. Roy, in the Administrative Process,
1

2
(1958) says, "administration is an art, refined and matured in the clinic
of experience” (p. 3). Other authors, including Nunnery and Kimbrough
(1976), Morphet, Johns and Rellers (1967), and Balderston (1975), have
supported the notion that administrators play a key institutional role
and that the study of administration is critical to the success of higher
education.
How can higher education administrators cope effectively with the
problems currently facing higher education? Simon (1959) suggests that
decision making is "the heart of administration" (pp. XIV), and can
indeed make a difference in the successful resolution of concerns facing
higher education. Griffiths (1959) states, "decision making is central
to administration and is more important than other functions" (p. 74).
Consequently, a key to coping with the pressures, "fears" and problems
facing higher education administrators today and in the future is
understanding of how these individuals make decisions. If a better
understanding of how decisions are reached can be made, improvements in
the decision making process may result and this may have a significant
impact on resolving the issues facing higher education today, and in the
future.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to test the decision making model as
described by Victor Baldridge (1971), in order to determine whether
Baldridge's decision making model is supported by the responses of
administrators in three types of positions (chief business affairs
officer, chief academic affairs officer and chief student affairs

3
officer) at three types of institutions (public baccalaureate degree
granting colleges, private baccalaureate degree granting colleges, and
public community colleges). The study further tested Baldridge's
decision making model by contrasting this theory to Millett's (1962)
collegial decision making model and Weber's (1947) bureaucratic decision
making model. Specifically, the following questions were addressed in
this study:
1. What are the differences in the decision making process among the
three administrators according to their assigned area of
responsibility?
2. What are the differences in the decision making process among the
three administrators by institutional type?
3. Do the decision making processes used by the three administrative
positions support either Baldridge's, Weber's or Millett's
decision making model?
The following null hypotheses were developed and tested in this study:
Hypothesis 1. There is no two way interaction between type of
administrator and type of institution regarding use of the
bureaucratic decision making model.
Hypothesis 2. There are no differences among administrators in the
three institutional positions regarding their use of the bureaucratic
decision making model.
Hypothesis 3. There are no differences by type of institution among
administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use

4
of the bureaucratic decision making model.
Hypothesis 4. There is no two way interaction between type of
administrator and type of institution regarding use of the collegial
decision making model.
Hypothesis 5. There are no differences among administrators in the
three institutional positions regarding their use of the collegial
decision making model.
Hypothesis 6. There are no differences by type of institution among
administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use
of the collegial decision making model.
Hypothesis 7. There is no two way interaction between type of
administrator and type of institution regarding use of the political
decision making model.
Hypothesis 8. There are no differences among administrators in the
three institutional positions regarding their use of the political
decision making model.
Hypothesis 9. There are no differences by type of institution among
administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their
use of the political decision making model.
Theoretical Background
The theory tested in this study was the political decision making
model developed by Baldridge (1971) and later elaborated by Baldridge and
Riley (1977). Baldridge postulated that decisions made by higher

education administrators are political in nature and that the university
is best understood as a political institution.
Baldridge (1971), in his work Academic Governance, states, "when we
look at campuses today we see neither the rigid formal aspects of
bureaucracy nor the calm, consensus directed elements of an academic
collegium. On the contrary, student riots crippled the campus,
administrators defend their traditional positions and external interest
groups and irate governors invade the academic halls. These groups
articulate their interests in many different ways, bringing pressure to
bear on the decision making process. All of this is a dynamic process
clearly indicating that the university is best understood as a
politicized institution (p. 8). Baldridge further states, "the
bureaucratic and collegial models should not be completely cast aside, as
both offer helpful suggestions about the organizational nature of a
university. However, by themselves, they gloss over the essential
aspects of the university's structure and decision making processes" (p.
81).
A more detailed description of the political, collegial and
bureaucratic decision making models, together with major studies
conducted about them, can be found in Chapter II.
Delimitations
There were two major delimitations associated with this study:
1. The critical incidents used in the study to describe
administrative problems are limited to administrative activities
as defined by Gulick's and Urick's (1937) administrative model
"PODSCORB,"

6
(planning, organizing, directing, staffing, coordinating,
reporting and budgeting).
2. This research is confined to only three areas of administrative
responsibility in higher education: academic affairs, business
affairs, and student affairs.
Limitations
This study has limitations which should be recognized. They are as
follows:
1. Since there is no established or standardized instrument which
can be used for this research, the researcher developed an
instrument tested by a panel of expert judges.
2. The population selected for this study included those
institutions in the Southern United States (Virginia, Kentucky,
South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana,
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) and which appeared in the 1983-84
edition of the Education Directory of Colleges and Universities.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in conducting this research:
1. Comparative decision making processes can be analyzed relative to
bureaucratic, collegial, and political orientations among
practicing administrators.
2. The expert judges are capable of evaluating the critical
incidents and the three types of decision making responses for
each incident.

7
3. The instrument developed and tested was appropriate for
identifying the three decision making models.
Definition of Terms
Decision Making. "Decision making is a judgement made relative to
affairs that influence the course of action that follows and the acts
necessary to put the decision into effect" (Griffiths, 1959, p. 74)
Critical Incident. "A critical incident is an abbreviated case study
which provides managers with challenges similar to the real world
environment" (Deitzler and Schilliff, 1977, p. XVII).
Bureaucratic. This decision making mode assumes that institutions
are networks of social groups dedicated to limited goals and organized
for maximum efficiency. The structure is hierarchial and is tied
together by formal chains of command and systems of communication.
Regulation of the institution is based on the concept of legal
rationality (Baldridge, 1971, p. 2).
Collegial. The decision making mode assumes that a community of
scholars exists and should participate fully in the administration of the
institution. Under this concept, the community of scholars would
administer its own affairs and bureaucratic rules would have little
influence (Baldridge, 1971) p. 5).
Political. This decision making mode assumes that the institution is
fragmented into many interest groups or power blocks and that these small
groups govern most of the decisions made by administrators of higher

8
education institutions (Baldridge, 1971, p. 10).
Chief Student Affairs Officer. The highest ranking administrator at
each institution is the person whose major responsibility is the
management of non-classroom activities and services for students. This
person will have the title of Vice President or Dean for Student Affairs
or Chief Student Personnel Officer.
Chief Business Affairs Officer. The highest ranking administrator at
each institution is the person whose major responsibility is the
management of the budget and related fiscal activities. This person will
have the title of Vice President for Business or Administrative Affairs
or the Chief Business Affairs Officer.
Chief Academic Affairs Officer. The highest ranking administrator at
each institution is the person whose major responsibility is the
management of classroom and research activities. This person will have
the title of Vice President for Academic Affairs, Provost or Chief
Academic Affairs Officer.
Research Methodology
The major purpose of this study was to test the decision making model
as described by Victor Baldridge (1971) and to determine whether
Baldridge's decision making model is supported by the responses of
administrators in three types of positions at three types of
institutions. This section of the chapter is divided into three parts:
the selection of the research sample, the instrumentation and the data
collection, and the data analysis.

9
Selection of the Research Sample
The institutions used in this study were randomly selected from a
population of institutions located in the Southern United States
(Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina,
Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) as defined
by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools which appeared in the
Education Directory of Colleges and Universities. Three steps were taken
in this selection process. First, the institutions in the population
were classified into three categories: public community colleges, public
baccalaureate degree granting colleges, and private baccalaureate degree
granting colleges. Second, by means of a table of random numbers and a
random selection process with replacement, the researcher obtained a
sample of 270 administrative titles, 90 vice presidents for business
affairs (30 from each instituional category), 90 vice presidents for
academic affairs (30 from each institutional category), and 90 vice
presidents for student affairs (30 from each institutional category).
Third, the researcher used the Yearbook of Higher Education (1983-84)
to obtain the names and addresses of the persons in each of the 270
administrative lines.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
A survey instrument was developed by the researcher. Information
regarding the development and validation of the instrument is included in
Chapter III. The critical incident approach was the method used in the

10
development of the instrument. Flanagan (1966) suggested that if enough
such incidents were collected, reasonably complete categories of
effective decisions could be derived which could then be used as a basis
for measurement. A total of 13 critical incidents was developed using
Gulick's and Urick's (1937) "PODSCORB" model as the basis for the
incident. For each critical incident three decision making responses
were written, each response reflecting one of the three decision making
processes being tested. A panel of expert judges, listed in Appendix C,
was used to test and validate the instrument.
Each of the 270 administrators was mailed a copy of the survey for
collection of the data. An accompanying cover letter (Appendix A) signed
by Dr. James Wattenbarger, Director, Institute of Higher Education,
indicated his support for the research. Respondents were provided with a
self-addressed, stamped envelope for the purpose of returning the
survey. Each survey was coded to reflect administrative type and
institutional type and to determine whether a second mailing was
necessary. A second mailing was sent to nonrespondents with a copy of
the survey and cover letter (Appendix B). This letter urged their
participation and was accompanied by a self-addressed, return stamped
envelope.
Treatment and Analysis of the Data
Administrators particip ting in the research were asked to rank order
the responses to each critical incidents. The purpose by rank order
reflected the following:

1. That response which is MOST reflective of your position.
2. That response which is MODERATELY reflective of your position.
3. That response which is LEAST reflective of your position.
The data from each survey (rank-ordered responses, type of
institution, and administrative position) were placed on data process
coding sheets for input into the statistical analysis system (SAS). This
programming system was used for statistical treatment of the data.
The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed using a .05
level of probability. The purpose of the ANOVA was to determine if one
of the three decision making models was used more by administrative
position or by institutional type or both. The researcher rejected the
null hypothesis if a probability of less than .05 did occur. If a null
hypothesis was rejected, the researcher used the Duncan multiple range
test to find out exactly where the significant differences existed. A
Chi-square for each response was calculated to determine if
administrators differed significantly on individual response items or if
the differences were cancelled by the non-significant items in the mean
analysis generated by the ANOVA. The Statistical Analysis System (SAS)
program performed all statistical calculations.
Organization of the Study by Chapters
Chapter II is a review of the related literature and includes a
review of the three decision making models used in this study: the
collegial decision making model, the bureaucratic decision making model
and the political decision making model.

12
Chapter III reviews the development and validation of the research
instrument and includes the selection of the critical incidents, the
construction of the decision making responses and the validation of the
response items.
Chapter IV includes the presentation of the data and the results of
the study.
Chapter V presents the summary and conclusions, and includes
suggestions for further research.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter presents the review of the literature. The researcher
tested the political decision making model of Victor Baldridge by
comparing this model to Weber's bureaucratic decision making model and
Millett's collegial decision making model. Thus, the review of the
literature pertains to the following three areas: the bureaucratic
decision making model, the collegial decision making model and the
political decision making model.
Bureaucratic Decision Making
This section represents a description of the bureaucratic theory of
decision making as outlined by Weber. Several empirical studies which
test this theory are discussed, and studies which relate the
applicability of this decision making model to institutions of higher
education are also presented.
Max Weber (1947), the "father of bureaucracy," is well known for his
fundamental concept of rational legal authority. This concept has been
the foundation for subsequent research and theory concerned with
bureaucratic decision making. Weber's concept of rational legal
authority viewed bureaucracy as the most pure form of such authority.
The major elements of bureaucracy identified by Henderson and Parsons
(1947) are listed below:
13

14
1. A continuous organization of official functions bound by rules.
2. A specified sphere of competence which involves: an obligation
to perform functions which have been marked off as part of a
systematic division of law, the provision of the incumbent with
the necessary authority to carry out these functions, and the
necessary means of compulsion that are clearly defined.
3. The organization of offices follows the principle of hierarchy;
that each lower office is under the control and supervision of a
higher one. There is right to appeal and a statement of
grievance from the lower to the higher.
4. The rules which regulate the conduct of an office may be
technical rules or norms. In both cases, if their application is
to be fully rational, specified training is necessary.
5. In the rational type it is a matter of principle that the members
of the administrative staff should be completely separated from
ownership of the means of production or administration.
6. In the rational type case, there is also a complete absence of
appreciation of his official position by the incumbent.
7. Administrative acts, decisions and rules are formulated and
recorded in writing, even in cases where oral discussion is the
rule or is even mandatory.
8. Legal authority can be exercised in a wide variety of different
forms. (p. 330)
According to Weber, bureaucracy was one of the significant structures
that has furthered the development of rationality.
In addition to Weber, other researchers have contributed to the
understanding of bureaucracy. Pugh and Hickson (1976) developed an
empirical analysis of the structured variables of bureaucratic
organizations. Known as the Ashton Studies, Pugh and Hickson tested five
bureaucratic features of Weber's theory. These five elements outlined by
Pugh and Hickson are specialization, standardization, formulation,

15
centralization and configuration (p. 43). The findings of Pugh and
Hickson indicated that the five elements could be classified into two
predominant dimensions: (1) the structuring of activity factor, and (2)
the concentration of authority factor (p. 157). Pugh and Hickson found
that some organizations had more elements of bureaucracy than others and
thus challenged the unitary concept of Weber. The Ashton Studies pointed
out that an organization with more specialists tended to have more
standard routines, more documentation and a larger supportive hierarchy
(Pugh and Hickson, 1976). The Ashton Studies found that centralization
and autonomy were opposites in that as decisions were centralized or
referred to upper levels, the autonomy of a particular organization
declined.
Holdaway, Newberry, Hickson and Heron (1976) abbreviated the Ashton
instrument and tested it on four Canadian Colleges and Institutes of
Technology. The significance of this study was that it was the first
attempt to use the Ashton scale on an educational institution. The
Holdaway et al. study was an attempt to use the basic Ashton methodology
to differentiate among four types of similar institutions. An important
similarity found by Holdaway et al. was that autonomy and centralization
were negatively correlated. Holdaway et al. also found that different
patterns among some scale items emerged in educational organizations when
contrasted to the business organizations in the Ashton Studies. The
author speculated that this may be because the educational organizations
were more homogeneous than those in the Ashton sample.

16
Blau (1973), using a different methodology, conducted a study
relating academic organizations to other types of organizations. Blau's
study, The Organization of Academic Work, tested the question: do
specific theoretical assumptions and the empirical relationship used to
test these assumptions produce formal structured patterns in academic
institutions similar to those produced in other bureaucracies? The issue
as stated by Blau was: "the basic problem under investigation is how the
organization of an academic enterprise affects academic work and how the
administrative structure established to organize students and faculty in
a university influences academic pursuits" (p. 8). Blau found that
universities and colleges have administrative structures similar to those
of other bureaucracies. In Blau's view, the degree to which decisions
were centralized reflected the degree to which the decision making model
was bureaucratic. Blau found that
1. educational policies were less centralized in institutions with
superior reputations.
2. centralization of educational matters had a minimal relationship
to either the degree to which faculty appointments were
centralized or the extent of a president's authority.
3. a highly active faculty governance system curtailed bureaucratic
centralization of policy matters.
4. a high administrative-faculty ratio fostered centralization. (p.
250)
With reference to bureaucratic structure, Blau's research indicated
that

17
1. the size of an institution correlated highly with academic
division of labor into departments and horizontal differentiated
in major units such as colleges and schools.
2. large universities and colleges had a more complex structure than
did small colleges.
3. the faculty administrative ratio was higher in small colleges
than it was in large universities.
4. an impersonal bureaucratic administration was less likely to have
centralized control than was an administration exhibiting strong
paternalistic elements.
5. a large administrative structure strengthened centralized
authority.
6. extensive administrative use of computers caused human
relationships to seem more mechanical. (p. 279)
In another finding related to bureaucracy, Blau concluded that large
academic institutions were, in most cases, structured less
bureaucratically than small ones. Evidence gathered by Blau suggested in
large institutions there was less centralized authority and innovation in
new fields occurred because departments were added. Blau found that such
bureaucratic features as a multi-level hierarchy, a large clerical staff,
and a high rate of presidential involvement promoted centralization
rather than decentralization.
Riley and Baldridge (1977) summarized, in a different study, the
bureaucratic elements in higher educational institutions as follows:
1. A university, like other bureaucracies, is an organization under
state charter.
2. There is a formal hierarchy and there are rules identifying the
relationship between offices.

18
3. There are formal channels of communication.
4. There are definitive authority relationships.
5. Much of the work is governed by formal policies and rules.
6. Registration, record keeping, graduation requirements, and other
activities which process individuals are the most apparent
bureaucratic elements of the university.
7. Bureaucratic decision making processes are most often used by
officials delegating responsibility through the formal
administrative structure. (p.10)
Riley and Baldridge assumed that the decision making was rational and
was concerned with standard operating procedures. Their discussion of
bureaucracy was not tested empirically but was descriptive. Baldridge,
Curtis, Ecker, and Riley (1978) measured bureaucracy by testing faculty
participants using three questions: first, whether or not the faculty
contract was specific about academic work to be performed; second,
whether course work was assigned by the administration or whether they
chose their teaching assignments; and, third, whether or not the
university had strict accounting procedures regarding travel. The
assumption was made that these questions were directly related to the
work environment. The results indicated that the greatest differences
existed between elite institutions and less prestigious institutions.
Fewer rules existed in prestigious institutions than in community
colleges. The only two types of institutions that had fewer travel
regulations were elite liberal arts colleges and priviite
multi-universities.

19
The Baldridge et al. study indicated that institutions that had more
expert faculty had stronger departments based on evaluations of peers,
course control, autonomy in decisions regarding promotion, faculty
appointment power, and budgetary allocation responsibility.
Baldridge et al. used three concepts to explain the differences in
bureaucratic structure among colleges and universities; first, there was
a positive relationship between strong external environmental influences
and greater bureaucracy—strong external influence reduced autonomy;
second, faculty expertise increased autonomy and reduced bureaucracy;
third, large institutions were able to buffer environmental pressures
better, thus maintaining more faculty autonomy.
For the purpose of this study, the literature on bureaucratic
decision making provided the basic concept (Weber, 1947), the methodology
(Ashton Studies), empirical evidence challenging theory (Ashton Studies),
and the application of bureaucratic research to colleges and universities
(Holdaway et al., (1974), Blau, (1973), Baldridge et al., (1978).
No studies were found that compared the bureaucratic decision making
process to the collegial decision making process and the political
decision making process by comparing higher education administrators by
area of responsibility (academic affairs, student affairs, and business
affairs) or higher education administrators by institutional type (four
year private, four year public, and community college).

20
Collegial Decision Making
This section presents descriptions of the collegial decision making
model, a collegial university model, and research that applies the model
to higher education. Also discussed are differences between the
collegial and bureaucratic decision making models.
The collegial decision making model was outlined by Riley and
Baldridge (1977) under three main headings; first, collegial decision
making is fully participatory and not hierarchial as in the bureaucratic
model; second, the collegial model is supported by the literature on
professionalism because it stresses the educator's right to make
decisions within his/her area of competency (faculty are major
participants in the decision making process and third, the collegial view
serves as an alternative to the bureaucratic model.
Millett (1962), a supporter of collegial decision making, has argued
that
"the concept of community presupposes an organization in which
functions are differentiated and in which specialization must be
brought together in a harmonious whole. But this process of bringing
together, of coordination if you will, is achieved not through a
structure of super-ordination, and subordination of persons and
groups, but through a dynamic of concensus" (p. 57).
Millett (1974) stressed wide participation in decision making through
the departmental unit and in matters that are administrative Millett
emphasized extensive consultation and effective communication. Millett
introduced the academic "community council" which was based on a common
commitment among all members within the college or university.

21
Demerath, Stevens, and Taylor (1976) saw participants in the
collegial decision making process as faculty members who served on
committees which affected policy and administrators who remained active
as scholars and teachers. Demerath et al. viewed specialists who did not
participate in aspects of the university except academic work and
administrators who remained in their own area as nonparticipants in the
institutional decision making process.
The Demerath et al. study examined a sample of thirty universities,
with a focus on departments, chief executive officers of forty-five major
universities, and one institution in depth by the use of a case study.
The study assumed that a mix of bureaucratic and collegial decision
making elements was necessary in the governance of a university. The
principal implications of the study were that
Universities adapting to societal needs cannot rely
on bureaucratization of structure, upon more formal
organization or upon more line administrators with
greater official authority. No large enterprise
with as many varied functions as the major university
which performs under the omnibus headings of teaching,
research, and service can operate effectively without
formal structure and line managers to perform the
organization's tasks. At the same time there are equally
compelling reasons today for a complementary social
ordering that is designed to make university management
more responsive to the needs and interests of
academicians. This can be done by means of clear and
known procedures which serve to define the faculty's
participation in policy making. (p. 216)
Parsons and Platt (1971) studied several colleges and universities
and assumed that departments and other faculty academic organizations

22
were collegial. Their study viewed the structure of collegiality as a
combination of association and occupation. To them the academic value
system was a role system related to a broader social value system. The
term "cognitive rationality" was used by Parsons and Platt to describe a
major value that had been institutionalized. This value pattern linked
the personality, social, and cultural systems. In an academic context
the commitment and implementation of this value system shaped a
participant's priorities. Parson and Platt saw the major value pattern
in academic institutions as academic freedom and defined it as "the
normative condition for opportunity and obligation to contribute to the
advancements, transmission, and application of knowledge" (p. 39). In
summary, Parsons and Platt claim
that the academic faculties tend to be more associ-
ational and collegial than bureaucratic, and that the
principal mechanism of their operation in the service
of the implication of commitment to academic values
is influence rather than political type power.
Burns (1976) presented a summary of the important characteristics of
both the bureaucratic and professional (collegial) aspects of an
organization. The main elements are as follows:
Bureaucratic or Mechanistic
1. Specialized differentiation of functional tasks.
2. Abstract individual tasks.
3. Performance reconciliation by immediate super¬
visor .
Precise definition of role rights, obligations
and technical methods.
4.

5. Rights, obligations, methods translated into
position.
6. Hierarchial control, authority and
communication structure.
7. Exclusive top hierarchial knowledge.
8. Vertical interaction.
9. Work and operations governed by supervisors.
10. Insistence on loyalty and obedience.
11. Local rather than cosmopolitan orientation.
Professional or Organismic
1. Special knowledge and experience contributed to
common task.
2. Realistic individual task.
3. Continuous redefinition of tasks through
interaction.
4. Fluid rights, obligations, and methods.
5. Broad commitment rather than technical.
6. Network control, authority, and communication
structure.
7. Mobile knowledge and authority.
8. Lateral communication.
9. Communication of information and advice.
10. Commitment.
11. Affiliation and expertise important.
Much of the literature suggests that institutions are in constant
change because of the conflict that exists between bureaucratic and
collegial elements. Some of the literature however indicated that the
conflict between these two elements was more harmonious than
dysfunctional (Benson, 1973; Montagna, 1973; and Ritzer, 1975).
The literature concerning the collegial decision making process
relevant to this study consisted of (1) college and university models
(Millett (1962), Riley and Baldridge (1977), (2) research which applied
model to higher education (Demerath, Stevens, and Taylor), (3) theory
(Parsons and Platt) and (4) concepts about professionals (Burns).

No studies were found that attempted to compare the collegial model
to the bureaucratic or political models by comparing perceptions of
higher education administrators by area of responsibility (academic
affairs, business affairs, and student affairs) or by type of institution
(four year private, four year public, and community college).
Political Decision Making
Three major studies which focused on political decision making in
higher education were identified. Baldridge (1971) conducted a political
case study of a university. Olsen (1976) used a conflict resolution
model which was essentially a political model of decision making, and
Benson (1973) discussed an approach specifically concerned with the
conflict between bureaucratic and collegial elements in organizations.
The works of all three are presented.
Baldridge's political model was taken from two main sources, research
on community power and interest group, and group theory. Baldridge's
model contained a cycle of decision making which consisted of six
phases: (1) an emerging issue; (2) interest by different groups that
want to express their opinion; (3) surfacing conflict followed by; (4) a
legislative process whereby decision makers translated demands into
policy; then (5) policy implementation; and (6) feedback. Baldridge, in
addition, compared the political, collegial and bureaucratic elements on
decision-making. These are presented in Chart 1, page 25. In a
subsequent study, Riley and Baldridge (1977) indicated Baldridge's
original political model may have overstated the role of conflict and
negotiation in decision making. They refined this concept

25
TABLE 1
Political
Basic Image
Political System
Change
Processes
Primary Concern
Conflict
Normal, key to
analysis of
policy influence
View of the
Social
Structure
Pluralistic;
fractured by sub¬
cultures; diver¬
gent interest
groups
Basic
Theoretical
Foundations
Conflict theory,
interest group
theory, open
community theory
View of
Decision
Negotiating,
bargaining, and
political influence
Goal setting
and policy;
formulation
or execution
Emphasis on
formulation
Bureaucratic
Collegial
Hierarchial
Professional
Minor Concern
Minor Concern
Abnormal, con¬
trolled by
bureaucratic
sanctions
Abnormal, elim¬
inated in a
true community of
of scholars
Unitary, inte¬
grated by
formal
bureaucracy
Unitary; united
by a community
of scholars
Weberian
bureaucratic
model; class
systems model
Human relations
approach;
literature on
professionalism
Rationalistic,
formal, bureau¬
cratic
procedures
Shared collegial
decisions
Emphasis on
execution
Unclear, probably
on formulation
Baldridge (1971)

26
by placing emphasis on the importance of routine decision making
processes and also indicated that the political model should not be
viewed as a substitute for the bureaucratic and collegial models of
decision making in that the bureaucratic and collegial models offer
helpful suggestions about the organizational nature of the university but
by themselves gloss over the essential aspects of university structure
and the decision making processes. The revised assumptions of
Baldridge's political model stated that (1) most organizational
participants were not active in the political process; (2) active people
moved in and out of the decision making process; (3) colleges and
universities contained fragmented interest groups with different goals
and values; (4) conflict was normal and did not necessarily indicate a
breakdown in the organization; (5) authority was limited by political
pressure; and (6) external interest groups had a substantial impact on
the process of establishing policy.
Olsen (1976) discussed three models of choice operative in
organizations. These were the rational decision making model, the
conflict resolution model, and the artifactual model. A discussion of
the first two models is presented since they are related to political,
bureaucratic, and collegial models.
In the conflict resolution model, Olsen described an organization as
consisting of rational individuals and subgroups with diverse
perspectives, demands, and resources. Events in the organization and the
desires of decision makers were closely linked. According to the model,

27
a coalition of participants benefited if a decision were made; however,
no single alternative satisfied all coalition participants. In addition,
no value consensus was possible—participants used a bargaining process.
A basic premise of the rational decision making model, Olsen's second
model, was that people knew what they wanted and, with the knowledge and
power, could obtain the desired results. The bureaucratic and collegial
decision making models were based on this premise. Means and ends as
well as the reasoning process were emphasized in this model. Events were
viewed as a willed product of the decision maker's activity. Value
consensus was achieved before a decision was made. Decisions were a
product of (1) a priori preferences with defined rules for comparing
criteria; (2) a priori alternatives with an unlimited search or the
evaluation of the search having calculable costs and returns; and (3)
established techniques for relating preferences and alternatives. The
rational decision model was in sharp contrast to Olsen's conflict
resolution model and Baldridge's political model.
Benson (1973) viewed his conflict theory approach to organizational
analysis in a similar manner to the conflict resolution model of Olsen.
Benson's summary of his approach follows
1. Every organization contains fundamental contradictions. From
a dialectical perspective, the organizations are
characterized by an unstable social order with a tendency
toward dissolution. The instability of the organization
grows out of inconsistencies and incompatibilities which are
never really fully resolved. There always exist
contradictions which have not been resolved, and that provide
the basis for organizational change.

28
2. The social order of every organization is politically
negotiated. The structural patterns in the organization are
to be understood on the basis of political rather than
administrative models.
3. The social orders constantly are undergoing change and must
be understood on the basis of a process approach. (p. 383)
Benson indicated that his framework was a conflict resolution approach
and argued that it should replace the functional approach to the study of
formal organizations.
This section presented the political decision making model tested
through a case study in a university setting (Baldridge), presented a
conflict theory approach specifically related to bureaucratic and
collegial segments of organizations (Burns), and presented a conflict
theory approach specifically related to bureaucratic segments of
organizations (Benson and Olsen).
This review of the literature has emphasized the bureaucratic,
collegial, and political decision making processes. A gap exists in the
literature in that there was no study which compared the decision making
process used by higher education administrators by area of
responsibility, nor was there a study which compared the decision making
process used by administrators by institutional type. It is reasonable
to test the political decision making theory of Baldridge by designing a
study to fill this gap in the literature, which may contribute further to
an understanding of the decision making process.

CHAPTER III
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE INSTRUMENT
This chapter includes the following sections: the selection of the
critical incidents, the construction of the decision making responses,
the validation of the responses, and the design and printing of the
instrument.
Selection of the Critical Incidents
The material used in the critical incidents was gathered from various
sources: professional faculty and staff members of the University of
Florida and Santa Fe Community College, the Chronicle of Higher
Education, professional journals, and the researcher's own experience.
Thirteen critical incidents were written to reflect the areas as outlined
by Gulick's and Urick's (1937) "PODSCORB" model. ’’PODSCORB" is a
representation of the following administrative functions: planning,
organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting.
The incidents were written to reflect the various administrative
functions as outlined by Gulick and Urick and to permit the respondents
to identify with a realistic administrative problem.
29

30
Critical incidents I and II and the three responses for each follow.
Both incidents are reflective of Gulick's administrative function,
coordination.
Critical Incident I
This public four year institution has received a request from a
student lesbian and gay society to use meeting space in the college's
student union building. Recently, two state legislators and various
community and church groups have expressed displeasure at using state
facilities and resources to support such groups. Some legislators have
also expressed concern about recognizing such groups. The president,
before making a decision on this matter, has asked for your input.
Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your
approach to this issue:
R.l "The issue should be handled in accordance with state
policy, and the appropriate administrator should make the
decision after receiving advice from the university
attorney."
R.2 "This is a matter which needs full discussion and
participation by students, faculty, and staff. The issue
should be referred to the Committee on Student
Organizations for its recommendation."
R.3 A careful assessment must be made by the President of the
possible ramifications of this decision. If the
institution might be damaged by recognizing the
organization, the President should deny the request."

31
Critical Incident II
The daughter of a state senator applied for admission to this state
university but did not meet the admission standards expected of other
incoming freshmen. She was denied admission by the Admissions
Committee. The state senator holds a very important position as Vice
Chairman of the Senate's Higher Education Committee. The senator has
contacted the President and has requested the admission of the daughter.
Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your
approach to this issue:
R.4 "The President should refer the matter to a
representative group of faculty and consult with them
regarding their views on the situation."
R.5 "The matter should be referred to the Dean of Admissions,
who should make the decision in accordance with
university policy."
R.6 "The President should weigh the impact that the decision
may have upon the institution, and base his decision on
how it may hinder or assist the institution."
Critical Incident III and the three responses follow. This incident
is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, reporting.

32
Critical Incident III
The Vice President for Academic Affairs at a four year private
university has proposed recently that the student financial aid office be
transferred from student affairs to academic affairs. During the past
three years the financial aid office has been criticized by students,
faculty and parents. Complaints have focused on long lines and delays in
processing. The Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Vice
President for Student Affairs have worked well together in the past but
this recommendation has caused a problem in their working relationship.
The President has asked each Vice President for a recommendation
regarding the proposal. Please rank the following responses which might
reflect your approach to this issue:
R. 7 "The complaints of students, faculty and parents must be
addressed, and the institution should make a visible
effort to assure these groups that it is going to correct
the problem."
R.8 "The matter should be referred to the Standing University
Committee on Student Financial Aid, which will enable
faculty, students and staff to submit their
recommendation, in an effort to reach consensus."
R.9 "There are written guidelines provided by the
professional associations that indicate the best
direction the institution should take. These should be
provided to the President and all should abide by his/her
decision."

33
Critical incident IV and the three responses follow. This incident
is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, planning.
Critical Incident IV
As part of an institutional long range planning effort, the faculty
senate of a pubicly supported community college has recommended to the
President a plan that would require all community college sophomores, in
an academic track, to complete successfully a sophomore competency
examination before receiving the Associate of Arts degree. The test has
been labeled "racially biased" by some minority organizations in the
community and the student government association is also opposed to the
examination. Recent complaints from four-year institutions in the state
have alleged the community college students are not adequately prepared
for the rigors of a four year college or university. The President,
before making a decision on the matter, has asked for input from the
administrative staff. Please rank order the following responses which
might refect your approach to this issue:
R. 10 "The President should consult with experts on this
matter. Their professional competence is essential to
any decision made. After consultation with the experts
consensus can be reached and a decision made."

34
R.ll "Pressure can be expected from external groups to become
very intense. Based on previous encounters, an open and
impartial public forum should be held, and the decision
will have to reflect the influence these groups have.”
R.12 "The faculty senate should be supported. They have
followed institutional policy, procedures and rules in
making their recommendation and have a record of
responsible actions in the past."
Critical Incident V is reflective of Gulick's administrative
function, budgeting, and is as follows:
Critical Incident V
Recent legislation has been passed which removes all funding of
remedial education programs at all four year public colleges and
universities in the state. The legislature has declared that funds are
being provided for high schools to develop these skills and refuses to
fund colleges to do the same. Community leaders and students in
continuing and remedial education courses have urged the President of the
state supported community college to support these programs by using
private funds. The faculty of the community college is split on the
issue. The President, before making a decision, has asked for
recommendations from the administrative staff. Please rank order the
following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:

35
R.13 "The President should follow the intent of the recently
passed legislation. While state funds would not be used,
the institution, if it funds these programs from private
sources, would violate the intent of state law and
policy.”
R.14 "The President should refer this matter to the academic
deans and department chairmen for a decision. These
individuals have the professional competency to make the
decision."
R.15 "Local community groups have been very supportive of the
President and the local community college's effort and
programs in the past. The community college's image may
suffer irreparable damage if remedial education programs
are not funded."
Critical incident VI is reflective of Gulick's administrative
function, organizing, and is as follows:
Critical Incident VI
The President of a large private institution has proposed the
establishment of a new position, Vice President for Research. The
President has been concerned about the lack of direction that has been
provided to this area, citing the current decentralization of this
responsibility as the major reason for the lack of direction and
progress. The President has asked each Vice President to respond to this
proposal before deciding what to do. Please rank order the following
responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:

36
R.16 "The President's proposal should he supported. If the
President believes there is a need for a Vice President
for Research, he/she has the ultimate authority and
responsibility for the success of the institution;
therefore the President's proposal should be supported.”
R.17 "The President should be encouraged to refer this matter
to a representative group of research faculty for their
study and recommendation. The President's decision
should be based on this recommendation."
R.18 "The President should be encouraged to discuss this issue
with all interest groups. The creation of a new Vice
Presidency could bring criticism from students, faculty,
staff and the university's governing board unless they
are given the opportunity to be heard. The President's
decision will reflect the influence these groups have."
Critical Incident VII is reflective of Gulick's administrative
function, directing, and is as follows:
Critical Incident VII
The Vice President for Academic Affairs of a comprehensive public
university has directed the Deans of each college to develop a
comprehensive academic advising program. This is a response to student,
parent and staff complaints about academic advising. There are charges
of long lines at registration, inadequate faculty office hours and
incorrect academic advice. The Vice President for Academic Affairs has

37
stated that faculty should be rewarded with tenure and promotion for
academic advising as well as teaching and research. However, faculty are
upset about this possibility and have voiced their concerns to the
President. The President has asked each Vice President for a
recommendation concerning this issue. Please rank order the following
responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:
R. 19
"The president should refer this matter to a
representative group of faculty, department chairmen, and
academic deans. The President should be willing to
compromise and seek consensus regarding this issue.”
R. 20
"The President should refer this matter to the Vice
President for Academic Affairs and expect him/her to
resolve the issue within existing university policies and
procedures."
R. 21
"The President must be responsive to the serious
complaints about academic advising. The President must
weigh the impact these groups might have on the
insitution if he/she does not support the new academic
advising program.”
Critical incident VIII is reflective of Gulick's administrative
function, planning, and is as follows:
Critical Incident VIII
The Status of Women's Committee and several student groups have
requested the President of a public community college to implement a

38
proposal that would provide child care facilities for the children of
faculty, students and staff. Recently, the state legislature has
authorized the use of state allocated funds for child care. The
college's position has been that there are other priorities more
important than child care at this time and that the money available for
child care should be used for these higher priority items. The President
in considering the request of the Status of Women's Committee has asked
for your recommendation regarding child care. Please rank order the
following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:
R.22 "The President should review the priority needs of the
institution and study the child care issue by appointing
a task force of faculty, students, and administrative
staff. The decision should be based on the task force's
recommendation.”
R.23 "The college's priority list was developed over a long
period of time within the normal policies and procedures
of the college. It would be inappropriate now to fund
child care ahead of other priorities and thus deviate
from established policy. The President should reject the
proposal."
R.24 "The Status of Women's Committee has been supportive of
the President in the past. The President should weigh
the impact that this decision may have on the institution
and base his/her decision on how it may hinder or assist
the institution."

39
Critical Incident IX is reflective of Gulick's administrative
function, staffing, and is as follows:
Critical Incident IX
The Faculty Senate of a private university has proposed new
guidelines for determining tenure and promotion. The plan passed the
Faculty Senate by a narrow margin and increases the proportion of faculty
who have been awarded tenure and promotion in recent years. However, the
Vice President for Academic Affairs has been seriously concerned about
the high percentage of tenured faculty, which does not permit many new
younger faculty to be hired by the university. In fact, 75 percent of
all existing faculty are tenured. Please rank order the following
responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:
R.25 "The Vice President for Academic Affairs has authority to
make this decision and in accordance with institutional
policy, should exercise his/her prerogative."
R.26 "The President should appoint a special task force of
distinguished faculty, alumni and board members to
closely examine the Faculty Senate's proposal. The
decision should be based on the recommendations of this
representative group."
R.27 "The President must recognize the concerns of the faculty
and weigh the implications if the new guidelines for
tenure and promotion are not approved. The Faculty
Senate has been supportive of the President in the past
and this continued support is critical to the President.
The President should approve the plan."

40
Critical incident X and the three responses follow. This incident is
reflective of Gulick*s administrative function, planning.
Critical Incident X
The Physical Plant Division of this two year public institution has
recently come under attack by the faculty, students and staff.
Criticisms point to the alledgedly poor job being done by the Physical
Plant in virtually all areas of responsibility—housekeeping, the campus
grounds and maintenance. In addition, departments have complained about
high costs charged by Physical Plant when work is performed. Some
departments claim that the work could be done at a savings by an outside
contractor. They have presented a plan to the President to study the
possible elimination of the Physical Plant Division in favor of
contracting with a private company. Please rank order the following
responses which might reflect your approach to this issue.
R.28 "The President should meet with a team of professional
consultants regarding this issue. A thorough study of
the Physical Plant Divison must be made by persons with
professional competency in this area. After consultation
with these experts, consensus should be reached."
R.29 "The complaints are coming from very influential groups,
and the President must take strong action to assure these
groups that the problems is going to be corrected. The
President should implement the proposal."

41
R-30 "The President should refer this matter to the Vice
President for Business Affairs for a decision. The Vice
President is administratively responsible for this
program and should make the decision within established
university rules and guidelines."
Critical incident XI is reflective of Gulick's administrative
function, directing, and is as follows:
Critical Incident XI
The State Board of Regents and the State Legislature have received a
recommendation from the state's Higher Education Coordinating Committee
directing that the admission requirements of all state universities be
raised. In particular, this recommendation requires all high school
students to have a SAT score of 850 and a high school grade point average
of 2.5. In addition, high school graduates must have two years of
foreign language, three years of math, and four years of english. This
recommendation is one of several aimed at improving the quality of the
state university system. The President of this state university in
deciding whether to support the recommendation has asked the Vice
Presidents for their input. Please rank order the following responses
which might reflect your approach to the Issue:
R.31 "The President should refer this matter to the University
Admissions Committee for recommendations. After
consultation with this group of faculty and students, a
decision can be made."

42
R.32 "This is a decision that will affect several interest
groups, including students, faculty, alumni and other
university constituencies. The President must carefully
weight the impact these new standards will have on the
university. If the impact will damage the university,
the President should not support the recommendation."
R.33 "The State Board of Regents is the ultimate authority
regarding state education policy development for the
university system. It is the President's responsibility
to support the position of the State Board of Regents."
Critical incident XII is reflective of Gulick's administrative
function, staffing, and is as follows:
Critical Incident XII
As a response to recent budget cuts and in a move to save money, the
Vice President for Business Affairs at this four year private university
has changed the work schedules of several physical plant employees. The
large majority of housekeeping staff have been switched to the night
shift. The labor union has strongly objected to this move, suggesting
that many of its employees have part-time jobs and families that will be
negatively affected. The Vice President for Business Affairs has stated
that this policy was made to save money and that the only other
alternative is to lay off employees. The union has countered, saying

43
several employees will have to resign anyway as many cannot work the
night shift. The union charges the Vice President with making this
change without consulting employees or the union, and to avoid laying
people off, changing their hours, knowing that many would resign. The
union has appealed the decision to the President. Please rank order the
following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue.
R. 34
"The President should support the Vice President for
Business Affairs. He/She is administratively responsible
for this area and has made this change in accordance with
the rules, procedures and policies of the contract with
the union."
R. 35
"The President should appoint a task force staff to study
this issue and to make recommendations to him/her for
other possible solutions to the budget problem. The
President's decision will be based on this
recommendation."
R. 36
"The labor union has been supportive of the President and
the university in the past. The most effective way to
resolve this issue is to bargain with them and reach a
mutually acceptable decision."
Critical Incident XIII and the three responses follow. This incident
is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, organizing.

44
Critical Incident XIII
Recent trends in higher education have made it necessary for this
private university to examine closely the allocation of space, money, and
personnel in various academic programs. Student enrollment is rapidly
increasing in the engineering, computer science, business, and
preprofessional curricula and declining in liberal arts and in
education. Space, money, and personnel must be reorganized and
reallocated to meet these increasing demands. Resources from departments
with declining enrollments must be shifted to areas of growing demands.
Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your
approach to this issue:
R. 37 "The President should encourage the full participation of
all Vice Presidents. He/she should consult with each
Vice President individually and as a group seeking
consensus."
R.38 "The President by virtue of his/her position is
ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the
university. The President should use the authority of
his/her position and make the decision."
R.39 "This decision will have a significant impact on the
institution and requires careful assessment by the
President. The President can expect to receive
conflicting points of view by various interest groups and
must base the decision on this input.

45
A summary of the incidents reflective of Gulick's classification follow:
Planning:
Critical
Incidents
IV
X
Organizing
Critical
Incidents
VI,
XIII
Directing
Critical
Incidents
VII
, XI
Staffing:
Critical
Incidents
IX,
XII
Coordinating:
Critical
Incidents
I,
II
Reporting:
Critical
Incidents
III
Budgeting:
Critical
Incidents
v,
VIII
Construction of the Decision Making Responses
The researcher reviewed the literature on each of the decision making
processes used in the research. From the review of the literature, the
following key words or phrases were selected which reflected the type of
decision making process:
1. Bureaucratic—written rules; policies; chain of command;
norms; functions regulated by rules and by laws.
2. Collegial—faculty are major decision makers; full
participation; professional competency; committee of
peers; consensus; consultation; communication.
3. Political—fragmented interest groups; different goals
and values; power blocs; small external interest groups
govern most decisions; expediency.

A6
The responses to each incident were then constructed to contain key
words or phrases that reflected a particular decision making style.
Three responses were developed for each critical incident; one response
item reflecting the bureaucratic decision making process, one response
the collegial, and one the political. The critical incidents were then
sent to a panel of expert judges for testing.
Validation of the Response Items
In an effort to insure that the instrument was measuring what it was
intended to measure, the researcher submitted the instrument to a panel
of seven expert judges, each of whom was selected because of his or her
professional expertise in the area of administrative decision making (see
Appendix C). The researcher determined that agreement among five of the
seven judges would establish an item as being valid.
Each judge was selected in advance and advised of the research and
his/her role as a judge in the research project. Each person who agreed
to act as a judge was mailed a letter and a brief description of the
study (Appendix D) which provided the following directions:
1. Read each critical incident and the selected responses for each.
2. Mark each of the three responses as you believe it is
representative of B = bureaucratic, C = collegial, P = political.
3. Do not apply the process of elimination. Judge each response in
its own right.
A. Completed responses and comments should be returned in the
enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope.

47
The responses of Che seven judges are presented in Appendix E.
Appendix E reports the 18 critical incidents, the three response
items for each, the researcher's classification of the decision making
response and the classification of the seven judges. (There is no
relationship between the order of the judges in Appendix C and Appendix
E.) Of the 54 responses the judges were asked to validate, there was
consensus (five of seven) on all of the items.
Three of the judges commented that the instrument was too lengthy.
The researcher in response to this concern conducted a pilot study.
Fifteen University of Florida administrators were asked to participate.
These fifteen individuals were asked to suggest improvements for each
critical incident, to make comments on the overall research instrument,
and to determine how long the survey took to complete.
Nine of the 15 participants in the pilot study indicated the survey
took too long to complete. One person asked the question, "Do you really
need all 18 critical incidents?"
The researcher consulted with the chairman of his committee and
considered two issues raised by the pilot study participants: the overall
length of the survey, 20 typed written pages, and the necessity to use
all 18 critical incidents.

48
A decision was reached that five critical incidents could be deleted
in order to reduce the length of the survey. The researcher, when
reducing the number of incidents to 13, took into consideration and made
sure that the remaining incidents reflected Gulick's PODSCORB model, the
type of institutions surveyed and the type of administrative positions
surveyed.
Design and Printing of the Instrument
A decision was reached that a conventional typed copy of the survey
(14 pages) was too lengthy to be useful as a mail survey. The researcher
decided to use typesetting and off set printing as a means to reduce the
bulkiness of the survey. This arrangement would also increase the
chances for a successful return rate from the research sample.
The 14 typewritten pages were typeset to four pages and a single fold
four-sided printing format was selected. This format kept the survey to
one sheet of paper and avoided the potential loss or misplacement of a
part of the survey once it was in the field. A copy of the survey is
contained in appendix F.
In chapter III the researcher has discussed the development and
validation of the instrument including the selection of the critical
incidents, the construction of the decision making responses, the
validation of the research items and the design and printing of the
ins'.rument. Chapter IV is titled "Presentation and Analysis of the Data"
and includes a discussion of the research sample and analysis of the
bureaucratic, collegial and political responses.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
The purpose of this study was to test the political decision making
theory of Victor Baldridge by comparing it to Millett's collegial
decision making theory and Weber's bureaucratic decision making theory.
An instrument, consisting of thirteen critical incidents depicting
realistic problems in higher education, was designed and used to test the
theory. Major academic, business and student affairs administrators at
Southern colleges and universities were selected as the research sample.
Specifically, answers to the following questions were sought:
1. What are the differences in the decision making process among
administrators by area of responsibility: chief business affairs
officer, chief student affairs officer, chief academic affairs
officer?
2. What are the differences in the decision making process among
administrators by the type of institution: public baccalaureate
degree granting, private baccalaureate degree granting, and public
community college?
49

50
3. Are the decision making processes used by the three administrative
positions supported by the decision making models of Baldridge,
Millett or Weber?
The researcher developed and tested the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. There is no two way interaction between type of
administrator and type of institution regarding use of the
bureaucratic decision making model.
Hypothesis 2. There are no differences among administrators in the
three major institutional positions regarding their use of the
bureaucratic decision making model.
Hypothesis 3. There are no differences by type of institution among
administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use
of the bureaucratic decision making model.
Hypothesis 4. There is no two way intereaction between type of
administrator and type of institution regarding use of the collegial
decision making model.
Hypothesis 5. There are no differences among administrators in the
three institutional positions regarding their use of the collegial
decision making model.
Hypothesis 6. There are no differences by type of institution among
administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use
of the collegial decision making model.
Hypothesis 7. There is no two way interaction between type of

51
administrator and type of institution regarding use of the political
decision making model.
Hypothesis 8. There are no differences among administrators in the
three institutional positions regarding their use of the political
decision making model.
Hypothesis 9. There are no differences by type of institution among
administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their
use of the political decision making model.
The researcher sought to answer the questions and test the hypotheses
by selecting a random sample of administrators from higher education
institutions in the Southern United States. In the following sections,
the sample, the selection process and the rate of return of the survey
instrument are discussed.
The Research Sample
A research sample of 270 administrators was randomly selected from a
population of private baccalaureate degree granting institutions, public
baccalaureate degree granting and public community colleges located in
the Southern United States (Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi,
Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana,
Texas) as defined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. A
list of random numbers was then used to select 30 institutions for each
of the three administrative positions in the study. A random selection
with substitutions was used to obtain a sample of 270 administrative
titles.

52
A mailed survey was used for the collection of the data. The first
round of surveys was mailed to the sample of 270 administrators. Two
weeks later a second mailing was sent to the non-respondents. A return
rate of 71.9 percent was received from the sample, or a total of 192
surveys. Six of the 192 surveys could not be analyzed, because they were
incomplete or incorrectly completed. The 188 valid responses represent a
return rate of 69.6 percent of the research sample. The sample that
returned valid responses is described in Table 1.
TABLE 2
Research Sample that Returned
Valid Responses:
Administrator by Institution
INSTITUTION
Private
Public
Community
Administrators
Baccalaureate
Baccalaureate
College
Total
Business Affairs
15
20
20
55
29.3%
Student Affairs
19
19
27
65
34.6%
Academic Affairs
21
21
26
68
36.1%
55
60
73
188
29.3%
31.9%
38.8%
As table 2 indicates, the chief academic affairs officer was the
administrative position that returned the largest number of surveys (68)

53
which represented 36.1 percent of all valid responses. Public community
college administrators as a category were those by type of institution
that returned the largest number of surveys (73), which represented 38.8
percent of the valid responses. The administrative position by type of
institution that returned the largest number of surveys (27) was the
chief student affairs officer in the public community college. The chief
business affairs officer in private institutions returned the lowest
number of surveys 15. Administrators in public baccalaureate degree
granting institutions returned 60 surveys representing 31.9 percent of
all valid responses followed by administrators in the private
baccalaureate degree granting institution 55 surveys or 29.3 percent of
all valid responses. Chief student affairs administrators returned 65
surveys, 34.6 percent of the valid responses followed by chief business
officers' 55 surveys which represented 29.3 percent of all valid
responses.
Analysis of the Data
This section reviews the data that are relevant to rejecting or
failing to reject the null hypotheses developed in Chapter I.
The 39 response statements reflected in the survey instrument
represented three decision making models—bureaucratic, collegial and
political. Each of the three decision making models was represented in
the 13 sets of responses to the critical incidents. Respondents were
asked to rank order the responses as follows: (1) most reflective; (2)
moderately reflective; and (3) least reflective of their position. The

54
lower the mean score (minimum 13) the more reflective those responses
appeared to be of the administrator's decision making process and the
higher the mean score (maximum 39) the less likely the responses
reflected the position of the administrator.
To test the null hypotheses developed in Chapter I, a computed
F-value was calculated and its probability of occurrence under the null
case was determined. The criterion for statistical significance was set
equal to .05. If the probability of the F-value was less than .05, the
null hypothesis was rejected. The data were analyzed by the two-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each of the dependent variables,
bureaucratic, collegial, and political decision making. If a hypothesis
was rejected, the researcher used the Duncan multiple range test to
determine where differences between administrators or institutions
existed. The Duncan multiple range test compared the means between type
of administrators and between types of institutions. The closer the mean
values were between types of administrators or between types of
institutions, the less likely was there a significant difference. The
larger the differences in the mean values between administrators or
between institutions, the more likely a significant difference existed.
The researcher was further interested in knowing if significant
differences existed between administrators on the individual response
items in each group of independent variables (bureaucratic, collegial and
political) or if they were negated by the non-significant items in the
mean analysis generated by the ANOVA. To answer this question an
analysis of each response item was conducted using chi-square by
administrator and by institution.

55
Analysis of the Bureaucratic Responses
In the effort to determine if administrators and administrators by
institution type institutions differed significantly in their use of
bureaucratic decision making and to test hypotheses 1, 2 and 3, the first
dependent variable that was analyzed was bureaucratic decision making.
Hypothesis 1. There is no two way interaction between type of
administrator and type of institution regarding use of the
bureaucratic decision making model.
TABLE 3
Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value and
Significance Level of Bureaucratic Decision Making as
a Function of Institutional Type and Administrative Type
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
Four Year
Private
Four Year
Public
Community
College
Cumulative
Mean
21
21
26
Academic Affairs
23.76
24.86
25.15
24.63
3.61
4.22
3.16
15
20
20
Business Affairs
25.00
23.25
24.65
24.24
3.63
4.22
4.68
19
19
27
Student Affairs
27.53
27.58
26.33
27.04
3.08
4.49
2.90
25.40
25.18
25.45
F-Value (1
.34)
Significance
Level (.26)

56
As Table 3 indicates, an F-Value of 1.34 was completed for the
dependent variable bureaucratic decision making. The probability of
obtaining a computed F-value of this size is .26. Since the probability
is greater than .05, the hypothesis should not be rejected. Thus, no two
way interaction exists between type of administrator and type of
institution regarding their use of bureaucratic decision making. Table 3
also reports the frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three
administrative positions and the three types of institutions using
bureaucratic decision making as the dependent variable. The sample sizes
are consistent with the data reported on Table 2.
Hypothesis 2. There are no differences among administrators in
the three major institutional positions regarding their use of the
bureaucratic decision making model.
TABLE 4
Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and
Significance Level of Bureaucratic Decision Making
as a
Function of
Administrative
Type
N
Mean
Standard
Deviation
F-Value
Significance
Level
Academic
Affairs
68
24.63
3.64
Business
Affairs
55
24.24
4.24
Student
Affairs
65
27.04
3.48
(10.18)
(0.0001)

57
For this dependent variable an F-value of 10.18 was computed with
a probability of .0001. Since the probability is less than .05, the
hypothesis is rejected. Table 4 reports the frequencies, means and
standard deviations for the three administrative positions using
bureaucratic decision making as the dependent variable. The sample sizes
are consistent with the data reported on Table 2.
Since the hypothesis was rejected, the researcher sought to
determine where the differences among administrators existed. The Duncan
multiple range test, a follow up test to the AN0VA, was used for the
bureaucratic variable.
TABLE 5
Frequency And Mean of Bureaucratic
Decision Making as a Function of Administrative Type
N
Mean
Significant
*Difference
Academic
68
24.63
B
Affairs
Business
55
24.24
B
Affairs
Student
65
27.04
A
Affairs
*Means with the
same letter are not significantly different
As Table 5 indicates, by comparing means, the chief academic affairs
officers and chief business affairs officers do not differ significantly
from each other in their use of bureaucratic decision making. However,

58
both are significantly more likely to the use bureaucratic decision
making than are chief student affairs officers.
Hypothesis 3. There are no differences by type of institution among
administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their
use of the bureaucratic decision making model.
For this hypothesis an F-value of .08 was calculated with a
probability of .92. Since the probability is greater than .05, null
hypothesis 3 should not be rejected. Thus, no differences exist by type
of institutions among the three administrators regarding their use of the
bureaucratic decision making model. Table 6 reports the frequences,
means and standard deviations for the three institutions using
bureaucratic decision making as the dependent variable. The frequencies
are consistent with the data reported in Table 2.
TABLE 6
Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-value and
Significance Level of Bureaucratic Decision Making as
a Function of Institutional Type
N
Mean
Standard
Deviation F-Value
Significant
Level
Four Year
Private
55
25.40
3.75
Four Year
Public
60
25.18
4.59
Community
College
73
25.45
3.58
(.08)
(.9221)

59
Analysis of the Collegial Responses
To determine if administrators and institutions differed
significantly in their use of collegial decision making and to test null
hypotheses 4, 5 and 6, the second dependent variable that was analyzed
was collegial decision making.
Hypothesis 4. There is no two way interaction between type of
administrator and type of institution regarding use of the collegial
decision making model.
For this hypothesis an F-value of .93 was calculated. The
probability of obtaining this F-value is .45. This indicates that null
hypothesis 4 should not be rejected. Thus, no two way interaction exists
between type of administrator and type of institution regarding use of
collegial decision making. Table 7 (page 60) reports the frequencies,
means and standard deviations for the three administrative positions and
the types
of institutions using collegial decision making as the dependent variable.
Hypothesis 5. There are no differences among administrators in the
three institutional positions regarding their use of collegial
decision making model.
For this hypothesis an F-value of 8.93 was calculated. The
probability of obtaining an F-value of this size is .0002 indicating that
null hypothesis 5 is rejected. Table 8 (page 60) reports the
frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three administrative
types using collegial decision making as the dependent variable. The
frequencies are consistent with the data reported on Table 2.

60
TABLE 7
Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value and
Significance Level of Collegial Decision Making as
a Function of Institutional Type and Administrative Type
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
Four Year
Private
Four Year
Public
Community
College
Cumulative
Mean
21
21
26
Academic Affairs
24.38
24.09
25.73
24.81
2.99
3.49
3.38
20
15
20
Business Affairs
27.40
24.60
26.85
26.44
3.27
4.01
4.94
19
19
27
Student Affairs
22.10
24.05
24.11
23.51
3.49
3.82
3.94
23.65
25.18
25.44
F-Value (.93)
Significance Level (.45)
TABLE 8
Frequence Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and
Significance Level of Collegial Decision Making as
a Function of Administrative Type
N
Mean
Standard
Deviation
F-Value
Significance
Level
Academic
Affairs
68
24.81
3.33
Business
Affairs
55
26.44
4.23
Student
Affairs
65
23.51
3.83
(8.93)
(0.0002)

61
Since this hypothesis was rejected the researcher sought to determine
where the differences among administrators existed. The Duncan follow-up
test to the ANOVA was used for the collegial variable.
TABLE 9
Frequency and Mean of Collegial Decision
Making as a Function of Administrative Type
N
Mean
*Significance
Difference
Academic
68
24.81
B
Affairs
Business
55
26.44
A
Affairs
Student
65
23.51
B
Affairs
* Means with
the same letters
are not significantly different.
When the
means
in Table 9
were compared, the Duncan test indicated
that chief academic affairs officers and chief student affairs officers
do not differ significantly in their use of the collegial decision making
process but both are significantly more likely to use this process than
are chief business officers.
Hypothesis 6. There are no differences by type of institution among
administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use
of the collegial decision making model.

62
For this hypothesis an F-value of 3.66 and a probability of .03 were
calculated. Since the probability of obtaining an F-value of 3.66 is
less than .05, hypothesis 6 is rejected. Table 10 reports the
frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three institutional
types.
TABLE 10
Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and
Significance Level of Collegial Decision Making
as a Function of Institutional Type
N
Mean
Standard
Deviation
F-Value
Significance
Level
Four Year
Private
55
23.65
3.59
Four Year
Public
60
25.18
3.81
Community
College
73
25.44
4.15
(3.66)
(0.03)
Since hypothesis 6 was rejected the researcher sought to determine
where the difference among institutions existed. The Duncan multiple
range test was used for the collegial variable. When the means of the
institutions were compared (Table 11) they indicated that administrators
in private baccalaureate degree granting institutions are significantly
more likely than administrators in public community colleges and public
baccalaureate degree granting institutions to use the collegial decision
making process.

63
TABLE 11
Frequency And Mean of
Making as a Function of
Collegial Decision
Institutional Type
N
Mean
Significance
Difference
Four Year
Private
55
23.65
B
Four Year
Public
60
25.18
A
Community
College
* Means with
73
same letters
25.44 A
are not significantly different.
Analysis of
the Political
Responses
To determine if administrators and institutions differed
significantly in their use of the political decision making model and to
test hypothesis 7, 8, and 9, the third dependent variable that was
analyzed was political decision making.
Hypothesis 7. There is no two way interaction between type of
administrator and type of institution regarding use of the political
decision making model.
For hypothesis 7 an F-value of 1.21 was calculated. The probability
of obtaining this F-value was .31. Since the probability is greater than
.05, hypothesis 7 should not be rejected. Therefore no two-way
interaction exists between type of administrator and type of institution
regarding their use of political decision making. Table 12 reports the
frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three administrative

64
positions and the three institutional types using political decision
making as the dependent variable.
TABLE 12
Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and
Significance Level for Political Decision Making
as a Function of Administrative Type and Institutional Type
Frequency
Mean
Standard Deviation
Four Year
Private
Four Year
Public
Community
College
Cumulative
Means
21
21
26
Academic Affairs
29.86
29.05
27.08
28.54
3.37
3.56
3.31
15
20
20
Business Affairs
28.40
27.35
26.50
27.32
4.44
2.98
3.52
19
19
27
Student Affairs
28.37
26.32
27.56
27.43
3.32
3.50
3.51
28.95
27.62
27.10
F-Value (1.21)
Significance
Level (.31)
Hypothesis 8. There are no differences among administrators in the
three institutional positions regarding their use of the political
decision making model.
For this hypothesis an F-value of 2.32 and a probability of .10 were
calculated. Since the probability is greater than .05, null hypothesis 8

65
should not be rejected. Thus, there are no differences among the three
administrative types in their use of the political decision making
model. Table 13 reports the frequencies, means and standard deviations
for the three administrative types using political decision making as the
dependent variable. The frequencies are consistent with the data
reported on Table 2.
TABLE 13
Mean, Frequency, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and
Significance Level of Political Decision Making as a
Function of Administrative Type
N
Mean
Standard
Deviation
F-Value
Significance
Level
Academic Affairs
68
28.54
3.56
Business Affairs
55
27.32
3.63
Student Affairs
65
27.43
3.49
(2.32)
(0.10)
Hypothesis 9. There are no differences by type of institution among
administrators in the three major institutional positions regarding their
use of the political decision making model.
An F-value of 4.46 and a probability of .01 were calculated for this
hypothesis. Since the probability of obtaining this F-value (.01) is less
than .05, hypothesis 9 should be rejected. Table 14 reports the frequencies,
means and standard deviations for the three institutional types using
political decision making as the dependent variable. The frequencies are
consistent with the data reported on Table 2.

66
TABLE 14
Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and
Significance Level of Political Decision Making
as a Function of Institutional Type
N
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Significance
F-Value Level
Four Year
Private
55
28.95
3.67
Four Year
Public
60
27.62
3.49
Community
College
73
27.10
3.42
(4.46) (0.01)
Since hypothesis
9 was
rejected, the
researcher
sought to determine
where the differences among institutions existed. The Duncan follow-up
test to the ANOVA was used for the political variable.
Table 15 indicates by comparison of means that administrators in
public baccalaureate degree granting institutions and public community
colleges do not differ significantly in their use of the political
decision making but both are more likely to use the political decision
making process than administrators in private baccalaureate degree
granting institutions.

67
TABLE 15
Frequency and Mean Comparison of Political
Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type
*Significance
N Mean Level
Four Year
Private
55
28.95
A
Four Year
Public
60
27.62
B
Community
College
73
27.10
B
* Means with same letters are not significantly different
Table 16 reports the cumulative means by administrative type for the
three dependent variables. The lower the cumulative mean score for each
dependent variable the more reflective those responses appeared to be of
the administrator's decision. The higher the cumulative mean, the less
likely the responses appeared to be reflected of the administrator's
decision.
TABLE 16
Cumulative Means by Administrator Type for the Three
Dependent Variables (Collegial, Breaucratic, and Political)
Administrator
Collegial
Bureaucratic
Political
Academic Affairs
24.81
24.63
28.54
Business
26.44
24.44
27.32
Student Affairs
23.51
27.04
27.42

68
Table 16 indicated, as did previous analyses, that chief academic
affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic and collegial in their
decision making than political. Chief business affairs officers tended
to be more bureaucratic in their decision making than collegial or
political and chief student affairs officers appeared to be more
collegial in their decision making than bureacratic or political.
The researcher was further interested in knowing if administrators
differed significantly at the .05 level on the 39 individual responses
(13 for each of the 3 dependent variables: bureaucratic, collegial,
political or if the differences were cancelled by the mean analysis
generated by the ANOVA.
To answer this question, an item analysis using chi-square by
administrator and by institution was conducted. The chi-square and
probability coefficients for each response to the dependent variables are
reported on Tables 17, 18, and 19.
Table 17 reports the 13 responses that were developed to measure
bureaucratic decision making. Of the 13 responses as a function of the
independent variable administrators, four responses (R.12, R.13, R.20 and
R.33) yielded chi squares of 10.0, 23.A8, 19.62 and 11.27 with
probability coeffecients of .04, .0001, .0006 and .02 respectively. This
indicated that a difference existed between administrators on each of
these bureaucratic response items. Of the 13 responses that were
developed to measure bureaucratic decision making as a function of
institutional type, no response yielded chi-squares that had a
probability level which met the criteria for statistical significance of
less than .05.

69
Table 18 reports the 13 responses that were developed to measure
collegial decision making. Of the 13 responses as a function of the
independent variable administrators, four responses (R.2, R.4, R14 and
R.35) yielded chi-squares of 16.16, 10.74, 10.74, and 11.04 with
probability coefficients of .003, .03, .03 and .03 respectfully. This
indicated that a difference existed between administrators on collegial
response items. The chi-squares were calculated for the collegial
responses as a function of institutional type. This yielded one response
(R.14) with a chi-square of 11.40 and a probability coefficient of .02.
This indicated that a difference existed on this response item among
administrators by institutional type.
Table 19 reports the 13 responses that were developed to measure
political decision making. Of the 13 responses as a function of the
independent variable administrators three responses (R.6, R.ll and R.36)
yielded chi-squares of 10.84, 12.31 and 12.42 with probability
coefficients of .03, .02 and .01. This indicated that a difference
existed on these response items between administrators and political
decision making.
The chi-square were calculated for the political responses as a
function of institutional type. This yielded one response (R.15) with a
chi-square of 13.12 and a probability coefficient of .01. This indicated
that a difference on this item existed among administrators by
institutional type.

70
The chi-square was calculated to determine if administrators differed
on individual response items or if the differences were cancelled by the
non-significant items in the mean analysis. The researcher found this to
be true in one instance. The chi-square found differences among three
response items by administrators in their use of political decision
making. However the non-significant items in the mean analysis cancelled
these differences found in the individual response items.
Chapter IV has discussed the research sample, the selection process,
and the rate of return of the survey instrument. In addition the
analysis of the data was reported. The analysis indicated the following:
1. Chief academic affairs officers and chief business affairs
officers do not differ significantly from each other in their use
of bureaucratic decision making but both are significantly more
likely to use bureaucratic decision making than chief student
affairs administrators.
2. Chief academic affairs officers and chief student affairs
officers do not differ significantly in their use of collegial
decision making but both are significantly more likely to use
this process than are chief business officers.
3. Administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting
institutions are significantly more likely than administrators in
public community colleges and public baccaleureate degree
granting institutions to use the collegial decision making
process.

71
TABLE 17
Chi-Squares and Probability for
Bureaucratic Response Items by Administrator and
by Institution
By Administrator By Institution
Bureaucratic
Response
PX2
Chi-Square
PX2
Chi-Square
R.l
4.64
0.34
3.86
0.43
R. 5
9.25
0.06
7.15
0.13
R. 9
3.92
0.42
4.77
0.31
R. 12
10.00
0.04
4.72
0.32
R.13
23.48
0.0001
7.78
0.10
R.16
6.28
0.18
7.98
0.09
R. 20
19.62
0.0006
9.19
0.06
R. 23
6.33
0.18
0.33
0.99
R. 25
1.72
0.79
3.84
0.43
R. 30
8.87
0.07
4.14
0.39
R.33
11.27
0.02
7.95
0.09
R. 34
7.86
0.10
2.88
0.58
R.38
6.80
0.15
2.40
0.66

72
TABLE 18
Chi Squares and Probability for
Collegial Response Items by Administrator and
by Institution
By Administrator
By Institution
Collegial Response Chi Square PX
Chi Square
R. 2
16.16
0.003
9.33
0.053
R.4
1.33
0.86
7.58
0.11
R. 8
10.74
0.03
6.88
0.14
R.10
7.70
0.10
4.62
0.33
R. 14
10.74
0.03
11.40
0.02
R. 17
4.81
0.31
6.56
0.16
R. 19
6.48
0.17
5.14
0.27
R. 22
.883
0.93
5.28
0.26
R. 26
9.08
0.06
4.08
0.40
R. 28
9.15
0.06
2.77
0.59
R. 31
3.71
0.45
3.40
0.49
R. 35
11.04
0.03
1.54
0.82
R. 37
3.63
0.46
2.93
0.57

73
TABLE 19
Chi Squares and Probability for
Political Response Items by Administrator and
by Institution
By Administrator
By Institution
Political Response Chi Square PX
Chi Square
2
PX
R. 3
8.26
0.08
6.52
0.16
R. 6
10.84
0.03
7.99
0.09
R. 7
3.28
0.51
6.19
0.19
R. 11
12.31
0.02
4.56
0.34
R. 15
7.28
0.12
13.12
0.01
R. 18
2.55
0.64
3.96
0.41
R. 21
9.21
0.06
4.59
0.33
R. 24
7.11
0.13
7.93
0.09
R. 27
4.20
0.38
4.85
0.30
R. 29
2.89
0.58
5.95
0.20
R. 32
7.06
0.13
4.90
0.30
R. 36
12.42
0.01
4.47
0.35
R. 39
4.84
0.30
2.77
0.60

74
4. Administrators in public community colleges and public
baccalaureate degree granting institutions do not differ
significantly in their use of the political decision
making but both are more likely to use this process than
administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting
institutions.
5. Chief academic affairs officers tended to be more
bureaucratic and collegial than political in their
decision making.
6. Chief business officers tended to be more bureaucratic in
their decision making than either collegial or political.
7. Chief student affairs officers tended to be more collegial
in their decision making than either bureaucratic or
political.
Chapter V is titled "Summary and Conclusions." In Chapter V the
results of the study are discussed in relationship to the three different
dependent variables (bureaucratic, collegial, political decision making)
and the independent variables (administrator and institutional type). In
addition, conclusions are stated and recommendations are suggested.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The final chapter of this study consists of five sections. Section
one is a review of the study followed by a summary of the major findings
in section two. Section three presents the conclusions with discussion
of the results in section four and section five addressing the possible
implications for further research.
The study utilized an instrument developed by the researcher. The 13
critical incidents and 39 decision making responses which comprised the
instrument were validated by a national panel of expert judges. Each of
the 13 critical incidents had three responses with each response
reflecting one of the three decision making models under investigation.
The research sample was selected from colleges and universities in
the Southern United States as defined by the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools. A total of 270 chief administrators from three
different areas of administrative responsibility (academic affairs,
business affairs and student affairs) and from three types of
institutions (private baccalaureate degree granting, public baccalaureate
degree granting and public community college) was selected to participate
in the study. The Yearbook of Higher Education was used to
75

76
identify the names and addresses of the randomly selected administrators.
The research instrument was mailed to each of the 270 administrators
and produced a return rate of 69.6 percent. The rank ordered responses
of the 188 administrators were statistically analyzed using the two-way
analysis of variance. A probability coefficient of less than .05 was
established to reject the null hypothesis. The Duncan multiple range
test was used to find out exactly where significant differences existed
if the researcher rejected the null hypothesis. A chi-square for each
response was calculated to determine if administrators differed
significantly on individual response items.
Major Findings
The researcher analyzed three problem statements for each of the
three dependent variables (bureaucratic, collegial and political decision
making). The problem statements were analyzed by stating them in null
hypothesis form. Of the nine hypotheses tested four were rejected at the
established probability level of .05 or less.
The statistical analysis indicated the following major findings:
1. Chief academic affairs officers and chief business affairs
officers do not differ significantly in their use of bureaucratic
decision making. However, both are more likely to use the
bureaucratic decision making model than chief student affairs
administrators.
2. Chief academic affairs officers and chief student affairs

77
officers do not differ significantly in their use of collegial
decision making. However, both are significantly more likely to
use the collegial decision making model than chief business
affairs officers.
3. Administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting
institutions are significantly more likely than those working in
public community colleges and public baccalaureate degree
granting institutions to use collegial decision making.
4. Administrators in public baccalaureate degree granting
institutions and public community colleges do not differ
significantly in their use of the political decision making
model. However, administrators in both institutions are more
likely to use the political decision making model than
administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting
instiutions.
5. Chief student affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic and
collegial in their decision making than political.
6. Chief business officers tended to be more bureaucratic in their
decision making than either collegial or political.
7. Chief student affairs officers tended to be more collegial in
their decision making than either bureaucratic or political.

78
Conclusions
The findings of the study led the researcher to the following
conclusions:
1. Of the three decision making models under investigation (Weber's
bureaucratic model, Millett's collegial model, and Baldridge's
political model) no single model emerged as the dominant decision
making model. The study indicated that all three models are
useful and provide a framework by which administrators make
decisions.
2. The instrument developed by the researcher does clearly
discriminate for statistical purposes the significant differences
among administrators as to the decision making processes used.
3. There are significant differences among the three types of
administrators participating in this study regarding their use of
the bureaucratic and collegial decision making models.
4. There are significant differences among administrators by
institutional type regarding their use of the collegial and
political decision making models.
5. Chief academic affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic
and collegial in their decision making. Chief business officers
tended to be more bureaucratic and chief student affairs tended
to be collegial in their decision making. No single group of
administrators tended to be political in their decision making.

79
Discussion
The results of the study indicated that no single group of
administrators tended to use Baldridge's political decision making model
but instead favored the collegial or bureaucratic models of decision
making. One factor that could explain this tendency is the fact that
Baldridge's decision making model was developed in 1971 when higher
education institutions were faced with student protests and outside
influences that bordered on turmoil. Higher education institutions
survived this disruptive period of time and institutions today may be the
more reflective of the times when both Millett (1962) and Weber (1947)
developed their collegial and bureaucratic decision making models. Thus
this may explain why administrators tended to favor the collegial and
bureaucratic models of decision making.
The study found that chief business affairs and chief academic
affairs officers were more likely to use bureaucratic decision making
than were chief student affairs officers. One might speculate that this
difference may be due to the types of decisions made by each type of
administrator on a day to day basis. For example chief business affairs
officers typically make decisions as they relate to accounting,
budgeting, unionized personnel and the physical plant. Chief academic
affairs officers make decisions as they relate to faculty unions,
graduation requirements and the curriculum. These types of decisions may
be more reflective of a bureaucratic decision making response. Chief
student affairs officers deal with students on a day to day basis and
their decisions often times are not based strictly on rules, regulations

80
or procedures. Thus, the chief student affairs officer often times may
use a collegial approach.
Chief academic affairs officers were found to be both collegial and
bureaucratic in their decision making. One might speculate that this
could be the result of working with faculty (collegial) while at the same
time working with faculty unions (bureaucratic).
Administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting institutions
were more likely to be collegial in their decision making when compared
with administrators in public community colleges and public baccalaureate
degree granting institutions. Administrators in the two types of public
institutions were more likely to use the political decision making model
than their counterparts in the private institutions. Speculation
regarding this finding is difficult. The researcher suggests however
that public institutions tend to be more politicized in nature than their
private counterparts since funding for public institutions comes from the
state legislatures as a result of the political process. It is
conceivable that this political process is continued at the institutional
level. Most private institutions, on the other hand, receive little or
no direct funding from public funds and thus may be less likely to be
influenced by the political process.
Possible Implications for Further Research
The study indicates the need for further research in several areas.
The study found differences in the decision making process among
administrators and among administrators by institutional type but did not

attempt to answer the questions of how or why these differences existed.
Could the differences be the result of the types of decisions
administrators make or a result of their varied responsibilities? Are
there institutional characteristics that contribute to an administrator'
tendency to use one particular decision making model? Futher research
could address these issues as well as the following:
1. The study was limited to the comparison of three decision making
model (bureaucratic, collegial and political). Additional
research could focus on the same plus different decision making
models such as Chaffee's (1983) rational decision making and
organized anarchy.
2. The critical incidents used in the study to describe
administrative problems are limited to administrative activities
as defined by Gulick's and Urick's 1937 PODSCORB model. Future
research could focus on administrative activities using a
different administrative model.
3. The sample for the study could be changed or expanded to include
additional educational staff and various demographic factors
(sex, age, race, level of education and years of service) could
be used as independent variables to determine possible
interaction with the decision making process.
4. Different types of institutional categories including the
multicampus could be studied and used for the sample.
Demographic information about institutions regarding age, sex,
race and degrees offered is a possibility.

82
5. Sample populations from the same institution could be studied to
determine similiarities and differences in their decision making
process.
6. A study could be conducted to determine if a relationship exists
between types of decisions made and the use of a particular
decision making model.
7. Since Chief Academic Affairs officers were found to be both
collegial and bureaucratic in their decision making further
research is needed to clarify this finding.

APPENDIX A
COVER LETTER TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS

March 15, 1984
Dear
Mr. Tom Dougan is conducting a study of administrative decision
making in higher education under the sponsorship of the Institute of
Higher Education.
The purpose of this letter is to request your participation in this
study. The study seeks to compare the decision making processes used by
higher education administrators by area of responsibility and by
institutional type.
The critical incidents presented by Mr. Dougan's survey are relevant
and reflective of situations in which your president/chancellor expects
that you will provide recommendations in accordance with administrative
operations of the institution. Although the alternatives do not exhaust
the possibilities, please confine yourself to rank ordering the responses
specified in the survey according to your best judgement.
We will appreciate very much your cooperation and assistance with the
study and will provide you a copy of the findings if you só indicate on
the survey. In order to tabulate all the replies, we are requesting the
return of your completed survey by March 29, 1984.
Cordially,
James L. Wattenbarger, Director
Institute of Higher Education
84

APPENDIX B
SECOND COVER LETTER TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS

April 2, 1984
Dear
Several weeks ago the Institute of Higher Education mailed a survey
to a selected sample of chief business affairs administrators at colleges
and universities of the Southeast. To date we have had a good response.
To the best of our knowledge, we have not yet received your survey.
However, it is possible that it is in the mail at this time. If you have
returned the survey please disregard this letter.
We are most anxious to insure that a representative sample of chief
business affairs administrators are included in this study. If you would
take several minutes to complete the enclosed study, we would be most
grateful. We expect to begin tabulation of the data in mid April and
would appreciate receiving your survey as soon as possible.
Your participation in this study is greatly appreciated.
Cordially,
James L. Wattenbarger, Director
Institute of Higher Education
86

APPENDIX C
JUDGES SELECTED TO VALIDATE INSTRUMENT

Judges Selected to Validate the Research Instrument
Dr. Louis Bender
Florida State University
Dr. Fred F. Harcleroad
University of Arizona
Dr. Ralph Kimbrough
University of Florida
Dr. S. V. Martorana
Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Michael Nunnery
University, of Florida
Dr. Richard Richardson
Arizona State University
Dr. James Wattenbarger
University of Florida
88

APPENDIX D
COVERED LETTER AND
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY TO THE JUDGES

5620 N. W. 25th Street
Gainesville, FL 32607
November 29, 1983
Dr. Louis W. Bender, Director
Department of Educational Leadership
Room 107, Stone Building
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306
Dear Dr. Bender:
As per our phone conversation of last week, Dr. James Wattenbarger,
Director of the Institute of Higher Education at the University of
Florida, suggested that I contact you to participate as a judge in this
research project. I appreciate your willingness to participate and I have
attached a brief description of the study and a copy of the survey to this
letter with the following directions:
1. Read each critical incident and the responses for each.
2. Mark each of the responses as you believe it is representative of
B = bureaucratic, C = collegial, P = political.
3. Do not apply the process of elimination. Judge each response in
its own right.
4. Completed responses and comments should be returned in the
enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.
Again, Dr. Bender, thank you for your interest and willingness to
participate in this research project.
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Dougan
90

91
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to test the decision making model as
described by Victor Baldridge (1971) and to determine whether Baldridge's
decision making model is supported by the responses of administrators in
three types of positions at three types of institutions. The study
further tested Baldridge's decison making model by contrasting this
theory to Millett’s (1962) collegial decison making model and Weber's
(1946) bureaucratic decision making model. The researcher developed a
questionnaire composed of eighteen critical incidents and three responses
for each incident that was used to test Baldridge's decison making theory.

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE OF JUDGES TO THE INSTRUMENT

APPENDIX E
Responses of Judges to Instrument
Judges
Critical Incident Response Dougan A B C D E F G
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
P
C
B
10
11
12
C
P
B
B C P C
P P B P
C B C B
C C C
P ' P P
B B B
13
14
15
B
C
P
B B B B
C C C C
P P P P
B B B
C C C
P P P
16
17
18
B
C
P
B B
C C
P P
B B B B B
C C C C C
P P P P P
19
20
21
C
B
P
C C C
B B B
P P P
C C C C
B B B B
P P P P
22
23
24
C
B
P
C C C
B B B
P P P
c c c c
B B B B
P P P P
25
26
27
B
C
P
B B
C C
P P
B B B B B
C C C C C
P P P P P
93

94
APPENDIX E (continued)
Judges
Critical Incident Response Dougan A B C D E F G
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
C
P
B
C
B
P
C
P
B
B
C
P
c
B
P
C
B
P
P
B
C
B
C
P
P
C
B
c c c
p p p
B B B
C C C
B B B
P P P
C C C
P P P
B B B
B B B
C C C
P P P
C C C
B B B
P P P
c c c
B B B
P P P
P P P
B B B
C C C
B B B
C C C
P P P
P P P
c c c
B B B
C C C C
P P P P
B B B B
C C C C
B B B B
P P P P
c c c c
p p p p
B B B B
B B B B
C C C C
P P P P
C C C C
B B B B
P P P P
C C C C
B B B B
P P P P
P P P P
B B B B
C C C C
B B B B
C C C C
P P P P
P P P P
C C C C
B B B B

APPENDIX F
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

A Study of Administrative
Decision Making
Processes in Higher Education
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. The term "decision making process" as used in this study refers to
the process used by you to reflect your recommendation, position or
response regarding critical incidents.
2. The term "critical incident" as used in this study refers to an
abbreviated case study which provides managers with challenges
similar to the real world environment.
3. The numerical designation in the right-hand corner of the survey is
for the purpose of a follow-up mailing, in the case of nonresponse.
The results will reflect responses by groups of administrators and
will not identify individual responses.
4. The responses to each of the critical incidents are written to
provide a framework from which recommendations on the incident can be
made.
DIRECTIONS
In your role as an administrator at your institution, you are asked to
read each of the critical incidents and the set of three responses and
rank order the responses as follows:
1_ The response which is MOST reflective of your position.
2_ The response which is MODERATELY reflective of your position.
3_ The response which is LEAST reflective of your position.
Complete surveys should be returned in the self-addressed, stamped
envelop which has been provided.
96

97
Critical Incident I
This public four year institution has received a request from a
student lesbian and gay society to use meeting space in the college's
student union building. Recently, two state legislators and various
community and church groups have expressed displeasure at using state
facilities and resources to support such groups. Some legislators have
also expressed concern about recognizing such groups. The president,
before making a decision on this matter, has asked for your input.
Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your
approach to this issue:
"The issue should be handled in accordance with state
policy, and the appropriate administrator should make the
decision after receiving advice from the university
attorney."
"This is a matter which needs full discussion and
participation by students, faculty, and staff. The issue
should be referred to the Committee on Student
organizations for its recommendation."
A careful assessement must be made by the President of the
possible ramifications of this decision. If the
institution might be damaged by recognizing the
organization, the President should deny the request."

98
Critical Incident II
The daughter of a state senator applied for admission to this
state university but did not meet the admission standards expected of
other incoming freshmen. She was denied admission by the Admissions
Committee. The state senator holds a very important position as Vice
Chairman of the Senate's Higher Education Committee. The senator has
contacted the President and has requested the admission of the daughter.
Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your
approach to this issue:
"The President should refer the matter to a representative
group of faculty and consult with them regarding their
views on the situation."
"The matter should be referred to the Dean of Admissions,
who should make the decision in accordance with university
policy."
"The President should weigh the impact that the decision
may have upon the institution, and base his decision on
how it may hinder or assist the institution."

99
Critical Incident III
The Vice President for Academic Affairs at a four year private
university has proposed recently that the student financial aid office be
transferred from student affairs to academic affairs. During the past
three years the financial aid office has been criticized by students,
faculty and parents. Complaints have focused on long lines and delays in
processing. The Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Vice
President for Student Affairs have worked well together in the past but
this recommendation has caused a problem in their working relationship.
The President has asked each Vice President for a recommendation
regarding the proposal. Please rank order the following responses which
might reflect your approach to this issue:
"The complaints of students, faculty and parents must be
addressed, and the instutition should make a visible
effort to assure these groups that it is going to correct
the problem.
"The matter should be referred to the Standing University
Committee on Student Financial Aid, which will enable
faculty, students and staff to submit their
recommendation, in an effort to reach consensus."
"There are written guidelines provided by the professional
associations that indicate the best direction the
institution should take. These should be provided to the
President and all should abide by his/her decision.

100
Critical Incident IV
As part of an institutional long range planning effort, the
faculty senate of a publicly supported community college has recommended
to the President a plan that would require all community college
sophomores, in an academic track, to complete successfully a sophomore
competency examination before receiving the Associate of Arts degree.
The test has been labeled "racially biased" by some minority
organizations in the community and the student government association is
also opposed to the examination. Recent complaints from four-year
institutions in the state have alleged the community college students are
not adequately prepared for the rigors of a four year college or
university. The President, before making a decision on the matter, has
asked for input from the administrative staff. Please rank order the
following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:
"The President should consult with experts on this
matter. Their professional competence is essential to any
decision made. After consultation with the experts
consensus can be reached and a decision made."
"Pressure can be expected from external groups to become
very intense. Based on previous encounters, an open and
impartial public forum should be held, and the decision
will have to reflect the influence these groups have."
"The faculty senate should be supported. They have
followed institutional policy, procedures and rules in
making their recommendation and have a record of
responsible actions in the past.

101
Critical Incident V
Recent legislation has been passed which removes all funding of
remedial education programs at all four year public colleges and
universities in the state. The legislature has declared that funds are
being provided for high schools to develop these skills and refuses to
fund colleges to do the same. Community leaders and students in
continuing and remedial education courses have urged the President of the
state supported community college to support these programs by using
private funds. The faculty of the community college is split on the
issue. The President, before making a decision, has asked for
recommendations from the administrative staff. Please rank order the
following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:
"The President should follow the intent of the recently
passed legislation. While state funds would not be used,
the institution, if it funds these programs from private
sources, would violate the intent of state law and policy."
"The President should refer this matter to the academic
deans and department chairmen for a decision. These
individuals have the professional competency to make the
decision."
"Local community groups have been very supportive of the
President and the local community college's effort and
programs in th past. The community college's image may
suffer irreparable damage if remedial education programs
are not funded.

102
Critical Incident VI
The President of a large private institution has proposed the
establishment of a new position, Vice President for Research. The
President has been concerned about the lack of direction that has been
provided to this area, citing the current decentralization of this
responsibility as the major reason for the lack of direction and
progress. The President has asked each Vice President to respond to this
proposal before deciding what to do. Please rank order the following
responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:
"The President's proposal should be supported. If the
President believes there is a need for a Vice President
for Research, he/she has the ultimate authority and
responsibility for the success of the institution;
therefore the President's proposal should be supported."
"The President should be encouraged to refer this matter
to a representative group of research faculty for their
study and recommendation. The President's decision should
be based on this recommendation."
"The President should be encouraged to discuss this issue
with all interest groups. The creation of a new Vice
Presidency could bring criticism from students, faculty,
staff and the university's governing board unless they are
given the opportunity to be heard. The President's
decision will reflect the influence these groups have.

103
Critical Incident VII
The Vice President for Academic Affairs of a comprehensive public
university has directed the Deans of each college to develop a
comprehensive academic advising program. This is a response to student,
parent and staff complaints about academic advising. There are charges
of long lines at registration, inadequate faculty office hours, and
incorrect academic advice. The Vice President for Academic Affairs has
stated that faculty should be rewarded with tenure and promotion for
academic advising as well as teaching and research. However, faculty are
upset about this possibility and have voiced their concerns to the
President. The President has asked each Vice President for a
recommendation concerning this issue. Please rank order the following
responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:
"The President should refer this matter to a
representative group of faculty, department chairmen, and
academic deans. The President should be willing to
compromise and seek consensus regarding this issue.
"The President should refer the matter to the Vice
President for Academic Affairs and expect him/her to
resolve the issue within existing university policies and
procedures.”
"The President must be responsive to the serious
complaints about academic advising. The President must
weigh the impact these groups might have on the
institution if he/she does not support the new academic
advising program.

Critical Incident VIII
The Status of Women's Committee and several student groups have
requested the President of a public community college to implement a
proposal that would provide child care facilities for the children of
faculty, students and staff. Recently, the state legislature has
authorized the use of state allocated funds for child care. The
college's position has been that there are other priorities more
important than child care at this time and that the money available for
child care should be used for these higher priority items. The President
in considering the request of the Status of Women's Committee has asked
for your recommendations regarding child care. Please rank order the
following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:
"The President should review the priority needs of the
institution and study the child care issue by appointing a
task force of faculty, students, and administrative
staff. The decision should be based on the task force's
recommendation."
"The college's priority list was developed over a long
period of time within the normal policies and procedures
of the college. It would be inappropriate now to fund
child care ahead of other priorities and thus deviate from
established policy. The President should reject the
proposal."
"The Status of Women's Committee has been supportive of
the President in the past. The President should weigh the
impact that this decision may have on the institution and
base his/her decision on how it may hinder or assist the

105
Critical Incident IX
The Faculty Senate of a private university has proposed new
guidelines for determining tenure and promotion. The plan passed the
Faculty Senate by a narrow margin and increases the proportion of faculty
who have been awarded tenure and promotion in recent years. However, the
Vice President for Academic Affairs has been seriously concerned about
the high percentage of tenured faculty, which does not permit many new,
younger faculty to be hired by the university. In fact, 75 percent of
all existing faculty are tenured. Please rank order the following
responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:
"The Vice President for Academic Affairs has authority to
make this decision and in accordance with institutional
policy, should exercise his/her prerogative."
"The President should appoint a special task force of
distinguished faculty, alumni and board members to closely
examine the Faculty Senate's proposal. The decision
should be based on the recommendations of this
representative group.”
"The President must recognize the concerns of the faculty
and weight the implications if the new guidelines for
tenure and promotion are not approved. The Faculty Senate
has been supportive of the President in the past and this
continued support is critical to the President. The
President should approve the plan."

106
Critical Incident X
The Physical Plant Division of this two year public institution
has recently come under attack by the faculty, students and staff.
Criticisms point to the alledgedly poor job being done by the Physical
Plant in virtually all areas of responsibility - housekeeping, the campus
grounds and maintenance. In addition, departments have complained about
high costs charged by Physical Plant when work is performed. Some
departments claim that the work could be done at a savings by an outside
contractor. They have presented a plan to the President to study the
possible elimination of the Physical Plant Division in favor of
contracting with a private company. Please rank order the following
responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:
"The President should meet with a team of professional
consultants regarding this issue. A thorough study of the
Physical Plant Division must be made by persons with
professional competency in this area. After consultation
with these experts, consensus should be reached.
"The complaints are coming from very influential groups,
and the President must take strong action to assure these
groups that the problem is going to be corrected. The
President should implement the proposal."
"The President should refer this matter to the Vice
President for Business Affairs for a decision. The Vice
President is administratively responsible for this program
and should make the decision within established university
rules and guidelines.

107
Critical Incident XI
The State Board of Regents and the State Legislature have received
a recommendation from the state's Higher Education Coordinating Committee
directing that the admission requirements of all state universities be
raised. In particular, this recommendation requires all high school
students to have an SAT score of 850 and a high school grade point
average of 2.5. In addition, high school graduates must have two years
of foreign language, three years of math, and four years of English.
This recommendation is one of several aimed at improving the quality of
the state university system. The President of this state university in
deciding whether to support the recommendation has asked the Vice
Presidents for their input. Please rank order the following responses
which might reflect your approach to the issue:
"The President should refer this matter to the University
Admissions Committee for recommendations. After
consultation with this group of faculty and students, a
decision can be made."
"This is a decision that will affect several interest
groups, including students, faculty, alumni and other
university constituencies. The President must carefully
weigh the impact these new standards will have on the
university. If the impact will damage the university, the
President should not support the recommendation."
"The State Board of Regents is the ultimate authority
regarding state education policy development for the
university system. It is the President's responsibility
to support the position of the State Board of Regents."

Critical Incident XII
As a response to recent budget cuts and in a move to save money,
the Vice President for Business Affairs at this four year private
university has changed the work schedules of several physical plant
employees. The large majority of housekeeping staff have been switched
to the night shift. The labor union has strongly objected to this move,
suggesting that many of its employees have part-time jobs and families
that will be negatively affected. The Vice President for Business
Affairs has stated that this policy was made to save money and that the
only other alternative is to lay off employees. The union has countered,
saying several employees will have to resign anyway as many cannot work
the night shift. The union charges the Vice President with making this
change without consulting employees or the union, and to avoid laying
people off, changing their hours, knowing that many would resign. The
union has appealed the decision to the President. Please rank order the
following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:
"The President should support the Vice President for
Business Affairs. He/She is administratively responsible
for this area and has made this change in accordance with
the rules, procedures and policies of the contract with
the union.”
"The President should appoint a task force staff to study
this issue and to make recommendations to him/her for
other possible solutions to the budget problem. The
President's decision will be based on this recommendation.

109
"The labor union has been supportive of the President and
the university in the past. The most effective way to
resolve this issue is to bargain with them, and reach a
mutually acceptable decision.
Critical Incident XIII
Recent trends in higher education have made it necessary for this
private university to examine closely the allocation of space, money, and
personnel in various academic programs. Student enrollment is rapidly
increasing in the engineering, computer science, business, and
preprofessional curricula and declining in liberal arts and in
education. Space, money, and personnel must be reorganized and
reallocated to meet these increasing demands. Resources from departments
with declining enrollments must be shifted to areas of growing demand.
Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your
approach to this issue:
"The President should encourage the full participation of
all Vice Presidents. He/she should consult with each Vice
President individually and as a group seeking consensus."
"The President by virtue of his/her position is ultimately
responsible for the success or failure of the university.
The President should use the authority of his/her position
and make the decision."
"This decision will have a significant impact on the
institution and requires careful assessment by the
President. The President can expect to receive
conflicting points of view by various interest groups and
must base the decision on this input."

REFERENCES
Balderston, F.E. (1975). Managing today's uaiverslcy. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Barnard, C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Baldridge, J.V. (1971). Academic governance. Berkeley: McCuthan.
Baldridge, J.V., Curtis, D.V., Ecker, G., & Riley, G.L. (1978). Policy
making and effective leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baldridge, J.V. & Riley, G.L. (1977). Governing academic organizations:
New problems, new perspectives. Berkeley, California: McCuthan.
Benson, J.K. (1973). The analysis of bureaucratic-professional
conflicts: Functional versus dialectical approaches. The Sociological
Quarterly, 14, 376-394.
Blau, P.M. (1973). The organization of academic work. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Borg, W. & Gall, M. (1976). Educational research: An introduction. New
York: David McKay Co. Inc.
Burns, T. (1976). Mechanistic and organismic structures. In D.S. Pugh
(Ed.), Organization Theory. (pp. 185-221). London: Cox and Wyman.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1973). Priorities for action:
Final Report. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. (1980). Three
thousand futures: The next twenty years for higher education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chaffee E.E. (1983). Rational decision making in higher education.
Boulder, Colorado: National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems.
Child, J. (1976). Organization structure and strategies of control: A
replication of the ashton study. In D.S. Pugh & C.R. Hfnings (Eds.),
Organizational structure: Extensions and replications of the Ashton
programme II. (pp. 28-61). Westmead, England: Saxon House.
Childers, M.E. (1979). Academic decision making. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 40, 4429. (University Microfilms No. 80-03, 815).
110

Cohen, M.D., & March, J.G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Deitzer, B.A., & Schiliff, K.A. (1977). Contemporary management
incidents. Columbus, Ohio: Grid Inc.
Demerath, N.J., Stephens, R.W., & Taylor, R.R. (1967). Power,
presidents, and professors. New York: Basic Books.
Ebel, K.E. (1978). The art of administration. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Flanagan, J.C. (1966). The critical incidents technique. Psychological
Bulletin, 51, 327-328.
Gardner, P.L. (1975). Scales and statistics. Review of Educational
Research, 45, 52.
Griffiths, D.E. (1959). Administrative theory. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crafts.
Gulick, L., & Urick, L. (Eds.). (1937). Papers on the science of
administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia
University.
Hamrick, M.C. (1969). A critical incidents approach to identification
of the philosophical position of classroom teachers. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Florida, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 31, 291.
Helwig, J.T., & Council, K.A. (Eds.). (1979). Statistical analysis
system users' guide. Raleigh, N.C.: SAS Institute.
Hodgkinson, C. (1978). Towards a philosophy of administration. New
York: St. Martin Press.
Hodgkinson, H.L. & Bloy, M.B. (Eds.). (1971). Identity crisis in
higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Holdaway, E.A., Newberry, J.F., Hickson, D.J., & Heron, R.D. (1976).
Dimentions of organizations in complex societies: The educational
sector. In D.S. Pugh & C.R. Hinings (Eds.), Organizational structure:
extentions and replications of Ashton Programme II. (pp. 184-203).
Westmead, England: Saxon House.
Hutchins, R.M. (1936). The higher learning in america. New Haven: Yale
University Press.

112
Inkson, J.H. Pugh, D.S., & Hickson, D.J. (1976). Organization context
and structure: an abbreviated replication. In D.S. Pugh and C.R.
Hinings. (Eds.), Organizational structure and replications of the Ashton
Programme II. Westmead, England: Saxon House.
Kast, F.E., & Rosenzweig. J.E. (1974). Organization and Management: A
systems approach, (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lahti, R.E. (1973). Innovative college management. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Litwak, E. (1961). Models of bureaucracy which permit conflict.
American Journal of Sociology, 47, 177-184.
Mayhew, L.D. (1956). The critical incidents technique in education
evaluation. Journal of Educational Research, 49, 591-598.
Mayhew, L.B., & Dressel P.L. (1953). The cooperative study of
evaluation in general education. The Educational Record, 34, 54-67.
Mendenhall, W. (1975). Introduction to probability and statistics.
Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
Millett, J.D. (1962). The academic community. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Millett, J.D. (1974). Strengthening community In higher education.
Washington: Management Divison, Academie for Educational Development.
Montagna, P.D. (1973). Professionalization and bureaucratization in
large professional organizations. In W.V. Heydebrand (Eds), Comparative
organization the results of empirical research, (pp. 220-264).
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Morphet, E.L., Johns, R.L., & Reller, T.L. (1967). Educational
organization and administration: Concepts, practices, and issues.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Mortimer, K.P., Gunne, M.G., & Leslie, D.W. (1976). Perceived legitimacy
of decision making and academic governance patterns in higher education:
a comparative analysis. Research in Higher Education, 4_, 273-290.
Nunnery, M.Y., & Kimbrough, R.B. (1976). Educational administration: An
introduction. New York: Macmillan.
Olsen, J.P. (1976). Choice in an organized anarchy. In J.G. March &
J.P. Olsen (Eds.), Ambiguity and choice in organization. (pp. 25-48).
Bergan, Norway: Harold Lyche.

113
Parsons, T. (1966). Societies: evolutionary and comparative
perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Parsons, T., & Platt, G.M. (1971). Decision making in the academic
system: Influence and power exchange. In C.E. Kruybosh and S.L.
Messenger (Eds). The state of the university. (pp- 184-221). Beverly
Hills: Sage.
Podolsky, A., & Smith, C.R. (Eds.). (1983). Educational directory,
colleges and universities 1981-1982. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare.
Pugh, D.S., & Hickson, D.J. (1976). Organizational structure in its
context: The Ashton programme I. Westmead, England: Saxon House.
Riley, G.L. & Baldridge, J.V. (1977). Governing academic
organizations. Berkeley, California: McCuthan.
Ritzer, G. (1975). Professionalization, bureaucratization, and
rationalization: The views of Max Weber. Social Forces, 53, 627-634.
Roy, R.H. (1958). The administrative process. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins Press.
Sargent, C.G., & Belisle, E.L. (1955). Educational administration:
Cases and concepts. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Simon, H.A. (1959). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Stufflebeam, D., & Associates. (1971). Educational evaluation and
decision making. Stasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock.
Weber, M. (1947). (The theory of social and economic organization).
(A.M. Henderson & T. Parsons, trans.). (reprint ed.) New York: The Free
Press.
Yearbook of Higher Education. (1983). Chicago, Illinois: Marquis Who's
Who.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Born in Erie, Pennsylvania, on May 22, 1949, Thomas R. Dougan was
educated in the public schools of Harbor Creek Township. He graduated
from Harbor Creek High School, Harbor Creek, Pennsylvania, in 1967.
Mr. Dougan entered Edinboro State College in Edinboro, Pennsylvania,
and in 1971 received the Bachelor of Science degree in math education.
In 1971 he entered graduate school at Western Illinois University in
Macomb, Illinois. In 1973 Mr. Dougan received the Master of Science
degree in college student personnel administration.
Mr. Dougan held the position of Director of Student Activities at
Longwood College in Farmville, Virginia, from 1973 to 1975. He held a
similar position at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, from 1975 to
1977. Mr. Dougan has held the position of Assistant Dean for Student
Services at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, since 1977.
Mr. Dougan is married to the former Karen McClune of Edinboro,
Pennsylvania. They have three children, Brian, age eight; Katie, age
four; and Jennifer, age one.
114

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
Doctor of Philosophy.
quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
C. A. Sandeen, Chairman
Professor of Educational Administration
and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable
adequate, in scope and
Doctor of Philosophy.
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
1 lyjz¡'A,
J./L. Wattenbarger
Pyofessor of Education Administration
and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable
adequate, in scope and
Doctor of Philosophy.
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
H. C. Riker
Professor of Counselor Education

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
December, 1984
Dean for Graduate Studies and
Research

yw




PAGE 1

AN ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS USED BY UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS ON SELECTED ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION BY THOMAS R. DOUGAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1984

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express sincere appreciation to many people who have in their own way contributed to this study. Dr. Art Sandeen, my committee chairman, was a source of encouragement throughout the study and an invaluable advisor during the graduate program. Dr. James Wattenbarger and Dr. Harold Riker provided direction and support through the study. Dr. Tom Goodale and Dr. Phyllis Meek offered me the professional encouragement to start the project and the personal encouragement needed to finish. I wish to thank Ms. Betty Anderson for typing the rough draft of the study and to Carolyn Suggs, whose skill in typing and editing the final copy were invaluable, goes my sincere appreciation. Special personal thanks and appreciation are due my wife Karen. Her patience, understanding and personal sacrifice were the major reasons this study was able to be completed. To Brian, Katie and Jennifer, my children, go my appreciation for their curiosity, their understanding of the time away from them and for their sense of humor all of which made this study an easier task. To my parents Ralph and Millie Dougan special thanks are due for their always believing this project was possible. Thanks are also due to lany friends and colleagues in the Office of Student Services who have provided encouragement and special assistance throughout the study. 11

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES v ABSTRACT vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Theoretical Background 4 Delimitations 5 Limitations 6 Assumptions 6 Definition of Terms 7 Research Methodology 8 Selection of the Research Sample 9 Instrumentation and Data Collection 9 Treatment and Analysis of the Data 10 Organization of the Study by Chapters 11 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 13 Introduction 13 Bureaucratic Decision Making 13 Collegial Decision Making 19 Political Decision Making 24 CHAPTER III DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE INSTRUMENT 29 Selection of the Critical Incidents 29 Construction of the Decision Making Responses 45 Validation of the Response Items 46 Design and Printing of the Instrument 48 CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 49 The Research Sample 51 Analysis of the Data 53 Analysis of the Bureaucratic Responses 55 Analysis of the Collegial Responses 59 Analysis of the Political Responses 64 111

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PAGE CHAPTER V SU^fMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 75 Major Findings 75 Conclusions 78 Discussion 79 Possible Implications for Further Research 80 APPENDIX A COVER LETTER TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS 84 APPENDIX B SECOND COVER LETTER TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS 86 APPENDIX C JUDGES SELECTED TO VALIDATE INSTRUMENT 88 APPEiraiX D COVER LETTER AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDY TO THE JUDGES.. 90 APPENDIX E RESPONSE OF JUDGES TO THE INSTRUMENT 93 APPENDIX F RESEARCH INSTRUMENT 96 REFERENCES 110 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 114 IV

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES PAGE TABLE 2 Research Sample that Returned Valid Responses 52 TABLE 3 Frequency Mean, Standard Deviation F-Value, and Significance Level of Bureaucratic Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type and Administrative Type 55 TABLE 4 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation F-Value, and Significance Level of Bureaucratic Decision Making as a Function of Administrative Type 56 TABLE 5 Frequency and Mean of Bureaucratic Decision Making as a Function of Administrative Type 57 TABLE 6 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and Significance Level of Bureaucratic Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type 58 TABLE 7 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and Significance Level of Collegial Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type 60 TABLE 8 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation F-Value, and Significance Level of Collegial Decision Making as a Function of Administrative Type 60 TABLE 9 Frequency and Mean of Collegial Decision Making as a Function of Administrative Type 61 TABLE 10 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Significance Level of Collegial Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type 62

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES (continued) PAGE TABLE 11. TABLE 12. TABLE 13. TABLE 14, TABLE 15. TABLE 16. TABLE 17, TABLE 18. . TABLE 19. .Frequency and Mean of Collegial Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type 63 .Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and Significance Level for Political Decision Making as a Function of Administration Type and Institutional Type 64 •Mean, Frequency, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and Significance Level of Political Decision Making as a Function of Administrative Type 65 .Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and Significance Level of Political Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type 66 .Frequency and Mean Comparison of Political Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type 67 .Cumulative Means by Administrator Type for the Three Dependent Variables (Collegial, Bureaucratic, and Political) 67 . Chi-Squares and Probability for Bureaucratic Response Items by Administrator and by Institution 71 ,Chi-Squares and Probability for Collegial Response Items by Administrator and by Institution 72 ,Chi-Squares and Probability for Political Response Items by Administrator and by Institution 73 VI

PAGE 7

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AN ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS USED BY UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS ON SELECTED ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION BY Thomas R. Dougan December, 198A Chairman: Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen Major Department: Educational Administration and Supervision The purpose of this study was to test the political decision making model of Victor Baldridge by comparing this model to Weber's bureaucratic decision making model and Millett's collegial decision making model. Three administrative positions within higher education were selected for investigation: chief business affairs officers, chief academic affairs officers and chief student affairs officers. Three types of postsecondary institutions were selected for investigation: private baccalaureate degree granting, public baccalaureate degree granting and public community colleges. To collect data relevant to the focus of this study, the researcher developed an instrument consisting of several critical incidents depicting realistic problems in higher education. The instrument was mailed to a randomly selected sample of 270 administrators. The sample vii

PAGE 8

was composed of three types of administrative positions by three types of postsecondary education institutions, with a population of 30 administrators in each group. The sample was taken from selected higher education institutions in the Southern United States. A two-way analysis of variance was calculated to determine if significant differences existed. If a significant difference was found, the Duncan multiple range test was used to determine where the significant differences existed. A chi-square for each response was calculated to determine if differences existed on individual response items or if the differences were cancelled by the non-significant items in the mean analysis. The statistical analysis indicated the following major findings: 1. Baldridge's political decision making model did not emerge as the dominant model used by administrators. The study indicated that all three decision making models (bureaucratic, collegial and political) were useful and provided a framework by which administrators made decisions. 2. Chief academic affairs officers and chief business affairs officers do not differ significantly from each other in their use of bureaucratic decision making but both are significantly more likely to use bureaucratic decision making than chief student affairs officers. Vlll

PAGE 9

3. Administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting institutions are significantly more likely than administrators in public conmunity colleges and public baccalaureate degree granting institutions to use collegial decision making. 4. Administrators in public community colleges and public baccalaureate degree granting institutions do not differ significantly in their use of political decision making but both are more likely to use political decision making than administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting institutions. 5. Chief business affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic in their decision making than collegial and political. 6. Chief academic affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic and collegial in their decision making than political. 7. Chief student affairs officers tended to be more collegial in their decision making than bureaucratic and political. IX

PAGE 10

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Higher education in the 1980s faces increasing challenges and concerns. Declining enrollments, reductions in resources available to education and decreasing institutional autonomy are but a few problems facing higher education administrators. In the final report to the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, Three Thousand Futures (1980), Kerr refers to these concerns as fears, and urges administrators to engage in careful, long range planning. Other publications, including the Carnegie Council on Higher Education report. Priorities for Action (1973), Ebel's, The Art of Administration (1978) and Hogkinson's and Bloy's, Identity Crisis in Higher Education (1971) describe similar concerns for higher education and for college and university administrators. The ways in which these administrators react to these critical issues will have an important effect on the successful operation of their institutions and will affect students, faculty, staff, and ultimately all of higher education. The importance of administrators to higher education has been well documented. Roy, in the Administrative Process,

PAGE 11

(1958) says, "administration is an art, refined and matured in the clinic of experience" (p. 3). Other authors, including Nunnery and Kimbrough (1976), Morphet, Johns and Rellers (1967), and Balderston (1975), have supported the notion that administrators play a key institutional role and that the study of administration is critical to the success of higher education. How can higher education administrators cope effectively with the problems currently facing higher education? Simon (1959) suggests that decision making is "the heart of administration" (pp. XIV), and can indeed make a difference in the successful resolution of concerns facing higher education. Griffiths (1959) states, "decision making is central to administration and is more important than other functions" (p. 74). Consequently, a key to coping with the pressures, "fears" and problems facing higher education administrators today and in the future is understanding of how these individuals make decisions. If a better understanding of how decisions are reached can be made, improvements in the decision making process may result and this may have a significant impact on resolving the issues facing higher education today, and in the future. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to test the decision making model as described by Victor Baldridge (1971), in order to determine whether Baldridge's decision making model is supported by the responses of administrators in three types of positions (chief business affairs officer, chief academic affairs officer and chief student affairs

PAGE 12

officer) at three types of institutions (public baccalaureate degree granting colleges, private baccalaureate degree granting colleges, and public community colleges). The study further tested Baldridge's decision making model by contrasting this theory to Millett's (1962) collegial decision making model and Weber's (1947) bureaucratic decision making model. Specifically, the following questions were addressed in this study: 1. What are the differences in the decision making process among the three administrators according to their assigned area of responsibility? 2. What are the differences in the decision making process among the three administrators by institutional type? 3. Do the decision making processes used by the three administrative positions support either Baldridge's, Weber's or Millett's decision making model? The following null hypotheses were developed and tested in this study: Hypothesis 1. There is no two way interaction between type of administrator and type of institution regarding use of the bureaucratic decision making model. Hypothesis 2 . There are no differences among administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their use of the bureaucratic decision making model. Hypothesis 3 . There are no differences by type of institution among administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use

PAGE 13

of the bureaucratic decision making model. Hypothesis 4 . There is no two way interaction between type of administrator and type of institution regarding use of the collegial decision making model. Hypothesis 5 . There are no differences among administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their use of the collegial decision making model. Hypothesis 6 . There are no differences by type of institution among administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use of the collegial decision making model. Hypothesis 7 . There is no two way interaction between type of administrator and type of institution regarding use of the political decision making model. Hypothesis 8 . There are no differences among administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their use of the political decision making model. Hypothesis 9 . There are no differences by type of institution among administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their use of the political decision making model. Theoretical Background The theory tested in this study was the political decision making model developed by Baldridge (1971) and later elaborated by Baldridge and Riley (1977). Baldridge postulated that decisions made by higher

PAGE 14

education administrators are political in nature and that the university is best understood as a political institution. Baldridge (1971), in his work Academic Governance , states, "when we look at campuses today we see neither the rigid formal aspects of bureaucracy nor the calm, consensus directed elements of an academic collegium. On the contrary, student riots crippled the campus, administrators defend their traditional positions and external interest groups and irate governors invade the academic halls. These groups articulate their interests in many different ways, bringing pressure to bear on the decision making process. All of this is a dynamic process clearly indicating that the university is best understood as a politicized institution (p, 8). Baldridge further states, "the bureaucratic and collegial models should not be completely cast aside, as both offer helpful suggestions about the organizational nature of a university. However, by themselves, they gloss over the essential aspects of the university's structure and decision making processes" (p. 81). A more detailed description of the political, collegial and bureaucratic decision making models, together with major studies conducted about them, can be found in Chapter II. Delimitations There were two major delimitations associated with this study: 1. The critical incidents used in the study to describe administrative problems are limited to administrative activities as defined by Gulick's and Urick's (1937) administrative model "PODSCORB,"

PAGE 15

(planning, organizing, directing, staffing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting). 2. This research is confined to only three areas of administrative responsibility in higher education: academic affairs, business affairs, and student affairs. Limitations This study has limitations which should be recognized. They are as follows : 1. Since there is no established or standardized instrument which can be used for this research, the researcher developed an instrument tested by a panel of expert judges. 2. The population selected for this study included those institutions in the Southern United States (Virginia, Kentucky, South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) and which appeared in the 1983-84 edition of the Education Directory of Colleges and Universities . Assumptions The following assumptions were made in conducting this research: 1. Comparative decision making processes can be analyzed relative to bureaucratic, collegial, and political orientations among practicing administrators. 2. The expert judges are capable of evaluating the critical incidents and the three types of decision making responses for each incident .

PAGE 16

3. The instrument developed and tested was appropriate for identifying the three decision making models. Definition of Terms Decision Making . "Decision making is a judgement made relative to affairs that influence the course of action that follows and the acts necessary to put the decision into effect" (Griffiths, 1959, p. 74) Critical Incident . "A critical incident is an abbreviated case study which provides managers with challenges similar to the real world environment" (Deitzler and Schilliff, 1977, p. XVII). Bureaucratic . This decision making mode assumes that institutions are networks of social groups dedicated to limited goals and organized for maximum efficiency. The structure is hierarchial and is tied together by formal chains of command and systems of communication. Regulation of the institution is based on the concept of legal rationality (Baldridge, 1971, p. 2). Collegial . The decision making mode assumes that a community of scholars exists and should participate fully in the administration of the institution. Under this concept, the community of scholars would administer its own affairs and bureaucratic rules would have little influence (Baldridge, 1971) p. 5). Political . This decision making mode assumes that the institution is fragmented into many interest groups or power blocks and that these small groups govern most of the decisions made by administrators of higher

PAGE 17

education institutions (Baldridge, 1971, p. 10). Chief Student Affairs Officer . The highest ranking administrator at each institution is the person whose major responsibility is the management of non-classroom activities and services for students. This person will have the title of Vice President or Dean for Student Affairs or Chief Student Personnel Officer. Chief Business Affairs Officer . The highest ranking administrator at each institution is the person whose major responsibility is the management of the budget and related fiscal activities. This person will have the title of Vice President for Business or Administrative Affairs or the Chief Business Affairs Officer. Chief Academic Affairs Officer . The highest ranking administrator at each institution is the person whose major responsibility is the management of classroom and research activities. This person will have the title of Vice President for Academic Affairs, Provost or Chief Academic Affairs Officer. Research Methodology The major purpose of this study was to test the decision making model as described by Victor Baldridge (1971) and to determine whether Baldridge' s decision making model is supported by the responses of administrators in three types of positions at three types of institutions. This section of the chapter is divided into three parts: the selection of the research sample, the instrumentation and the data collection, and the data analysis.

PAGE 18

Selection of the Research Sample The institutions used in this study were randomly selected from a population of institutions located in the Southern United States (Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) as defined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools which appeared in the Education Directory of Colleges and Universities . Three steps were taken in this selection process. First, the institutions in the population were classified into three categories: public community colleges, public baccalaureate degree granting colleges, and private baccalaureate degree granting colleges. Second, by means of a table of random numbers and a random selection process with replacement, the researcher obtained a sample of 270 administrative titles, 90 vice presidents for business affairs (30 from each instituional category), 90 vice presidents for academic affairs (30 from each institutional category), and 90 vice presidents for student affairs (30 from each institutional category). Third, the researcher used the Yearbook of Higher Education (1983-84) to obtain the names and addresses of the persons in each of the 270 administrative lines. Instrumentation and Data Collection A survey instrument was developed by the researcher. Information regarding the development and validation of the instrument is included in Chapter III. The critical incident approach was the method used in the

PAGE 19

10 development of the instrument. Flanagan (1966) suggested that if enough such incidents were collected, reasonably complete categories of effective decisions could be derived which could then be used as a basis for measurement. A total of 13 critical incidents was developed using Gulick's and Urick's (1937) "PODSCORB" model as the basis for the incident. For each critical incident three decision making responses were written, each response reflecting one of the three decision making processes being tested. A panel of expert judges, listed in Appendix C, was used to test and validate the instrument. Each of the 270 administrators was mailed a copy of the survey for collection of the data. An accompanying cover letter (Appendix A) signed by Dr. James Wattenbarger, Director, Institute of Higher Education, indicated his support for the research. Respondents were provided with a self-addressed, stamped envelope for the purpose of returning the survey. Each survey was coded to reflect administrative type and institutional type and to determine whether a second mailing was necessary. A second mailing was sent to nonrespondents with a copy of the survey and cover letter (Appendix B). This letter urged their participation and was accompanied by a self-addressed, return stamped envelope. Treatment and Analysis of the Data Administrators particip ting in the research were asked to rank order the responses to each critical incidents. The purpose by rank order reflected the following:

PAGE 20

11 1. That response which is MOST reflective of your position. 2. That response which is MODERATELY reflective of your position. 3. That response which is LEAST reflective of your position. The data from each survey (rank-ordered responses, type of institution, and administrative position) were placed on data process coding sheets for input into the statistical analysis system (SAS). This programming system was used for statistical treatment of the data. The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed using a .05 level of probability. The purpose of the ANOVA was to determine if one of the three decision making models was used more by administrative position or by institutional type or both. The researcher rejected the null hypothesis if a probability of less than .05 did occur. If a null hypothesis was rejected, the researcher used the Duncan multiple range test to find out exactly where the significant differences existed. A Chi-square for each response was calculated to determine if administrators differed significantly on individual response items or if the differences were cancelled by the non-significant items in the mean analysis generated by the ANOVA. The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) program performed all statistical calculations. Organization of the Study by Chapters Chapter II is a review of the related literature and includes a review of the three decision making models used in this study: the collegial decision making model, the bureaucratic decision making model and the political decision making model.

PAGE 21

12 Chapter III reviews the development and validation of the research instrument and includes the selection of the critical incidents, the construction of the decision making responses and the validation of the response items. Chapter IV includes the presentation of the data and the results of the study. Chapter V presents the summary and conclusions, and includes suggestions for further research.

PAGE 22

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction This chapter presents the review of the literature. The researcher tested the political decision making model of Victor Baldridge by comparing this model to Weber's bureaucratic decision making model and Millett's collegial decision making model. Thus, the review of the literature pertains to the following three areas: the bureaucratic decision making model, the collegial decision making model and the political decision making model. Bureaucratic Decision Making This section represents a description of the bureaucratic theory of decision making as outlined by Weber. Several empirical studies which test this theory are discussed, and studies which relate the applicability of this decision making model to institutions of higher education are also presented. Max Weber (1947), the "father of bureaucracy," is well known for his fundamental concept of rational legal authority. This concept has been the foundation for subsequent research and theory concerned with bureaucratic decision making. Weber's concept of rational legal authority viewed bureaucracy as the most pure form of such authority. The major elements of bureaucracy identified by Henderson and Parsons (1947) are listed below: 13

PAGE 23

14 1. A continuous organization of official functions bound by rules. 2. A specified sphere of competence which involves: an obligation to perform functions which have been marked off as part of a systematic division of law, the provision of the incumbent with the necessary authority to carry out these functions, and the necessary means of compulsion that are clearly defined. 3. The organization of offices follows the principle of hierarchy; that each lower office is under the control and supervision of a higher one. There is right to appeal and a statement of grievance from the lower to the higher. 4. The rules which regulate the conduct of an office may be technical rules or norms. In both cases, if their application is to be fully rational, specified training is necessary. 5. In the rational type it is a matter of principle that the members of the administrative staff should be completely separated from ownership of the means of production or administration. 6. In the rational type case, there is also a complete absence of appreciation of his official position by the incumbent. 7. Administrative acts, decisions and rules are formulated and recorded in writing, even in cases where oral discussion is the rule or is even mandatory. 8. Legal authority can be exercised in a wide variety of different forms. (p. 330) According to Weber, bureaucracy was one of the significant structures that has furthered the development of rationality. In addition to Weber, other researchers have contributed to the understanding of bureaucracy. Pugh and Hickson (1976) developed an empirical analysis of the structured variables of bureaucratic organizations. Known as the Ashton Studies, Pugh and Hickson tested five bureaucratic features of Weber's theory. These five elements outlined by Pugh and Hickson are specialization, standardization, formulation,

PAGE 24

15 centralization and configuration (p. 43). The findings of Pugh and Hickson indicated that the five elements could be classified into two predominant dimensions: (1) the structuring of activity factor, and (2) the concentration of authority factor (p. 157). Pugh and Hickson found that some organizations had more elements of bureaucracy than others and thus challenged the unitary concept of Weber. The Ashton Studies pointed out that an organization with more specialists tended to have more standard routines, more documentation and a larger supportive hierarchy (Pugh and Hickson, 1976). The Ashton Studies found that centralization and autonomy were opposites in that as decisions were centralized or referred to upper levels, the autonomy of a particular organization declined. Holdaway, Newberry, Hickson and Heron (1976) abbreviated the Ashton instrument and tested it on four Canadian Colleges and Institutes of Technology. The significance of this study was that it was the first attempt to use the Ashton scale on an educational institution. The Holdaway et al. study was an attempt to use the basic Ashton methodology to differentiate among four types of similar institutions. An important similarity found by Holdaway et al. was that autonomy and centralization were negatively correlated. Holdaway et al. also found that different patterns among some scale items emerged in educational organizations when contrasted to the business organizations in the Ashton Studies. The author speculated that this may be because the educational organizations were more homogeneous than those in the Ashton sample.

PAGE 25

16 o Blau (1973), using a different methodology, conducted a studyrelating academic organizations to other types of organizations. Blau's study. The Organization of Academic Work , tested the question: do specific theoretical assumptions and the empirical relationship used to test these assumptions produce formal structured patterns in academic institutions similar to those produced in other bureaucracies? The issue as stated by Blau was: "the basic problem under investigation is how the rganization of an academic enterprise affects academic work and how the administrative structure established to organize students and faculty in a university influences academic pursuits" (p. 8). Blau found that universities and colleges have administrative structures similar to those of other bureaucracies. In Blau's view, the degree to which decisions were centralized reflected the degree to which the decision making model was bureaucratic. Blau found that 1. educational policies were less centralized in institutions with superior reputations. 2. centralization of educational matters had a minimal relationship to either the degree to which faculty appointments were centralized or the extent of a president's authority. 3. a highly active faculty governance system curtailed bureaucratic centralization of policy matters. 4. a high administrative-faculty ratio fostered centralization. (v. 250) ^ With reference to bureaucratic structure, Blau's research indicated that

PAGE 26

17 1. the size of an institution correlated highly with academic division of labor into departments and horizontal differentiated in major units such as colleges and schools. 2. large universities and colleges had a more complex structure than did small colleges. 3. the faculty administrative ratio was higher in small colleges than it was in large universities. 4. an impersonal bureaucratic administration was less likely to have centralized control than was an administration exhibiting strong paternalistic elements. 5. a large administrative structure strengthened centralized authority. 6. extensive administrative use of computers caused human relationships to seem more mechanical. (p. 279) In another finding related to bureaucracy, Blau concluded that large academic institutions were, in most cases, structured less bureaucratically than small ones. Evidence gathered by Blau suggested in large institutions there was less centralized authority and innovation in new fields occurred because departments were added. Blau found that such bureaucratic features as a multi-level hierarchy, a large clerical staff, and a high rate of presidential involvement promoted centralization rather than decentralization. Riley and Baldridge (1977) summarized, in a different study, the bureaucratic elements in higher educational institutions as follows: 1. A university, like other bureaucracies, is an organization under state charter. 2. There is a formal hierarchy and there are rules identifying the relationship between offices.

PAGE 27

18 3. There are formal channels of communication. 4. There are definitive authority relationships. 5. Much of the work is governed by formal policies and rules. 6. Registration, record keeping, graduation requirements, and other activities which process individuals are the most apparent bureaucratic elements of the university. 7. Bureaucratic decision making processes are most often used by officials delegating responsibility through the formal administrative structure. (p. 10) Riley and Baldridge assumed that the decision making was rational and was concerned with standard operating procedures. Their discussion of bureaucracy was not tested empirically but was descriptive. Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, and Riley (1978) measured bureaucracy by testing faculty participants using three questions: first, whether or not the faculty contract was specific about academic work to be performed; second, whether course work was assigned by the administration or whether they chose their teaching assignments; and, third, whether or not the university had strict accounting procedures regarding travel. The assumption was made that these questions were directly related to the work environment. The results indicated that the greatest differences existed between elite institutions and less prestigious institutions. Fewer rules existed in prestigious institutions than in community colleges. The only two types of institutions that had fewer travel regulations were elite liberal arts colleges and priv&ie multi-universities .

PAGE 28

19 The Baldridge et al. study indicated that institutions that had more expert faculty had stronger departments based on evaluations of peers, course control, autonomy in decisions regarding promotion, faculty appointment power, and budgetary allocation responsibility. Baldridge et al. used three concepts to explain the differences in bureaucratic structure among colleges and universities; first, there was a positive relationship between strong external environmental influences and greater bureaucracy — strong external influence reduced autonomy; second, faculty expertise increased autonomy and reduced bureaucracy; third, large institutions were able to buffer environmental pressures better, thus maintaining more faculty autonomy. For the purpose of this study, the literature on bureaucratic decision making provided the basic concept (Weber, 1947), the methodology (Ashton Studies), empirical evidence challenging theory (Ashton Studies), and the application of bureaucratic research to colleges and universities (Holdaway et al., (1974), Blau, (1973), Baldridge et al. , (1978). No studies were found that compared the bureaucratic decision making process to the collegial decision making process and the political decision making process by comparing higher education administrators by area of responsibility (academic affairs, student affairs, and business affairs) or higher education administrators by institutional type (four year private, four year public, and community college).

PAGE 29

20 Colleglal Decision Making This section presents descriptions of the collegial decision making model, a collegial university model, and research that applies the model to higher education. Also discussed are differences between the collegial and bureaucratic decision making models. The collegial decision making model was outlined by Riley and Baldridge (1977) under three main headings; first, collegial decision making is fully participatory and not hierarchial as in the bureaucratic model; second, the collegial model is supported by the literature on professionalism because it stresses the educator's right to make decisions within his/her area of competency (faculty are major participants in the decision making process and third, the collegial view serves as an alternative to the bureaucratic model, Millett (1962), a supporter of collegial decision making, has argued that "the concept of community presupposes an organization in which functions are differentiated and in which specialization must be brought together in a harmonious whole. But this process of bringing together, of coordination if you will, is achieved not through a structure of super-ordination, and subordination of persons and groups, but through a dynamic of concensus" (p. 57). Millett (1974) stressed wide participation in decision making through the departmental unit and in matters that are administrative Millett emphasized extensive consultation and effective communication. Millett introduced the academic "community council" which was based on a common commitment among all members within the college or university.

PAGE 30

21 Demerath, Stevens, and Taylor (1976) saw participants in the collegial decision making process as faculty members who served on committees which affected policy and administrators who remained active as scholars and teachers, Demerath et al. viewed specialists who did not participate in aspects of the university except academic work and administrators who remained in their own area as nonparticipants in the institutional decision making process. The Demerath et al. study examined a sample of thirty universities, with a focus on departments, chief executive officers of forty-five major universities, and one institution in depth by the use of a case study. The study assumed that a mix of bureaucratic and collegial decision making elements was necessary in the governance of a university. The principal implications of the study were that Universities adapting to societal needs cannot rely on bureaucratization of structure, upon more formal organization or upon more line administrators with greater official authority. No large enterprise with as many varied functions as the major university which performs under the omnibus headings of teaching, research, and service can operate effectively without formal structure and line managers to perform the organization's tasks. At the same time there are equally compelling reasons today for a complementary social ordering that is designed to make university management more responsive to the needs and interests of academicians. This can be done by means of clear and known procedures which serve to define the faculty's participation in policy making. (p. 216) Parsons and Piatt (1971) studied several colleges and universities and assumed that departments and other faculty academic organizations

PAGE 31

22 were collegial. Their study viewed the structure of collegiality as a combination of association and occupation. To them the academic value system was a role system related to a broader social value system. The term "cognitive rationality" was used by Parsons and Piatt to describe a major value that had been institutionalized. This value pattern linked the personality, social, and cultural systems. In an academic context the coimnitment and implementation of this value system shaped a participant's priorities. Parson and Piatt saw the major value pattern in academic institutions as academic freedom and defined it as "the normative condition for opportunity and obligation to contribute to the advancements, transmission, and application of knowledge" (p. 39). in summary. Parsons and Piatt claim that the academic faculties tend to be more associational and collegial than bureaucratic, and that the principal mechanism of their operation in the service of the implication of commitment to academic values is influence rather than political type power. Burns (1976) presented a summary of the important characteristics of both the bureaucratic and professional (collegial) aspects of an organization. The main elements are as follows: Bureaucratic or Mechanistic 1. Specialized differentiation of functional tasks. 2. Abstract individual tasks. 3. Performance reconciliation by immediate supervisor. 4. Precise definition of role rights, obligations and technical methods.

PAGE 32

23 5. Rights, obligations, methods translated into position. 6. Hierarchial control, authority and conununication structure. 7. Exclusive top hierarchial knowledge. 8. Vertical interaction. 9. Work and operations governed by supervisors. 10. Insistence on loyalty and obedience. 11. Local rather than cosmopolitan orientation. Professional or Organismic 1. Special knowledge and experience contributed to common task. 2. Realistic individual task. 3. Continuous redefinition of tasks through interaction. 4. Fluid rights, obligations, and methods. 5. Broad commitment rather than technical. 6. Network control, authority, and communication structure. 7. Mobile knowledge and authority. 8. Lateral communication. 9. Communication of information and advice. 10. Commitment. 11. Affiliation and expertise important. Much of the literature suggests that institutions are in constant change because of the conflict that exists between bureaucratic and collegial elements. Some of the literature however indicated that the conflict between these two elements was more harmonious than dysfunctional (Benson, 1973; Montagna, 1973; and Ritzer, 1975). The literature concerning the collegial decision making process relevant to this study consisted of (1) college and university models (Millett (1962), Riley and Baldridge (1977), (2) research which applied a model to higher education (Demerath, Stevens, and Taylor), (3) theory (Parsons and Piatt) and (4) concepts about professionals (Burns).

PAGE 33

24 No studies were found that attempted to compare the collegial model to the bureaucratic or political models by comparing perceptions of higher education administrators by area of responsibility (academic affairs, business affairs, and student affairs) or by type of institution (four year private, four year public, and community college). Political Decision Making Three major studies which focused on political decision making in higher education were identified. Baldridge (1971) conducted a political case study of a university. Olsen (1976) used a conflict resolution model which was essentially a political model of decision making, and Benson (1973) discussed an approach specifically concerned with the conflict between bureaucratic and collegial elements in organizations. The works of all three are presented. Baldridge 's political model was taken from two main sources, research on community power and interest group, and group theory. Baldridge' s model contained a cycle of decision making which consisted of six phases: (1) an emerging issue; (2) interest by different groups that want to express their opinion; (3) surfacing conflict followed by; (4) a legislative process whereby decision makers translated demands into policy; then (5) policy implementation; and (6) feedback. Baldridge, in addition, compared the political, collegial and bureaucratic elements on decision-making. These are presented in Chart 1, page 25. In a subsequent study, Riley and Baldridge (1977) indicated Baldridge' s original political model may have overstated the role of conflict and negotiation in decision making. They refined this concept

PAGE 34

TABLE 1 25 Basic Image Change Processes Political Political System Primary Concern Bureaucratic Hierarchlal Minor Concern Colleglal Professional Minor Concern Conflict Normal, key to analysis of policy influence Abnormal, controlled by bureaucratic sanctions Abnormal , eliminated in a true community of of scholars View of the Social Structure Pluralistic; fractured by subcultures; divergent interest groups Unitary, integranted by formal bureaucracy Unitary; united by a community of scholars Basic Theoretical Foundations View of Decision Conflict theory, Interest group theory, open community theory Negotiating, bargaining, and political Influence Weberlan bureaucratic model; class systems model Rationalistic, formal, bureaucratic procedures Human relations approach; literature on professionalism Shared colleglal decisions Goal setting and policy; formulation or execution Emphasis on formulation Emphasis on execution Unclear, probably on formulation Baldridge (1971)

PAGE 35

26 by placing emphasis on the importance of routine decision making processes and also indicated that the political model should not be viewed as a substitute for the bureaucratic and collegial models of decision making in that the bureaucratic and collegial models offer helpful suggestions about the organizational nature of the uni,versity but by themselves gloss over the essential aspects of university structure and the decision making processes. The revised assiunptions of Baldridge's political model stated that (1) most organizational participants were not active in the political process; (2) active people moved in and out of the decision making process; (3) colleges and universities contained fragmented interest groups with different goals and values; (4) conflict was normal and did not necessarily indicate a breakdown in the organization; (5) authority was limited by political pressure; and (6) external interest groups had a substantial impact on the process of establishing policy. Olsen (1976) discussed three models of choice operative in organizations. These were the rational decision making model, the conflict resolution model, and the artif actual model. A discussion of the first two models is presented since they are related to political, bureaucratic, and collegial models. In the conflict resolution model, Olsen described an organization as consisting of rational individuals and subgroups with diverse perspectives, demands, and resources. Events in the organization and the desires of decision makers were closely linked. According to the model,

PAGE 36

27 a coalition of participants benefited if a decision were made; however, no single alternative satisfied all coalition participants. In addition, no value consensus was possible — participants used a bargaining process. A basic premise of the rational decision making model, Olsen's second model, was that people knew what they wanted and, with the knowledge and power, could obtain the desired results. The bureaucratic and collegial decision making models were based on this premise. Means and ends as well as the reasoning process were emphasized in this model. Events were viewed as a willed product of the decision maker's activity. Value consensus was achieved before a decision was made. Decisions were a product of (1) a priori preferences with defined rules for comparing criteria; (2) a priori alternatives with an unlimited search or the evaluation of the search having calculable costs and returns; and (3) established techniques for relating preferences and alternatives. The rational decision model was in sharp contrast to Olsen's conflict resolution model and Baldridge's political model. Benson (1973) viewed his conflict theory approach to organizational analysis in a similar manner to the conflict resolution model of Olsen. Benson's summary of his approach follows 1. Every organization contains fundamental contradictions. From a dialectical perspective, the organizations are characterized by an unstable social order with a tendency toward dissolution. The instability of the organization grows out of inconsistencies and incompatibilities which are never really fully resolved. There always exist contradictions which have not been resolved, and that provide the basis for organizational change.

PAGE 37

28 2. The social order of every organization is politically negotiated. The structural patterns in the organization are to be understood on the basis of political rather than administrative models. 3. The social orders constantly are undergoing change and must be understood on the basis of a process approach. (p. 383) Benson indicated that his framework was a conflict resolution approach and argued that it should replace the functional approach to the study of formal organizations. This section presented the political decision making model tested through a case study in a university setting (Baldridge), presented a conflict theory approach specifically related to bureaucratic and collegial segments of organizations (Burns), and presented a conflict theory approach specifically related to bureaucratic segments of organizations (Benson and Olsen) . This review of the literature has emphasized the bureaucratic, collegial, and political decision making processes. A gap exists in the literature in that there was no study which compared the decision making process used by higher education administrators by area of responsibility, nor was there a study which compared the decision making process used by administrators by institutional type. It is reasonable to test the political decision making theory of Baldridge by designing a study to fill this gap in the literature, which may contribute further to an understanding of the decision making process.

PAGE 38

CHAPTER III DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE INSTRUMENT This chapter includes the following sections: the selection of the critical incidents, the construction of the decision making responses, the validation of the responses, and the design and printing of the instrument. Selection of the Critical Incidents The material used in the critical incidents was gathered from various sources: professional faculty and staff members of the University of Florida and Santa Fe Community College, the Chronicle of Higher Education , professional journals, and the researcher's own experience. Thirteen critical incidents were written to reflect the areas as outlined by Gulick-'s and Urick's (1937) "PODSCORB" model. "PODSCORB" is a representation of the following administrative functions: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting. The incidents were written to reflect the various administrative functions as outlined by Gulick and Urick and to permit the respondents to identify with a realistic administrative problem. 29

PAGE 39

30 Critical Incidents I and II and the three responses for each follow. Both incidents are reflective of Gulick' s administrative function, coordination. Critical Incident I This public four year institution has received a request from a student lesbian and gay society to use meeting space in the college's student union building. Recently, two state legislators and various community and church groups have expressed displeasure at using state facilities and resources to support such groups. Some legislators have also expressed concern about recognizing such groups. The president, before making a decision on this matter, has asked for your input. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: R.l "The issue should be handled in accordance with state policy, and the appropriate administrator should make the decision after receiving advice from the university attorney." R.2 "This is a matter which needs full discussion and participation by students, faculty, and staff. The issue should be referred to the Committee on Student Organizations for its recommendation." R.3 A careful assessment must be made by the President of the possible ramifications of this decision. If the institution might be damaged by recognizing the organization, the President should deny the request."

PAGE 40

31 Critical Incident II The daughter of a state senator applied for admission to this state university but did not meet the admission standards expected of other incoming freshmen. She was denied admission by the Admissions Committee. The state senator holds a very important position as Vice Chairman of the Senate's Higher Education Committee, The senator has contacted the President and has requested the admission of the daughter. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: R.4 "The President should refer the matter to a representative group of faculty and consult with them regarding their views on the situation." R.5 "The matter should be referred to the Dean of Admissions, who should make the decision in accordance with university policy." R.6 "The President should weigh the impact that the decision may have upon the institution, and base his decision on how it may hinder or assist the institution." Critical Incident III and the three responses follow. This incident is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, reporting.

PAGE 41

32 Critical Incident III The Vice President for Academic Affairs at a four year private university has proposed recently that the student financial aid office be transferred from student affairs to academic affairs. During the past three years the financial aid office has been criticized by students, faculty and parents. Complaints have focused on long lines and delays in processing. The Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Vice President for Student Affairs have worked well together in the past but this recommendation has caused a problem in their working relationship. The President has asked each Vice President for a recommendation regarding the proposal. Please rank the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: R. 7 "The complaints of students, faculty and parents must be addressed, and the institution should make a visible effort to assure these groups that it is going to correct the problem." R.8 "The matter should be referred to the Standing University Committee on Student Financial Aid, which will enable faculty, students and staff to submit their recommendation, in an effort to reach consensus." R.9 "There are written guidelines provided by the professional associations that indicate the best direction the institution should take. These should be provided to the President and all should abide by his/her decision. "

PAGE 42

33 Critical incident IV and the three responses follow. This incident is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, planning. Critical Incident IV As part of an institutional long range planning effort, the faculty senate of a pubicly supported community college has recommended to the President a plan that would require all community college sophomores, in an academic track, to complete successfully a sophomore competency examination before receiving the Associate of Arts degree. The test has been labeled "racially biased" by some minority organizations in the community and the student government association is also opposed to the examination. Recent complaints from four-year institutions in the state have alleged the community college students are not adequately prepared for the rigors of a four year college or university. The President, before making a decision on the matter, has asked for input from the administrative staff. Please rank order the following responses which might refect your approach to this issue: R. 10 "The President should consult with experts on this matter. Their professional competence is essential to any decision made. After consultation with the experts consensus can be reached and a decision made."

PAGE 43

34 R'll "Pressure can be expected from external groups to become very intense. Based on previous encounters, an open and impartial public forum should be held, and the decision will have to reflect the influence these groups have." R-12 "The faculty senate should be supported. They have followed institutional policy, procedures and rules in making their recommendation and have a record of responsible actions in the past," Critical Incident V is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, budgeting, and is as follows: Critical Incident V Recent legislation has been passed which removes all funding of remedial education programs at all four year public colleges and universities in the state. The legislature has declared that funds are being provided for high schools to develop these skills and refuses to fund colleges to do the same. Community leaders and students in continuing and remedial education courses have urged the President of the state supported community college to support these programs by using private funds. The faculty of the community college is split on the issue. The President, before making a decision, has asked for recommendations from the administrative staff. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:

PAGE 44

35 R.13 "The President should follow the intent of the recently passed legislation. While state funds would not be used, the institution, if it funds these programs from private sources, would violate the intent of state law and policy. " R.14 "The President should refer this matter to the academic deans and department chairmen for a decision. These individuals have the professional competency to make the decision, " R.15 "Local community groups have been very supportive of the President and the local community college's effort and programs in the past. The community college's image may suffer irreparable damage if remedial education programs are not funded." Critical incident VI is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, organizing, and is as follows: Critical Incident VI The President of a large private institution has proposed the establishment of a new position, Vice President for Research. The President has been concerned about the lack of direction that has been provided to this area, citing the current decentralization of this responsibility as the major reason for the lack of direction and progress. The President has asked each Vice President to respond to this proposal before deciding what to do. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue:

PAGE 45

36 ^•^6 "The President's proposal should be supported. If the President believes there is a need for a Vice President for Research, he/she has the ultimate authority and responsibility for the success of the institution; therefore the President's proposal should be supported." ^•-'•^ "The President should be encouraged to refer this matter to a representative group of research faculty for their study and recommendation. The President's decision should be based on this recommendation." ^•-"•^ "The President should be encouraged to discuss this issue with all interest groups. The creation of a new Vice Presidency could bring criticism from students, faculty, staff and the university's governing board unless they are given the opportunity to be heard. The President's decision will reflect the influence these groups have." Critical Incident VII is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, directing, and is as follows: Critical Incident VII The Vice President for Academic Affairs of a comprehensive public university has directed the Deans of each college to develop a comprehensive academic advising program. This is a response to student, parent and staff complaints about academic advising. There are charges of long lines at registration, inadequate faculty office hours and incorrect academic advice. The Vice President for Academic Affairs has

PAGE 46

37 stated that faculty should be rewarded with tenure and promotion for academic advising as well as teaching and research. However, faculty are upset about this possibility and have voiced their concerns to the President. The President has asked each Vice President for a recommendation concerning this issue. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: R.19 "The president should refer this matter to a representative group of faculty, department chairmen, and academic deans. The President should be willing to compromise and seek consensus regarding this issue." R.20 "The President should refer this matter to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and expect him/her to resolve the issue within existing university policies and procedures. " R.21 "The President must be responsive to the serious complaints about academic advising. The President must weigh the impact these groups might have on the insitution if he/she does not support the new academic advising program. " Critical incident VIII is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, planning, and is as follows: Critical Incident VIII The Status of Women's Committee and several student groups have requested the President of a public community college to implement a

PAGE 47

38 proposal that would provide child care facilities for the children of faculty, students and staff. Recently, the state legislature has authorized the use of state allocated funds for child care. The college's position has been that there are other priorities more important than child care at this time and that the money available for child care should be used for these higher priority items. The President in considering the request of the Status of Women's Committee has asked for your recommendation regarding child care. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: R.22 "The President should review the priority needs of the institution and study the child care issue by appointing a task force of faculty, students, and administrative staff. The decision should be based on the task force's recommendation. " R.23 "The college's priority list was developed over a long period of time within the normal policies and procedures of the college. It would be inappropriate now to fund child care ahead of other priorities and thus deviate from established policy. The President should reject the proposal. " R.24 "The Status of Women's Committee has been supportive of the President in the past. The President should weigh the impact that this decision may have on the institution and base his/her decision on how it may hinder or assist the institution."

PAGE 48

39 Critical Incident IX is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, staffing, and is as follows: Critical Incident IX The Faculty Senate of a private university has proposed new guidelines for determining tenure and promotion. The plan passed the Faculty Senate by a narrow margin and Increases the proportion of faculty who have been awarded tenure and promotion in recent years. However, the Vice President for Academic Affairs has been seriously concerned about the high percentage of tenured faculty, which does not permit many new younger faculty to be hired by the university. In fact, 75 percent of all existing faculty are tenured. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: R.25 "The Vice President for Academic Affairs has authority to make this decision and in accordance with institutional policy, should exercise his/her prerogative." R.26 "The President should appoint a special task force of distinguished faculty, alumni and board members to closely examine the Faculty Senate's proposal. The decision should be based on the recommendations of this representative group." R.27 "The President must recognize the concerns of the faculty and weigh the implications if the new guidelines for tenure and promotion are not approved. The Faculty Senate has been supportive of the President in the past and this continued support is critical to the President. The President should approve the plan."

PAGE 49

40 Critical incident X and the three responses follow. This incident is reflective of Gulick' s administrative function, planning. Critical Incident X The Physical Plant Division of this two year public institution has recently come under attack by the faculty, students and staff. Criticisms point to the alledgedly poor job being done by the Physical Plant in virtually all areas of responsibility — housekeeping, the campus grounds and maintenance. In addition, departments have complained about high costs charged by Physical Plant when work is performed. Some departments claim that the work could be done at a savings by an outside contractor. They have presented a plan to the President to study the possible elimination of the Physical Plant Division in favor of contracting with a private company. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue. R.28 "The President should meet with a team of professional consultants regarding this issue. A thorough study of the Physical Plant Divison must be made by persons with professional competency in this area. After consultation with these experts, consensus should be reached." R.29 "The complaints are coming from very influential groups, and the President must take strong action to assure these groups that the problems is going to be corrected. The President should implement the proposal."

PAGE 50

41 R.30 "The President should refer this matter to the Vice President for Business Affairs for a decision. The Vice President is administratively responsible for this program and should make the decision within established university rules and guidelines," Critical incident XI is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, directing, and is as follows: Critical Incident XI The State Board of Regents and the State Legislature have received a recommendation from the state's Higher Education Coordinating Committee directing that the admission requirements of all state universities be raised. In particular, this recommendation requires all high school students to have a SAT score of 850 and a high school grade point average of 2.5. In addition, high school graduates must have two years of foreign language, three years of math, and four years of english. This recommendation is one of several aimed at improving the quality of the state university system. The President of this state university in deciding whether to support the recommendation has asked the Vice Presidents for their input. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to the issue: R.31 "The President should refer this matter to the University Admissions Committee for recommendations. After consultation with this group of faculty and students, a decision can be made."

PAGE 51

42 R.32 "This is a decision that will affect several interest groups, including students, faculty, alumni and other university constituencies. The President must carefully weight the impact these new standards will have on the university. If the impact will damage the university, the President should not support the recommendation." R.33 "The State Board of Regents is the ultimate authority regarding state education policy development for the university system. It is the President's responsibility to support the position of the State Board of Regents." Critical incident XII is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, staffing, and is as follows: Critical Incident XII As a response to recent budget cuts and in a move to save money, the Vice President for Business Affairs at this four year private university has changed the work, schedules of several physical plant employees. The large majority of housekeeping staff have been switched to the night shift. The labor union has strongly objected to this move, suggesting that many of its employees have part-time jobs and families that will be negatively affected. The Vice President for Business Affairs has stated that this policy was made to save money and that the only other alternative is to lay off employees. TUe union has countered, saying

PAGE 52

43 several employees will have to resign anyway as many cannot work the night shift. The union charges the Vice President with making this change without consulting employees or the union, and to avoid laying people off, changing their hours, knowing that many would resign. The union has appealed the decision to the President. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue. R.34 "The President should support the Vice President for Business Affairs. He/She is administratively responsible for this area and has made this change in accordance with the rules, procedures and policies of the contract with the union." R.35 "The President should appoint a task force staff to study this issue and to make recommendations to him/her for other possible solutions to the budget problem. The President's decision will be based on this recommendation." R.36 "The labor union has been supportive of the President and the university in the past. The most effective way to resolve this issue is to bargain with them and reach a mutually acceptable decision." Critical Incident XIII and the three responses follow. This incident is reflective of Gulick's administrative function, organizing.

PAGE 53

44 Critical Incident XIII Recent trends in higher education have made it necessary for this private university to examine closely the allocation of space, money, and personnel in various academic programs. Student enrollment is rapidly increasing in the engineering, computer science, business, and preprof essional curricula and declining in liberal arts and in education. Space, money, and personnel must be reorganized and reallocated to meet these increasing demands. Resources from departments with declining enrollments must be shifted to areas of growing demands. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: R, 37 "The President should encourage the full participation of all Vice Presidents. He/she should consult with each Vice President individually and as a group seeking consensus." R.38 "The President by virtue of his/her position is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the university. The President should use the authority of his/her position and make the decision." R.39 "This decision will have a significant impact on the institution and requires careful assessment by the President. The President can expect to receive conflicting points of view by various interest groups and must base the decision on this input."

PAGE 54

45 A summary of the incidents reflective of Gulick's classification follow: Planning: Critical Incidents IV X Organizing Critical Incidents VI, XIII Directing Critical Incidents VII, XI Staffing: Critical Incidents IX, XII Coordinating: Critical Incidents I, II Reporting: Critical Incidents III Budgeting: Critical Incidents V, VIII Construction of the Decision Making Responses The researcher reviewed the literature on each of the decision making processes used in the research. From the review of the literature, the following key words or phrases were selected which reflected the type of decision making process: 1. Bureaucratic — written rules; policies; chain of command; norms; functions regulated by rules and by laws. 2. Collegial — faculty are major decision makers; full participation; professional competency; committee of peers; consensus; consultation; communication. 3. Political — fragmented interest groups; different goals and values; power blocs; small external interest groups govern most decisions; expediency.

PAGE 55

^6 The responses to each incident were then constructed to contain key words or phrases that reflected a particular decision making style. Three responses were developed for each critical incident; one response item reflecting the bureaucratic decision making process, one response the collegial, and one the political. The critical incidents were then sent to a panel of expert judges for testing. Validation of the Response Items In an effort to insure that the instrument was measuring what it was intended to measure, the researcher submitted the instrument to a panel of seven expert judges, each of whom was selected because of his or her professional expertise in the area of administrative decision making (see Appendix C). The researcher determined that agreement among five of the seven judges would establish an item as being valid. Each judge was selected in advance and advised of the research and his/her role as a judge in the research project. Each person who agreed to act as a judge was mailed a letter and a brief description of the study (Appendix D) which provided the following directions: 1. Read each critical incident and the selected responses for each. 2. Mark each of the three responses as you believe it is representative of B = bureaucratic, C = collegial, P = political. 3. Do not apply the process of elimination. Judge each response in its own right. 4. Completed responses and comments should be returned in the enclosed, self -addressed, stamped envelope.

PAGE 56

47 The responses of the seven judges are presented in Appendix E. Appendix E reports the 18 critical Incidents, the three response items for each, the researcher's classification of the decision making response and the classification of the seven judges. (There is no relationship between the order of the judges in Appendix C and Appendix E.) Of the 54 responses the judges were asked to validate, there was consensus (five of seven) on all of the items. Three of the judges commented that the instrument was too lengthy. The researcher in response to this concern conducted a pilot study. Fifteen University of Florida administrators were asked to participate. These fifteen individuals were asked to suggest improvements for each critical incident, to make comments on the overall research instrument, and to determine how long the survey took to complete. Nine of the 15 participants in the pilot study indicated the survey took too long to complete. One person asked the question, "Do you really need all 18 critical incidents?" The researcher consulted with the chairman of his committee and considered two issues raised by the pilot study participants: the overall length of the survey, 20 typed written pages, and the necessity to use all 18 critical incidents.

PAGE 57

48 A decision was reached that five critical incidents could be deleted in order to reduce the length of the survey. The researcher, when reducing the number of incidents to 13, took into consideration and made sure that the remaining incidents reflected Gulick's PODSCORB model, the type of institutions surveyed and the type of administrative positions surveyed. Design and Printing of the Instrument A decision was reached that a conventional typed copy of the survey (14 pages) was too lengthy to be useful as a mail survey. The researcher decided to use typesetting and off set printing as a means to reduce the bulkiness of the survey. This arrangement would also increase the chances for a successful return rate from the research sample. The 14 typewritten pages were typeset to four pages and a single fold four-sided printing format was selected. This format kept the survey to one sheet of paper and avoided the potential loss or misplacement of a part of the survey once it was in the field. A copy of the survey is contained in appendix F. In chapter III the researcher has discussed the development and validation of the instrument including the selection of the critical incidents, the construction of the decision making responses, the validation of the research items and the design and printing of the ins'.rument. Chapter IV is titled "Presentation and Analysis of the Data" and includes a discussion of the research sample and analysis of the bureaucratic, collegial and political responses.

PAGE 58

CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The purpose of this study was to test the political decision making theory of Victor Baldridge by comparing it to Millett's collegial decision making theory and Weber's bureaucratic decision making theory. An instrument, consisting of thirteen critical incidents depicting realistic problems in higher education, was designed and used to test the theory. Major academic, business and student affairs administrators at Southern colleges and universities were selected as the research sample. Specifically, answers to the following questions were sought: 1. What are the differences in the decision making process among administrators by area of responsibility: chief business affairs officer, chief student affairs officer, chief academic affairs officer? 2. What are the differences in the decision making process among administrators by the type of institution: public baccalaureate degree granting, private baccalaureate degree granting, and public community college? 49

PAGE 59

50 3. Are the decision making processes used by the three administrative positions supported by the decision making models of Baldridge, Millett or Weber? The researcher developed and tested the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. There is no two way interaction between type of administrator and type of institution regarding use of the bureaucratic decision making model. Hypothesis 2. There are no differences among administrators in the three major institutional positions regarding their use of the bureaucratic decision making model. Hypothesis 3 . There are no differences by type of institution among administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use of the bureaucratic decision making model. Hypothesis 4. There is no two way intereactlon between type of administrator and type of institution regarding use of the collegial decision making model. Hypothesis 5 . There are no differences among administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their use of the collegial decision making model. Hypothesis 6 . There are no differences by type of institution among administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use of the collegial decision making model. Hypothesis 7. There is no two way interaction between type of

PAGE 60

51 administrator and type of institution regarding use of the political decision making model. Hypothesis 8 . There are no differences among administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their use of the political decision making model. Hypothesis 9 . There are no differences by type of institution among administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their use of the political decision making model. The researcher sought to answer the questions and test the hypotheses by selecting a random sample of administrators from higher education institutions in the Southern United States. In the following sections, the sample, the selection process and the rate of return of the survey instrument are discussed. The Research Sample A research sample of 270 administrators was randomly selected from a population of private baccalaureate degree granting institutions, public baccalaureate degree granting and public community colleges located in the Southern United States (Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana, Texas) as defined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. A list of random numbers was then used to select 30 institutions for each of the three administrative positions in the study. A random selection with substitutions was used to obtain a sample of 270 administrative titles.

PAGE 61

52 A mailed survey was used for the collection of the data. The first round of surveys was mailed to the sample of 270 administrators. Two weeks later a second mailing was sent to the non-respondents. A return rate of 71.9 percent was received from the sample, or a total of 192 surveys. Six of the 192 surveys could not be analyzed, because they were incomplete or incorrectly completed. The 188 valid responses represent a return rate of 69.6 percent of the research sample. The sample that returned valid responses is described in Table 1. TABLE 2 Research Sample that Returned Valid Responses: Administrator by Institution Administrators INSTITUTION Private Baccalaureate

PAGE 62

53 which represented 36.1 percent of all valid responses. Public community college administrators as a category were those by type of institution that returned the largest number of surveys (73), which represented 38.8 percent of the valid responses. The administrative position by type of institution that returned the largest number of surveys (27) was the chief student affairs officer in the public community college. The chief business affairs officer in private institutions returned the lowest number of surveys 15. Administrators in public baccalaureate degree granting institutions returned 60 surveys representing 31.9 percent of all valid responses followed by administrators in the private baccalaureate degree granting institution 55 surveys or 29.3 percent of all valid responses. Chief student affairs administrators returned 65 surveys, 34.6 percent of the valid responses followed by chief business officers' 55 surveys which represented 29.3 percent of all valid responses. Analysis of the Data This section reviews the data that are relevant to rejecting or failing to reject the null hypotheses developed in Chapter I. The 39 response statements reflected in the survey instrument represented three decision making models — bureaucratic, collegial and political. Each of the three decision making models was represented in the 13 sets of responses to the critical incidents. Respondents were asked to rank order the responses as follows: (1) most reflective; (2) moderately reflective; and (3) least reflective of their position. The

PAGE 63

5h lower the mean score (minimum 13) the more reflective those responses appeared to be of the administrator's decision making process and the higher the mean score (maximum 39) the less likely the responses reflected the position of the administrator. To test the null hypotheses developed in Chapter I, a computed F-value was calculated and its probability of occurrence under the null case was determined. The criterion for statistical significance was set equal to .05. If the probability of the F-value was less than .05, the null hypothesis was rejected. The data were analyzed by the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each of the dependent variables, bureaucratic, collegial, and political decision making. If a hypothesis was rejected, the researcher used the Duncan multiple range test to determine where differences between administrators or institutions existed. The Duncan multiple range test compared the means between type of administrators and between types of institutions. The closer the mean values were between types of administrators or between types of institutions, the less likely was there a significant difference. The larger the differences in the mean values between administrators or between institutions, the more likely a significant difference existed. The researcher was further interested in knowing if significant differences existed between administrators on the individual response items in each group of independent variables (bureaucratic, collegial and political) or if they were negated by the non-significant items in the mean analysis generated by the ANOVA. To answer this question an analysis of each response item was conducted using chi-square by administrator and by institution.

PAGE 64

55 Analysis of the Bureaucratic Responses In the effort to determine If administrators and administrators by Institution type Institutions differed significantly In their use of bureaucratic decision making and to test hypotheses 1, 2 and 3, the first dependent variable that was analyzed was bureaucratic decision maldng. Hypothesis 1 . There Is no two way Interaction between type of administrator and type of Institution regarding use of the bureaucratic decision making model. TABLE 3 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value and Significance Level of Bureaucratic Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type and Administrative Type Frequency Mean Std, Deviation Four Year

PAGE 65

56 As Table 3 indicates, an F-Value of 1.34 was completed for the dependent variable bureaucratic decision making. The probability of obtaining a computed F-value of this size is ,26. Since the probability is greater than ,05, the hypothesis should not be rejected. Thus, no two way interaction exists between type of administrator and type of institution regarding their use of bureaucratic decision making. Table 3 also reports the frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three administrative positions and the three types of institutions using bureaucratic decision making as the dependent variable. The sample sizes are consistent with the data reported on Table 2. Hypothesis 2 . There are no differences among administrators in the three major institutional positions regarding their use of the bureaucratic decision making model. TABLE 4 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and Significance Level of Bureaucratic Decision Making as a Function of Administrative Type Standard N Mean Deviation F-Value Significance Level Academic Affairs 68 24.63 3.64 Business Affairs 55 24.24 4.24 Student Affairs 65 27.04 3.48 (10.18) (0.0001)

PAGE 66

57 For this dependent variable an F-value of 10.18 was computed with a probability of .0001. Since the probability is less than .05, the hypothesis is rejected. Table A reports the frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three administrative positions using bureaucratic decision making as the dependent variable. The sample sizes are consistent with the data reported on Table 2. Since the hypothesis was rejected, the researcher sought to determine where the differences among administrators existed. The Duncan multiple range test, a follow up test to the ANOVA, was used for the bureaucratic variable. TABLE 5 Frequency And Mean of Bureaucratic Decision Making as a Function of Administrative Type N Mean Significant Difference Academic Affairs Business Affairs Student Affairs *Means with the same letter are not significantly different As Table 5 indicates, by comparing means, the chief academic affairs officers and chief business affairs officers do not differ significantly from each other in their use of bureaucratic decision making. However, 68

PAGE 67

58 both are significantly more likely to the use bureaucratic decision making than are chief student affairs officers. Hypothesis 3 . There are no differences by type of institution among administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their use of the bureaucratic decision making model. For this hypothesis an F-value of .08 was calculated with a probability of .92. Since the probability is greater than .05, null hypothesis 3 should not be rejected. Thus, no differences exist by type of institutions among the three administrators regarding their use of the bureaucratic decision making model. Table 6 reports the frequences, means and standard deviations for the three institutions using bureaucratic decision making as the dependent variable. The frequencies are consistent with the data reported in Table 2. TABLE 6 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-value and Significance Level of Bureaucratic Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type Standard Significant N Mean Deviation F-Value Level Four Year 55 25.40 3.75 Private Four Year 60 25.18 4.59 Public Community 73 25.45 3.58 College (.08) (.9221)

PAGE 68

59 Analysis of the Collegial Responses To determine If administrators and Institutions differed significantly In their use of collegial decision making and to test null hypotheses 4, 5 and 6, the second dependent variable that was analyzed was collegial decision making. Hypothesis 4 . There is no two way Interaction between type of administrator and type of Institution regarding use of the collegial decision making model. For this hypothesis an F-value of .93 was calculated. The probability of obtaining this F-value is .45. This indicates that null hypothesis 4 should not be rejected. Thus, no two way interaction exists between type of administrator and type of institution regarding use of collegial decision making. Table 7 (page 60) reports the frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three administrative positions and the types of institutions using collegial decision making as the dependent variable. Hypothesis 5 . There are no differences among administrators in the three institutional positions regarding their use of collegial decision making model. For this hypothesis an F-value of 8.93 was calculated. The probability of obtaining an F-value of this size is .0002 indicating that null hypothesis 5 is rejected. Table 8 (page 60) reports the frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three administrative types using collegial decision making as the dependent variable. The frequencies are consistent with the data reported on Table 2.

PAGE 69

60 TABLE 7 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value and Significance Level of Collegial Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type and Administrative Type Frequency

PAGE 70

61 Since this hypothesis was rejected the researcher sought to determine where the differences among administrators existed. The Duncan follow-up test to the ANOVA was used for the collegial variable. TABLE 9 Frequency and Mean of Collegial Decision Making as a Function of Administrative Type N Mean *Signif icance Difference Academic Affairs Business Affairs Student Affairs 68 55 24.81 26.44 65 23.51 * Means with the same letters are not significantly different, When the means in Table 9 were compared, the Duncan test indicated that chief academic affairs officers and chief student affairs officers do not differ significantly in their use of the collegial decision making process but both are significantly more likely to use this process than are chief business officers. Hypothesis 6. There are no differences by type of institution among administrators in the three types of institutions regarding their use of the collegial decision making model.

PAGE 71

62 For this hypothesis an F-value of 3.66 and a probability of .03 were calculated. Since the probability of obtaining an F-value of 3.66 is less than .05, hypothesis 6 is rejected. Table 10 reports the frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three institutional types. TABLE 10 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and Significance Level of Collegial Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type N Mean Standard Significance Deviation F-Value Level Four Year Private Four Year Public Community College 55 60 73 23.65 25.18 25.44 3.59 3.81 4.15 (3.66) (0.03) Since hypothesis 6 was rejected the researcher sought to determine where the difference among institutions existed. The Duncan multiple range test was used for the collegial variable. When the means of the institutions were compared (Table 11) they indicated that administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting institutions are significantly more likely than administrators in public community colleges and public baccalaureate degree granting institutions to use the collegial decision making process.

PAGE 72

63 TABLE 11 Frequency And Mean of Collegial Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type N Mean Significance Difference Four Year Private Four Year Public 55 60 73 23.65 25.18 25.44 Community College * Means with same letters are not significantly different, Analysis of the Political Responses To determine if administrators and institutions differed significantly in their use of the political decision making model and to test hypothesis 7, 8, and 9, the third dependent variable that was analyzed was political decision making. Hypothesis 7 . There is no two way interaction between type of administrator and type of institution regarding use of the political decision making model. For hypothesis 7 an F-value of 1.21 was calculated. The probability of obtaining this F-value was .31. Since the probability is greater than .05, hypothesis 7 should not be rejected. Therefore no two-way interaction exists between type of administrator and type of institution regarding their use of political decision making. Table 12 reports the frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three administrative

PAGE 73

64 positions and the three institutional types using political decision making as the dependent variable. TABLE 12 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and Significance Level for Political Decision Making as a Function of Administrative Type and Institutional Type Frequency

PAGE 74

65 should not be rejected. Thus, there are no differences among the three administrative types in their use of the political decision making model. Table 13 reports the frequencies, means and standard deviations for the three administrative types using political decision making as the dependent variable. The frequencies are consistent with the data reported on Table 2. TABLE 13 Mean, Frequency, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and Significance Level of Political Decision Making as a Function of Administrative Type

PAGE 75

66 TABLE 14 Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, F-Value, and Significance Level of Political Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type N Mean Standard Significance Deviation F-Value Level Four Year Private Four Year Public Community College 55 60 73 28.95 27.62 27.10 3.67 3.49 3.42 (4.46) (0.01) Since hypothesis 9 was rejected, the researcher sought to determine where the differences among institutions existed. The Duncan follow-up test to the ANOVA was used for the political variable. Table 15 indicates by comparison of means that administrators in public baccalaureate degree granting institutions and public community colleges do not differ significantly in their use of the political decision making but both are more likely to use the political decision making process than administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting institutions.

PAGE 76

TABLE 15 Frequency and Mean Comparison of Political Decision Making as a Function of Institutional Type 67 N Mean *Signif icance Level Four Year 55 28.95 A Private Four Year 60 27.62 B Public Community College 73 27.10 B * Means with same letters are not significantly different Table 16 reports the cumulative means by administrative type for the three dependent variables. The lower the cumulative mean score for each dependent variable the more reflective those responses appeared to be of the administrator's decision. The higher the cumulative mean, the less likely the responses appeared to be reflected of the administrator's decision. TABLE 16 Cumulative Means by Administrator Type for the Three Dependent Variables (Collegial, Breaucratic, and Political) Administrator Collegial Bureaucratic Political Academic Affairs Business Student Affairs 24.81

PAGE 77

68 Table 16 indicated, as did previous analyses, that chief academic affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic and collegial in their decision making than political. Chief business affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic in their decision making than collegial or political and chief student affairs officers appeared to be more collegial in their decision making than bureacratic or political. The researcher was further interested in knowing if administrators differed significantly at the .05 level on the 39 individual responses (13 for each of the 3 dependent variables: bureaucratic, collegial, political or if the differences were cancelled by the mean analysis generated by the ANOVA. To answer this question, an item analysis using chi-square by administrator and by institution was conducted. The chi-square and probability coefficients for each response to the dependent variables are reported on Tables 17, 18, and 19. Table 17 reports the 13 responses that were developed to measure bureaucratic decision making. Of the 13 responses as a function of the independent variable administrators, four responses (R.12, R.13, R.20 and R.33) yielded chi squares of 10.0, 23. A8, 19.62 and 11.27 with probability coeffecients of .04, .0001, .0006 and .02 respectively. This indicated that a difference existed between administrators on each of these bureaucratic response items. Of the 13 responses that were developed to measure bureaucratic decision making as a function of institutional type, no response yielded chi-squares that had a probability level which met the criteria for statistical significance of less than .05.

PAGE 78

69 Table 18 reports the 13 responses that were developed to measure collegial decision making. Of the 13 responses as a function of the independent variable administrators, four responses (R.2, R.4, R14 and R.35) yielded chi-squares of 16.16, 10.74, 10.74, and 11.04 with probability coefficients of .003, .03, .03 and .03 respectfully. This indicated that a difference existed between administrators on collegial response items. The chi-squares were calculated for the collegial responses as a function of institutional type. This yielded one response (R.14) with a chi-square of 11.40 and a probability coefficient of .02. This indicated that a difference existed on this response item among administrators by institutional type. Table 19 reports the 13 responses that were developed to measure political decision making. Of the 13 responses as a function of the independent variable administrators three responses (R.6, R.ll and R.36) yielded chi-squares of 10.84, 12.31 and 12.42 with probability coefficients of .03, .02 and .01. This indicated that a difference existed on these response items between administrators and political decision making. The chi-square were calculated for the political responses as a function of institutional type. This yielded one response (R.15) with a chi-square of 13.12 and a probability coefficient of .01. This indicated that a difference on this item existed among administrators by institutional type.

PAGE 79

70 The chi-square was calculated to determine if administrators differed on individual response items or if the differences were cancelled by the non-significant items in the mean analysis. The researcher found this to be true in one instance. The chi-square found differences among three response items by administrators in their use of political decision making. However the non-significant items in the mean analysis cancelled these differences found in the individual response items. Chapter IV has discussed the research sample, the selection process, and the rate of return of the survey instrument. In addition the analysis of the data was reported. The analysis indicated the following: 1. Chief academic affairs officers and chief business affairs officers do not differ significantly from each other in their use of bureaucratic decision making but both are significantly more likely to use bureaucratic decision making than chief student affairs administrators. 2. Chief academic affairs officers and chief student affairs officers do not differ significantly in their use of collegial decision making but both are significantly more likely to use this process than are chief business officers. 3. Administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting institutions are significantly more likely than administrators in public community colleges and public baccaleureate degree granting institutions to use the collegial decision making process.

PAGE 80

71 TABLE 17 Chi-Squares and Probability for Bureaucratic Response Items by Administrator and by Institution By Administrator By Institution Bureaucratic Response Chi-Square PX^ Chi-Square PX2 R.l

PAGE 81

72 TABLE 18 Chi Squares and Probability for Collegial Response Items by Administrator and by Institution By Administrator By Institution 2 2 Collegial Response Chi Square PX Chi Square PX R.2 R.4 R,8 R.IO R.14 R.17 R.19 R.22 R.26 R.28 R.31 R.35 R.37 16.16

PAGE 82

73 TABLE 19 Chi Squares and Probability for Political Response Items by Administrator and by Institution By Administrator By Institution 2 2 Political Response Chi Square PX Chi Square PX R-3 8.26 0.08 6.52 0.16 R.6 10.84 0.03 7.99 0.09 R.7 3.28 0.51 6.19 0.19 R.ll 12.31 0.02 4.56 0.34 R.15 7.28 0.12 13.12 0.01 R.18 2.55 0.64 3.96 0.41 R.21 9.21 0.06 4.59 0.33 R.24 7.11 0.13 7.93 0.09 R.27 4.20 0.38 4.85 0.30 R.29 2.89 0.58 5.95 0.20 R.32 7.06 0.13 4.90 0.30 R.36 12.42 0.01 4.47 0.35 R.39 4.84 0.30 2.77 0.60

PAGE 83

74 4. Administrators in public community colleges and public baccalaureate degree granting institutions do not differ significantly in their use of the political decision making but both are more likely to use this process than administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting institutions. 5. Chief academic affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic and collegial than political in their decision making. 6. Chief business officers tended to be more bureaucratic in their decision making than either collegial or political. 7. Chief student affairs officers tended to be more collegial in their decision making than either bureaucratic or political. Chapter V is titled "Summary and Conclusions." In Chapter V the results of the study are discussed in relationship to the three different dependent variables (bureaucratic, collegial, political decision making) and the independent variables (administrator and institutional type). In addition, conclusions are stated and recommendations are suggested.

PAGE 84

CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The final chapter of this study consists of five sections. Section one is a review of the study followed by a summary of the major findings in section two. Section three presents the conclusions with discussion of the results in section four and section five addressing the possible implications for further research. The study utilized an instrument developed by the researcher. The 13 critical incidents and 39 decision making responses which comprised the instrument were validated by a national panel of expert judges. Each of the 13 critical incidents had three responses with each response reflecting one of the three decision making models under investigation. The research sample was selected from colleges and universities in the Southern United States as defined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. A total of 270 chief administrators from three different areas of administrative responsibility (academic affairs, business affairs and student affairs) and from three types of institutions (private baccalaureate degree granting, public baccalaureate degree granting and public community college) was selected to participate in the study. The Yearbook of Higher Education was used to 75

PAGE 85

76 identify the names and addresses of the randomly selected administrators. The research instrument was mailed to each of the 270 administrators and produced a return rate of 69.6 percent. The rank ordered responses of the 188 administrators were statistically analyzed using the two-way analysis of variance. A probability coefficient of less than .05 was established to reject the null hypothesis. The Duncan multiple range test was used to find out exactly where significant differences existed if the researcher rejected the null hypothesis. A chi-square for each response was calculated to determine if administrators differed significantly on individual response items. Major Findings The researcher analyzed three problem statements for each of the three dependent variables (bureaucratic, collegial and political decision making) . The problem statements were analyzed by stating them in null hypothesis form. Of the nine hypotheses tested four were rejected at the established probability level of .05 or less. The statistical analysis indicated the following major findings: 1. Chief academic affairs officers and chief business affairs officers do not differ significantly in their use of bureaucratic decision making. However, both are more likely to use the bureaucratic decision making model than chief student affairs administrators. 2. Chief academic affairs officers and chief student affairs

PAGE 86

77 officers do not differ significantly in their use of collegial decision making. However, both are significantly more likely to use the collegial decision making model than chief business affairs officers. 3. Administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting institutions are significantly more likely than those working in public community colleges and public baccalaureate degree granting institutions to use collegial decision making. 4. Administrators in public baccalaureate degree granting institutions and public conmiunity colleges do not differ significantly in their use of the political decision making model. However, administrators in both institutions are more likely to use the political decision making model than administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting instiutlons. 5. Chief student affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic and collegial in their decision making than political. 6. Chief business officers tended to be more bureaucratic in their decision making than either collegial or political. 7. Chief student affairs officers tended to be more collegial in their decision making than either bureaucratic or political.

PAGE 87

78 Conclusions The findings of the study led the researcher to the following conclusions : 1. Of the three decision making models under investigation (Weber's bureaucratic model, Millett's collegial model, and Baldridge's political model) no single model emerged as the dominant decision making model. The study indicated that all three models are useful and provide a framework by which administrators make decisions. 2. The instrument developed by the researcher does clearly discriminate for statistical purposes the significant differences among administrators as to the decision making processes used. 3. There are significant differences among the three types of administrators participating in this study regarding their use of the bureaucratic and collegial decision making models. 4. There are significant differences among administrators by institutional type regarding their use of the collegial and political decision making models. 5. Chief academic affairs officers tended to be more bureaucratic and collegial in their decision making. Chief business officers tended to be more bureaucratic and chief student affairs tended to be collegial in their decision making. No single group of administrators tended to be political in their decision making.

PAGE 88

79 Discussion The results of the study Indicated that no single group of administrators tended to use Baldridge's political decision making model but Instead favored the collegial or bureaucratic models of decision making. One factor that could explain this tendency is the fact that Baldridge's decision making model was developed in 1971 when higher education institutions were faced with student protests and outside influences that bordered on turmoil. Higher education institutions survived this disruptive period of time and institutions today may be the more reflective of the times when both Millett (1962) and Weber (1947) developed their collegial and bureaucratic decision making models. Thus this may explain why administrators tended to favor the collegial and bureaucratic models of decision making. The study found that chief business affairs and chief academic affairs officers were more likely to use bureaucratic decision making than were chief student affairs officers. One might speculate that this difference may be due to the types of decisions made by each type of administrator on a day to day basis. For example chief business affairs officers typically make decisions as they relate to accounting, budgeting, unionized personnel and the physical plant. Chief academic affairs officers make decisions as they relate to faculty unions, graduation requirements and the curriculum. These types of decisions may be more reflective of a bureaucratic decision making response. Chief student affairs officers deal with students on a day to day basis and their decisions often times are not based strictly on rules, regulations

PAGE 89

80 or procedures. Thus, the chief student affairs officer often times may use a collegial approach. Chief academic affairs officers were found to be both collegial and bureaucratic in their decision making. One might speculate that this could be the result of working with faculty (collegial) while at the same time working with faculty unions (bureaucratic). Administrators in private baccalaureate degree granting institutions were more likely to be collegial in their decision making when compared with administrators in public community colleges and public baccalaureate degree granting institutions. Administrators in the two types of public institutions were more likely to use the political decision making model than their counterparts in the private institutions. Speculation regarding this finding is difficult. The researcher suggests however that public institutions tend to be more politicized in nature than their private counterparts since funding for public institutions comes from the state legislatures as a result of the political process. It is conceivable that this political process is continued at the institutional level. Most private institutions, on the other hand, receive little or no direct funding from public funds and thus may be less likely to be Influenced by the political process. Possible Implications for Further Research The study indicates the need for further research in several areas. The study found differences in the decision making process among administrators and among administrators by institutional type but did not

PAGE 90

81 attempt to answer the questions of how or why these differences existed. Could the differences be the result of the types of decisions administrators make or a result of their varied responsibilities? Are there institutional characteristics that contribute to an administrator's tendency to use one particular decision making model? Futher research could address these issues as well as the following: 1. The study was limited to the comparison of three decision making model (bureaucratic, collegial and political). Additional research could focus on the same plus different decision making models such as Chaffee's (1983) rational decision making and organized anarchy. 2. The critical incidents used in the study to describe administrative problems are limited to administrative activities as defined by Gulick's and Urick's 1937 PODSCORB model. Future research could focus on administrative activities using a different administrative model. 3. The sample for the study could be changed or expanded to include additional educational staff and various demographic factors (sex, age, race, level of education and years of service) could be used as independent variables to determine possible interaction with the decision making process. 4. Different types of institutional categories including the multicampus could be studied and used for the sample. Demographic information about institutions regarding age, sex, race and degrees offered is a possibility.

PAGE 91

82 5. Sample populations from the same Institution could be studied to determine similiarities and differences in their decision making process. 6. A study could be conducted to determine if a relationship exists between types of decisions made and the use of a particular decision making model. 7. Since Chief Academic Affairs officers were found to be both collegial and bureaucratic in their decision making further research is needed to clarify this finding.

PAGE 92

APPENDIX A COVER LETTER TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS

PAGE 93

March 15, 1984 Dear Mr. Tom Dougan is conducting a study of administrative decision making in higher education under the sponsorship of the Institute of Higher Education. The purpose of this letter is to request your participation in this study. The study seeks to compare the decision making processes used by higher education administrators by area of responsibility and by institutional type. The critical incidents presented by Mr. Dougan 's survey are relevant and reflective of situations in which your president/chancellor expects that you will provide recommendations in accordance with administrative operations of the institution. Although the alternatives do not exhaust the possibilities, please confine yourself to rank ordering the responses specified in the survey according to your best judgement. We will appreciate very much your cooperation and assistance with the study and will provide you a copy of the findings if you so indicate on the survey. In order to tabulate all the replies, we are requesting the return of your completed survey by March 29, 1984. Cordially, James L. Wattenbarger, Director Institute of Higher Education 84

PAGE 94

APPENDIX B SECOND COVER LETTER TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS

PAGE 95

April 2, 1984 Dear Several weeks ago the Institute of Higher Education mailed a survey to a selected sample of chief business affairs administrators at colleges and universities of the Southeast. To date we have had a good response. To the best of our knowledge, we have not yet received your survey. However, it is possible that it is in the mail at this time. If you have returned the survey please disregard this letter. We are most anxious to insure that a representative sample of chief business affairs administrators are included in this study. If you would take several minutes to complete the enclosed study, we would be most grateful. We expect to begin tabulation of the data in mid April and would appreciate receiving your survey as soon as possible. Your participation in this study is greatly appreciated. Cordially, James L. Wattenbarger, Director Institute of Higher Education 86

PAGE 96

APPENDIX C JUDGES SELECTED TO VALIDATE INSTRUMENT

PAGE 97

Judges Selected to Validate the Research Instrument Dr. Louis Bender Florida State University Dr. Fred F. Harcleroad University of Arizona Dr. Ralph Kimbrough University of Florida Dr. S, V. Martorana Pennsylvania State University Dr. Michael Nunnery University, of Florida Dr. Richard Richardson Arizona State University Dr. James Wattenbarger University of Florida 88

PAGE 98

APPENDIX D COVERED LETTER AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDY TO THE JUDGES

PAGE 99

5620 N. W. 25th Street Gainesville, FL 32607 November 29, 1983 Dr. Louis W. Bender, Director Department of Educational Leadership Room 107, Stone Building Florida State University Tallahassee, FL 32306 Dear Dr. Bender: As per our phone conversation of last week. Dr. James Wattenbarger, Director of the Institute of Higher Education at the University of Florida, suggested that I contact you to participate as a judge in this research project. I appreciate your willingness to participate and I have attached a brief description of the study and a copy of the survey to this letter with the following directions: 1. Read each critical incident and the responses for each. 2. Mark, each of the responses as you believe it is representative of B = bureaucratic, C = collegial, P = political. 3. Do not apply the process of elimination. Judge each response in its own right. 4. Completed responses and comments should be returned in the enclosed self -addressed, stamped envelope. Again, Dr. Bender, thank you for your interest and willingness to participate in this research project. Sincerely, Thomas R. Dougan 90

PAGE 100

91 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to test the decision making model as described by Victor Baldridge (1971) and to determine whether Baldridge's decision making model is supported by the responses of administrators in three types of positions at three types of institutions. The study further tested Baldridge's decison making model by contrasting this theory to Millett's (1962) collegial decison making model and Weber's (1946) bureaucratic decision making model. The researcher developed a questionnaire composed of eighteen critical incidents and three responses for each incident that was used to test Baldridge's decison making theory.

PAGE 101

APPENDIX E RESPONSE OF JUDGES TO THE INSTRUMENT

PAGE 102

APPENDIX E Responses of Judges to Instrument

PAGE 103

94 APPENDIX E (continued) Critical Incident Response Dougan Judges A B C D X XI XII XIII XIV X7 XVI XVII XVIII 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 C P B C B P C P B B C P C B P C B P P B C B C P P C B C P B C 6 P C P B B C P C B P C B P P B C B C P P C B C P B C B P C P B B C P C B P C B P P B C B C P P C B C P B C B P C P B B C P C B P C B P P B C B C P P C B C P B C B P C P B B C P C B P C B P P B C B C P P C B C P B C B P C P B B C P C B P C B P P B C B C P P C B C P B C B P C P B B C P C B P C B P P B C B C P P C B C P B C B P C P B B C P C B P C B P P B C B C P P C B

PAGE 104

APPENDIX F RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

PAGE 105

A Study of Administrative Decision Making Processes in Higher Education GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The term "decision making process" as used in this study refers to the process used by you to reflect your recommendation, position or response regarding critical incidents. 2. The term "critical incident" as used in this study refers to an abbreviated case study which provides managers with challenges similar to the real world environment. 3. The numerical designation in the right-hand corner of the survey is for the purpose of a follow-up mailing, in the case of nonresponse. The results will reflect responses by groups of administrators and will not identify individual responses. 4. The responses to each of the critical incidents are written to provide a framework from which recommendations on the incident can be made. DIRECTIONS In your role as an administrator at your institution, you are asked to read each of the critical incidents and the set of three responses and rank order the responses as follows : 1^ The response which is MOST reflective of your position. 2_ The response which is MODERATELY reflective of your position. _3 The response which is LEAST reflective of your position. Complete surveys should be returned in the self -addressed, stamped envelop which has been provided. 96

PAGE 106

97 Critical Incident I This public four year institution has received a request from a student lesbian and gay society to use meeting space in the college's student union building. Recently, two state legislators and various community and church groups have expressed displeasure at using state facilities and resources to support such groups. Some legislators have also expressed concern about recognizing such groups. The president, before making a decision on this matter, has asked for your input. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: "The issue should be handled in accordance with state policy, and the appropriate administrator should make the decision after receiving advice from the university attorney. " "This is a matter which needs full discussion and participation by students, faculty, and staff. The issue should be referred to the Committee on Student organizations for its recommendation." A careful assessement must be made by the President of the possible ramifications of this decision. If the institution might be damaged by recognizing the organization, the President should deny the request."

PAGE 107

98 Critical Incident II The daughter of a state senator applied for admission to this state university but did not meet the admission standards expected of other incoming freshmen. She was denied admission by the Admissions Committee. The state senator holds a very important position as Vice Chairman of the Senate's Higher Education Committee. The senator has contacted the President and has requested the admission of the daughter. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: "The President should refer the matter to a representative group of faculty and consult with them regarding their views on the situation." "The matter should be referred to the Dean of Admissions, who should make the decision in accordance with university policy. " "The President should weigh the impact that the decision may have upon the institution, and base his decision on how it may hinder or assist the institution."

PAGE 108

99 Critical Incident III The Vice President for Academic Affairs at a four year private university has proposed recently that the student financial aid office be transferred from student affairs to academic affairs. During the past three years the financial aid office has been criticized by students, faculty and parents. Complaints have focused on long lines and delays in processing. The Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Vice President for Student Affairs have worked well together in the past but this recommendation has caused a problem in their working relationship. The President has asked each Vice President for a recommendation regarding the proposal. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: "The complaints of students, faculty and parents must be addressed, and the instutition should make a visible effort to assure these groups that it is going to correct the problem. "The matter should be referred to the Standing University Committee on Student Financial Aid, which will enable faculty, students and staff to submit their recommendation, in an effort to reach consensus." "There are written guidelines provided by the professional associations that Indicate the best direction the Institution should take. These should be provided to the President and all should abide by his/her decision.

PAGE 109

100 Critical Incident IV As part of an institutional long range planning effort, the faculty senate of a publicly supported community college has recommended to the President a plan that would require all community college sophomores, in an academic track, to complete successfully a sophomore competency examination before receiving the Associate of Arts degree. The test has been labeled "racially biased" by some minority organizations in the community and the student government association is also opposed to the examination. Recent complaints from four-year institutions in the state have alleged the community college students are not adequately prepared for the rigors of a four year college or university. The President, before making a decision on the matter, has asked for input from the administrative staff. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: "The President should consult with experts on this matter. Their professional competence is essential to any decision made. After consultation with the experts consensus can be reached and a decision made." "Pressure can be expected from external groups to become very intense. Based on previous encounters, an open and impartial public forum should be held, and the decision will have to reflect the influence these groups have." "The faculty senate should be supported. They have followed institutional policy, procedures and rules in making their recommendation and have a record of responsible actions in the past."

PAGE 110

101 Critical Incident V Recent legislation has been passed which removes all funding of remedial education programs at all four year public colleges and universities in the state. The legislature has declared that funds are being provided for high schools to develop these skills and refuses to fund colleges to do the same. Community leaders and students in continuing and remedial education courses have urged the President of the state supported conimunity college to support these programs by using private funds. The faculty of the community college is split on the issue. The President, before making a decision, has asked for recommendations from the administrative staff. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: "The President should follow the intent of the recently passed legislation. While state funds would not be used, the institution, if it funds these programs from private sources, would violate the Intent of state law and policy." "The President should refer this matter to the academic deans and department chairmen for a decision. These individuals have the professional competency to make the decision. " "Local community groups have been very supportive of the President and the local community college's effort and programs in th past. The community college's image may suffer irreparable damage if remedial education programs are not funded.

PAGE 111

102 Critical Incident VI The President of a large private institution has proposed the establishment of a new position, Vice President for Research. The President has been concerned about the lack of direction that has been provided to this area, citing the current decentralization of this responsibility as the major reason for the lack of direction and progress. The President has asked each Vice President to respond to this proposal before deciding what to do. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: "The President's proposal should be supported. If the President believes there is a need for a Vice President for Research, he/she has the ultimate authority and responsibility for the success of the institution; therefore the President's proposal should be supported." "The President should be encouraged to refer this matter to a representative group of research faculty for their study and recommendation. The President's decision should be based on this recommendation." "The President should be encouraged to discuss this issue with all interest groups. The creation of a new Vice Presidency could bring criticism from students, faculty, staff and the university's governing board unless they are given the opportunity to be heard. The President's decision will reflect the influence these groups have.

PAGE 112

103 Critical Incident VII The Vice President for Academic Affairs of a comprehensive public university has directed the Deans of each college to develop a comprehensive academic advising program. This Is a response to student, parent and staff complaints about academic advising. There are charges of long lines at registration, Inadequate faculty office hours, and Incorrect academic advice. The Vice President for Academic Affairs has stated that faculty should be rewarded with tenure and promotion for academic advising as well as teaching and research. However, faculty are upset about this possibility and have voiced their concerns to the President. The President has asked each Vice President for a recommendation concerning this issue. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: "The President should refer this matter to a representative group of faculty, department chairmen, and academic deans. The President should be willing to compromise and seek consensus regarding this issue. "The President should refer the matter to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and expect him/her to resolve the issue within existing university policies and procedures." "The President must be responsive to the serious complaints about academic advising. The President must weigh the impact these groups might have on the institution if he/she does not support the new academic advising program."

PAGE 113

104 Critical Incident VIII The Status of Women's Committee and several student groups have requested the President of a public community college to implement a proposal that would provide child care facilities for the children of faculty, students and staff. Recently, the state legislature has authorized the use of state allocated funds for child care. The college's position has been that there are other priorities more important than child care at this time and that the money available for child care should be used for these higher priority items. The President in considering the request of the Status of Women's Committee has asked for your recommendations regarding child care. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: "The President should review the priority needs of the institution and study the child care issue by appointing a task force of faculty, students, and administrative staff. The decision should be based on the task force's recommendation. " "The college's priority list was developed over a long period of time within the normal policies and procedures of the college. It would be inappropriate now to fund child care ahead of other priorities and thus deviate from established policy. The President should reject the proposal." "The Status of Women's Committee has been supportive of the President in the past. The President should weigh the impact that this decision may have on the institution and base his/her decision on how it may hinder or assist the

PAGE 114

105 Critical Incident IX The Faculty Senate of a private university has proposed new guidelines for determining tenure and promotion. The plan passed the Faculty Senate by a narrow margin and Increases the proportion of faculty who have been awarded tenure and promotion in recent years. However, the Vice President for Academic Affairs has been seriously concerned about the high percentage of tenured faculty, which does not permit many new, younger faculty to be hired by the university. In fact, 7 5 percent of all existing faculty are tenured. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: "The Vice President for Academic Affairs has authority to make this decision and in accordance with institutional policy, should exercise his/her prerogative." "The President should appoint a special task force of distinguished faculty, alumni and board members to closely examine the Faculty Senate's proposal. The decision should be based on the recommendations of this representative group." "The President must recognize the concerns of the faculty and weight the implications if the new guidelines for tenure and promotion are not approved. The Faculty Senate has been supportive of the President in the past and this continued support is critical to the President. The President should approve the plan."

PAGE 115

106 Critical Incident X The Physical Plant Division of this two year public institution has recently come under attack by the faculty, students and staff. Criticisms point to the alledgedly poor job being done by the Physical Plant in virtually all areas of responsibility housekeeping, the campus grounds and maintenance. In addition, departments have complained about high costs charged by Physical Plant when work is performed. Some departments claim that the work could be done at a savings by an outside contractor. They have presented a plan to the President to study the possible elimination of the Physical Plant Division in favor of contracting with a private company. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: "The President should meet with a team of professional consultants regarding this issue. A thorough study of the Physical Plant Division must be made by persons with professional competency in this area. After consultation with these experts, consensus should be reached. "The complaints are coming from very influential groups, and the President must take strong action to assure these groups that the problem is going to be corrected. The President should implement the proposal." "The President should refer this matter to the Vice President for Business Affairs for a decision. The Vice President is administratively responsible for this program and should make the decision within established university rules and guidelines."

PAGE 116

107 Critical Incident XI The State Board of Regents and the State Legislature have received a recommendation from the state's Higher Education Coordinating Committee directing that the admission requirements of all state universities be raised. In particular, this recommendation requires all high school students to have an SAT score of 850 and a high school grade point average of 2.5. In addition, high school graduates must have two years of foreign language, three years of math, and four years of English. This recommendation is one of several aimed at improving the quality of the state university system. The President of this state university in deciding whether to support the recommendation has asked the Vice Presidents for their input. Please rank, order the following responses which might reflect your approach to the issue: "The President should refer this matter to the University Admissions Committee for recommendations. After consultation with this group of faculty and students, a decision can be made." "This is a decision that will affect several interest groups, including students, faculty, alumni and other university constituencies. The President must carefully weigh the impact these new standards will have on the university. If the impact will damage the university, the President should not support the recommendation." "The State Board of Regents is the ultimate authority regarding state education policy development for the university system. It is the President's responsibility to support the position of the State Board of Regents."

PAGE 117

108 Critical Incident XII As a response to recent budget cuts and in a move to save money, the Vice President for Business Affairs at this four year private university has changed the work schedules of several physical plant employees. The large majority of housekeeping staff have been switched to the night shift. The labor union has strongly objected to this move, suggesting that many of its employees have part-time jobs and families that will be negatively affected. The Vice President for Business Affairs has stated that this policy was made to save money and that the only other alternative is to lay off employees. The union has countered, saying several employees will have to resign anyway as many cannot work the night shift. The union charges the Vice President with making this change without consulting employees or the union, and to avoid laying people off, changing their hours, knowing that many would resign. The union has appealed the decision to the President. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: "The President should support the Vice President for Business Affairs. He/She is administratively responsible for this area and has made this change in accordance with the rules, procedures and policies of the contract with the union." "The President should appoint a task force staff to study this issue and to make recommendations to him/her for other possible solutions to the budget problem. The President's decision will be based on this recommendation."

PAGE 118

109 "The labor union has been supportive of the President and the university in the past. The most effective way to resolve this issue is to bargain with them, and reach a mutually acceptable decision. Critical Incident XIII Recent trends in higher education have made it necessary for this private university to examine closely the allocation of space, money, and personnel in various academic programs. Student enrollment is rapidly increasing in the engineering, computer science, business, and preprofessional curricula and declining in liberal arts and in education. Space, money, and personnel must be reorganized and reallocated to meet these increasing demands. Resources from departments with declining enrollments must be shifted to areas of growing demand. Please rank order the following responses which might reflect your approach to this issue: "The President should encourage the full participation of all Vice Presidents. He/she should consult with each Vice President individually and as a group seeking consensus." "The President by virtue of his/her position is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the university. The President should use the authority of his/her position and make the decision." "This decision will have a significant impact on the institution and requires careful assessment by the President. The President can expect to receive conflicting points of view by various interest groups and must base the decision on this input."

PAGE 119

REFERENCES Balderston, F.E. (1975). Managing today's university . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass . Barnard, C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Baldridge, J.V. (1971). Academic governance . Berkeley: McCuthan. Baldridge, J.V. , Curtis, D.V., Ecker, G. , & Riley, G.L. (1978). Policy making and effective leadership . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baldridge, J.V. & Riley, G.L. (1977). Governing academic organizations : New problems, new perspectives . Berkeley, California: McCuthan. Benson, J.K. (1973). The analysis of bureaucratic-professional conflicts: Functional versus dialectical approaches. The Sociological Quarterly , 14, 376-394. Blau, P.M. (1973). The organization of academic work . New York: John Wiley and Sons. Borg, W. & Gall, M. (1976). Educational research: An Introduction . New York: David McKay Co. Inc. Burns, T. (1976). Mechanistic and organismic structures. In D.S. Pugh (Ed.), Organization Theory . (pp. 185-221). London: Cox and Wyman. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1973). Priorities for action : Final Report . New York: McGraw-Hill. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. (1980). Three thousand futures: The next twenty years for higher education . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chaffee E.E. (1983). Rational decision making in higher education . Boulder, Colorado: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Child, J. (1976). Organization structure and strategies of control: A replication of the ashton study. In D.S. Pugh & C.R. H:nings (Eds.), Organizational structure: Extensions and replications of the Ashton programme II . (pp. 28-61). Westmead, England: Saxon House. Chllders, M.E. (1979). Academic decision making. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 4429. (University Microfilms No. 80-03, 815). 110

PAGE 120

Ill Cohen, M.D., & March, J.G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity. New YorkMcGraw-Hill. Deitzer, B.A., & Schiliff, K.A. (1977). Contemporary management incidents . Columbus, Ohio: Grid Inc. Demerath, N.J., Stephens, R.W. , & Taylor, R.R. (1967). Power, presidents, and professors . New York: Basic Books. Ebel, K.E. (1978). The art of administration . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Flanagan, J.C. (1966). The critical incidents technique. Psycholopical Bulletin , 51, 327-328. Gardner, P.L. (1975). Scales and statistics. Review of Educ ational Research , 45 , 52. Griffiths, D.E. (1959). Administrative theory . New York: Appleton-Century-Craf ts . Gulick, L., & Urick, L. (Eds.). (1937). Papers on the science of administration . New York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University. Hamrick, M.C. (1969). A critical incidents approach to identification of the philosophical position of classroom teachers. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International , 31 , 291. Helwig, J.T., & Council, K.A. (Eds.). (1979). Statistical analysis system users' guide . Raleigh, N.C.: SAS Institute. Hodgkinson, C. (1978). Towards a philosophy of administration . New York: St. Martin Press. Hodgkinson, H.L. & Bloy, M.B. (Eds.). (1971). Identity crisis in higher education . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Holdaway, E.A., Newberry, J.F., Hickson, D.J., & Heron, R.D. (1976). Dimentions of organizations in complex societies: The educational sector. In D.S. Pugh & C.R. Hinings (Eds.), Organizational structure: extentions and replications of Ashton Programme II . (pp. 184-203). Westmead, England: Saxon House. Hutchins, R.M. (1936). The higher learning in america . New Haven: Yale University Press.

PAGE 121

112 Inkson, J.H. Pugh, D.S., & Hickson, D.J. (1976). Organization context and structure: an abbreviated replication. In D.S. Pugh and C.R. Hinings. (Eds.), Organizational structure and replications of the Ashton Programme II . Westmead, England: Saxon House. Kast, F.E., & Rosenzweig. J.E. (1974). Organization and Management : A systems approach , (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ~~ Lahti, R.E. (1973). Innovative college management . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Litwak, E. (1961). Models of bureaucracy which permit conflict. American Journal of Sociology , 47 , 177-184. Mayhew, L.D. (1956). The critical incidents technique in education evaluation. Journal of Educational Research , 49 , 591-598. Mayhew, L.B., & Dressel P.L. (1953). The cooperative study of evaluation in general education. The Educational Record , 34 , 54-67. Mendenhall, W. (1975). Introduction to probability and statistics . Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Millett, J.D. (1962). The academic community . New York: McGraw-Hill. Millett, J.D. (1974). Strengthening community in higher education . Washington: Management Divison, Academie for Educational Development. Montagna, P.D. (1973). Professionalization and bureaucratization in large professional organizations. In W.V. Heydebrand (Eds), Comparative organization the results of empirical research . (pp. 220-264). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Morphet, E.L., Johns, R.L., & Reller, T.L. (1967). Educational organization and administration: Concepts, practices, and issues . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Mortimer, K.P., Gunne, M.G., & Leslie, D.W. (1976). Perceived legitimacy of decision making and academic governance patterns in higher education: a comparative analysis. Research in Higher Education , 4_, 273-290. Nunnery, M.Y., & Kimbrough, R.B. (1976). Educational administration: An introduction . New York: Macmillan. Olsen, J. P. (1976). Choice in an organized anarchy. In J.G. March & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), Ambiguity and choice in organization , (pp. 25-48). Bergc..a, Norway: Harold Lyche.

PAGE 122

113 Parsons, T. (1966). Societies: evolutionary and comparative perspectives . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Parsons, T. , & Piatt, G.M. (1971), Decision making in the academic system: Influence and power exchange. In C.E. Kruybosh and S.L. Messenger (Eds). The state of the university . (pp. 184-221). Beverly Hills: Sage. Podolsky, A., & Smith, C.R. (Eds.). (1983). Educational directory, colleges and universities 1981-1982 . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Pugh, D.S., & Hickson, D.J. (1976). Organizational structure in its context: The Ashton programme I . Westmead, England: Saxon House. Riley, G.L. & Baldridge, J.V. (1977). Governing academic organizations . Berkeley, California: McCuthan. Ritzer, G. (1975). Prof essionalization, bureaucratization, and rationalization: The views of Max Weber. Social Forces , 53, 627-634. Roy, R.H. (1958). The administrative process . Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Sargent, C.G., & Belisle, E.L. (1955). Educational administration: Cases and concepts . Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Simon, H.A. (1959). Administrative behavior . New York: Macmillan. Stuff lebeam, D. , & Associates. (1971). Educational evaluation and decision making . Stasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock. Weber, M. (1947). (The theory of social and economic organization). (A.M. Henderson & T. Parsons, trans.), (reprint ed.) New York: The Free Press. Yearbook of Higher Education . (1983). Chicago, Illinois: Marquis Who's Who.

PAGE 123

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Born in Erie, Pennsylvania, on May 22, 1949, Thomas R. Dougan was educated in the public schools of Harbor Creek Township. He graduated from Harbor Creek High School, Harbor Creek, Pennsylvania, in 1967. Mr. Dougan entered Edinboro State College in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, and in 1971 received the Bachelor of Science degree in math education. In 1971 he entered graduate school at Western Illinois University in Macomb, Illinois. In 1973 Mr. Dougan received the Master of Science degree in college student personnel administration. Mr. Dougan held the position of Director of Student Activities at Longwood College in Farmville, Virginia, from 1973 to 1975. He held a similar position at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, from 1975 to 1977. Mr. Dougan has held the position of Assistant Dean for Student Services at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, since 1977, Mr. Dougan is married to the former Karen McClune of Edinboro, Pennsylvania. They have three children, Brian, age eight; Katie, age four; and Jennifer, age one. 114

PAGE 124

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. 0^t^Jv\^A^JA C. A. Sandeen, Chairman Professor of Educational Administration and Supervision I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. " ' Wattenbarger '-f1. 1 1 Pyofessor of Education Administration and Supervision I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. l*^r-VA/^AsX\>\.^ H. C. Riker Professor of Counselor Education

PAGE 125

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December, 1984 , College of Educatrsnx Dean for Graduate Studies and Research

PAGE 126