UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Structure and perceived adequacy of performance in British Columbia community colleges Williams, David Rees 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A2 W54.pdf [ 17.57MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055716.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055716-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055716-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055716-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055716-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055716-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055716-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055716-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055716.ris

Full Text

C ' I STRUCTURE AND PERCEIVED ADEQU ACY OF PERFORMANCE IN BRITISH COLOMBIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES by DAVID REES WILLIAMS MASTER OF LIBERAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Education) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May 1980 c) David Rees W i l l i a m s , 1980 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Brit ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further.agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of ^ oU^C-c^^cvw The University of Brit ish Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date 2 5 ft-py^x \q 80 •6 BP 75-5 1 1 E i i A b s t r a c t The study examined r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s and t h e i r s u b - u n i t s , and the way i n which those s u b - u n i t s were perceived to be performing, by observers w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Data were c o l l e c t e d i n C o l l e g e s and some of t h e i r Departments i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The study attempted to extend an e x i s t i n g c o n c e p t u a l framework i n two ways. One was by an e x t e n s i o n to C o l l e g e Departments.. The other was the i n d o r p o r a t i o n of v a r i a b l e s of P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance and Congruence on s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s i n t o the framework., The b a s i c c o n c e p t u a l framework was d e r i v e d from o r g a n i z a t i o n theory, i n p a r t i c u l a r a l i n e of i n q u i r y f i r s t developed by the Aston r e s e a r c h e r s , and l a t e r used by others, whose m o d i f i c a t i o n s permitted i t s use i n e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The study used an expanded v e r s i o n of the v a r i a b l e which had been termed "technology" by the Aston group. T h i s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n viewed C o l l e g e s and t h e i r Departments as " p e o p l e - p r o c e s s i n g " o r g a n i z a t i o n s , s e r v i n g a community, and working with raw m a t e r i a l s (students) who become the output to markets of employers and other i n s t i t u t i o n s of e d u c a t i o n • This view of C o l l e g e s as o r g a n i z a t i o n s was h e l d t o imply t h a t they possess s t r u c t u r a l elements i n a way which i s s i m i l a r to t h a t of other o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The model which was c o n s t r u c t e d i n c l u d e d f o u r k i n d s of v a r i a b l e element.. These were termed c o n t e x t u a l , s t r u c t u r a l , performance and congruence v a r i a b l e s . , The s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s were measured i n both the C o l l e g e s and the Departments., Performance v a r i a b l e s were measured i n the Departments only, and the v a r i a b l e s of Congruence were c o n s t r u c t e d by comparing Departmental s c o r e s on s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s with the s c o r e s of the parent C o l l e g e on those s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s . The development of t h i s model of o r g a n i z a t i o n c o n s t r a i n t s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s formed the f i r s t p art of the study., Succeeding stages were concerned with the a d a p t a t i o n of instruments t o measure the v a r i a b l e s , and with methods of c o n s t r u c t i n g a measure f o r Congruence, with the use of these instruments i n the C o l l e g e s and Departments of the sample, and with t h e a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t i n g data. The purpose of t h i s a n a l y s i s was to r e f i n e the i n s t r u m e n t s as a means t o assess t h e i r e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y , and then to u t i l i s e s c o r e s on the r e f i n e d instruments t o make comparisons between members of the sample. The adapted instruments were t e s t e d i n a p i l o t s tudy, which was c a r r i e d out i n a C o l l e g e of the P r o v i n c e , which d i d not form p a r t of the sample, but which was s i m i l a r t o the C o l l e g e s of the sample. The instruments were then used i n ten C o l l e g e s and a t o t a l of f o r t y Departments (four i n each C o l l e g e ) , i n B.C. i i i The data from these C o l l e g e s and Departments were used i n the refinement o f the instruments by t e s t s of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y , . These i n c l u d e d item a n a l y s i s , a form of s p l i t -h a l f a n a l y s i s , and f a c t o r a n a l y s i s .in the case of the P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance instrument., The t e s t s which were c a r r i e d out on the instruments measuring s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s l e d t o the m o d i f i c a t i o n of the i n s t r u m e n t s , so t h a t each i n c l u d e d o n l y items which approximated a s c a l e , and which c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d t o form homogeneous s e t s . The process reduced the number o f items i n each instrument. In the case of the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow instrument, d i f f e r e n t s e t s of items were i s o l a t e d f o r the d i f f e r e n t sab-samples. An a n a l y s i s of t h e data, u s i n g only the items r e t a i n e d i n the r e f i n e d instruments, showed t h a t the instruments d i s c r i m i n a t e d between t h e members of the sample, and a l s o , i n some r e s p e c t s , between the sab-samples of the whole sample. As a consequence, the focus of subsequent c o n s i d e r a t i o n was placed upon d i f f e r e n c e s between; the types of sub-sample, r a t h e r than• between the i n d i v i d u a l members o f the sample themselves. f The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s permitted t e n t a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which appear to be important c o r r e l a t e s of adequacy of performance i n the assessments of d i f f e r e n t o b s ervers. There were i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t i n some ca s e s , i t i s the comparative r a t h e r than the a c t u a l degree of c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which seemed to be r e l a t e d t o these assessments. .. i v TABLE OP CONTENTS Page Abstra c t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i Tables- • ................. • . . . .. . . .......... ... .x Fi g u r e s .. ..... ......... . . . . . ............................. . x i i i 1. / I n t r o d u c t i o n •. ^ vw. . . : . > ^ . - . v ^ . : . « ^ 1 The Purpose o f The Study .*v*,.v«-»^»»*«* * The Usefulness Of Measuring Performance . i g i ^v * - * * * *V» 'V * , - 5 Lev e l s Of O r g a n i z a t i o n ................................. , 8 The S i g n i f i c a n c e Of The Study ....... ....... 9 The L i m i t a t i o n s And D e l i m i t a t i o n s Of The Study ......... 9 Summary And Overview Of The T h e s i s ..................... 10 2. The T h e o r e t i c a l Background And Relevant L i t e r a t u r e ... 13 The Aston Approach To O r g a n i z a t i o n Theory .............. 13 The Concept Of Technology ...... .... .....••.... ......... 18 The Kelsey M o d i f i c a t i o n Of The Aston Framework ......... 20 M o d i f i c a t i o n Of The Aston Framework ... 21 M o d i f i c a t i o n Of The Concept Of Technology .......*..». 22 Perceived Adequacy Of Performance ...................... 26 Summary •............................................... 27 3. The Conceptual Framework, The V a r i a b l e s And D e f i n i t i o n Of Terms ........... .............•................ ...... 30 Conceptual Framework ......... ...... ...... .............. 30 Assumptions Of The Model 32 The Present Model As An Extension Of The Kelsey Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V V « • ? «. 35 The Extension To Community C o l l e g e s .............. 35 The Extension To Two L e v e l s ...................... 37 A d d i t i o n s To The Kelsey Model 39 Le v e l s Of O r g a n i z a t i o n And The Concept Of Congruence 39 Per c e i v e d Adequacy Of Performance .. .41 Congruence And P e r c e i v e d Adequacy Of Performance ....,43 The V a r i a b l e s ...... .... ................................ ,45. Conte x t u a l V a r i a b l e s ....... ................... ...... 46 S t r u c t u r a l V a r i a b l e s ................................ 48 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e .........................,,48 Workflow S t r u c t u r e ....,..........,............. 49 Other V a r i a b l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - • • 50 D e f i n i t i o n Of Terms .................................... ,50 The Research Design . . ...... .......................... 56 The Problem ......... ..... ...........•.................. 56 The Sample .....,... .....•• ... .............. ......*... .. 57 C o l l e c t i o n Of Data And Measurement Of V a r i a b l e s ........ 61 C o l l e c t i o n Of Data • 61 The Measurement Of C o n t e x t u a l V a r i a b l e s ............. 62 The Measurement Of S t r u c t u r a l V a r i a b l e s ............. .62 F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n ........................ 62 F o r m a l i z a t i o n Of Sole D e f i n i t i o n ................. 63 Con c e n t r a t i o n Of A u t h o r i t y And I t s D e r i v a t i v e s ... 64 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow•••• w » w v » ••w»vy.*'vv*• ^ The Measurement Of Congruence ....................... 66 The Measurement Of P e r c e i v e d Adequacy Of Performance 68 Sequence Of Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- 70 The Sample And Sub-samples ........................-.70 v i Refinement Of The Instruments ....................... ?0 Scores And C o r r e l a t i o n s ............................. 72 Summar y ........ .'V.-. ...... ................ .. . ..,.. . . • • • * . ,.72 5. P r e p a r a t i o n And Refinement Of The Instruments ........ 74 Pr e p a r a t i o n Of The Instruments •••«»••• 74 F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n ... ..•.•................... 76 S c o r i n g F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n .... ..77 Adapting The Content Of The Instrument ........... 79 F o r m a l i z a t i o n Of Role D e f i n i t i o n „•.wWi»=y**«» w * w v » y«*-sV»• 79 C o n c e n t r a t i o n Of A u t h o r i t y . ........ ....... .w* • .. • . . 80 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow ......................... 82 P e r c e i v e d Adeguacy Of Performance ................... 84 Other V a r i a b l e s ' .............................. ,.,,.,85 Summary Of The P r e p a r a t i o n Of The Instruments ....... 86 The Refinement Of The Instruments By Tes t s Of I n t e r n a l C o n s i s t e n c y ..•.. ...................••...... ......... 87 F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n ...........................93 Item A n a l y s i s . . . . . „ . . . . .> :. -•»,.«..., >• . . . v»-V*» *••«. . 93 Hoyt/Anova . .. ,94 The Ref i n e d Instrument ...............•........... 95 F o r m a l i z a t i o n Of Role D e f i n i t i o n ........... ,97 Item : An a l y s i s . ......... . .... ........ • «• ••• .. ... .,98. Hoyt/Anova A n a l y s i s . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . - . / , y , 4 y , > y . . 1 0 1 The Refined Instrument . ............ , ....... , . . . »-•• 10.2 Co n c e n t r a t i o n Of A u t h o r i t y ••.•.•••....•••••.103 Item A n a l y s i s .... ...... . .................«,...., . . 103 Hoyt/ Anova An a l y s i s . ..., . .> . v» ...••«...... * ... , *, 105 The R e f i n e d Instrument .• .................... 105 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow ..... ............... ..... 105 Item A n a l y s i s ........... 108 Hoyt/Anova A n a l y s i s ..... 109 The Refined Instrument . ,...........».»........... 109 P e r c e i v e d Adequacy Of Performance ...,..,...,...,....111 Summary Of The Refinement Of The Instruments ........ 113 The S t r u c t u r e Of C o l l e g e s And Departments ............ 115 Scores On V a r i a b l e s Of S t r u c t u r e ................ ..117 Fu n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n .. .-..v.»> 4, • •> 3 « 9 F o r m a l i z a t i o n Of Hole D e f i n i t i o n .................... 120 Co n c e n t r a t i o n Of A u t h o r i t y .............. ..........••120 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Workf low .... *,,,,.,,. .,.,,,,, *, • J22 As s o c i a t i o n s Between The V a r i a b l e s : Commonality And D i f f e r e n c e s . . . . . . . . . . ^ , / . . , A . : . . . , . ^ . V , , . . 123 -F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n . , • , . •., 129 F o r m a l i z a t i o n Of Role D e f i n i t i o n .130 Con c e n t r a t i o n Of A u t h o r i t y And I t s D e r i v a t i v e s ...... 131 Autonomy ... v . v.-,;.^ .<,,-, .. 132 . D i s c r e t i o n ' .............................. • .. 133 In - U n i t L e v e l Of Decision-Making .................133 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow .........................134 Summary ................................................135 R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Perceived Adequacy Of Performance And S t r u c t u r e In C o l l e g e s And C o l l e g e Departments .............................................138 D i s t r i b u t i o n Of C o r r e l a t i o n s In The Sub-samples ........ 141 Comparisons Among The Departments ......................148 S a l i e n t S t r u c t u r a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ..................148 v i i i L i b r a r i e s ........... .... ......................... 151 Counseli n g Departments .,......... ................154 S o c i a l S c i ence Departments 155 N a t u r a l S c i e n c e Departments ...•.•....•....••.••..157 The Adequacy V a r i a b l e s . ............. . ..w.,^v«• » • •« • • 159 Comparisons Between Teaching And Hon-Teaching Departments' • .......... . ....,» ..»*. ............161 . Comparison Among Ca t e g o r i e s Of Response ................ 166 Summary • «•>,••>>« ••«.... .. * . . * v • • •• • • ..:'... ..•*.... . .. . 172 8. R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Perceived Adequacy Of Performance And Congruence In C o l l e g e s And C o l l e q e Departments ............................................174 D i s t r i b u t i o n Of C o r r e l a t i o n s In The Sub-samples 177 Comparisons Among The Departments •. #v«riV*W«vi w»W*%<«.1-7-9 S a l i e n t S t r u c t u r a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , • 179 L i b r a r i e s ... . .. ........... .................... .187 . Counseling Departments .............. 188 S o c i a l Science Departments .....;•,.-«•,/.-vv» V*vVyv19-0 Natural S c i e n c e Departments ...................... 191 The Adequacy V a r i a b l e s .... ............ ,,.y,^.:.^.>-..v..t94 Comparison Of Teaching And Non-Teaching Departments..195 Comparison Of D i f f e r e n c e s Among C a t e g o r i e s Of Response .197 Summary .................. . . . . . . .,,-.'.;.-..i.-r^ y,;>>^5,/,i.'...203 -9. , Summary, Co n c l u s i o n s And I m p l i c a t i o n s 206 Summary . .. •. .v. . ..................................... :. .-206 Conclusions And I m p l i c a t i o n s • ^ .<...>,....,,y^ T h e o r e t i c a l C o n c l u s i o n s And I m p l i c a t i o n s ... .........210 Me t h o d o l o g i c a l C o n c l u s i o n s And I m p l i c a t i o n s .........221 . i x I m p l i c a t i o n s For The P r a c t i t i o n e r ...................225 Bi b l i o g r a p h y ..,...........................................229 appendix A. Instruments .,-../.>,.•...-.,>,»'.,-.'.-..../...,,.•'.,.'•>••*•-»v234 Appendix B. Scores On (The Refined instruments- ..>r-v-v2?'& Appendix C. , S i g n i f i c a n t C o r r e l a t i o n s ••^•w• vv«WVW«^ •••••••••285 X TABLES Page •1.-., The Varxables ••••*••••••»."• • 47 2. The V a r i a b l e s And T h e i r Measurement .>w->^wvv»-v*-v»,<75. • 3. H y p o t h e t i c a l Data To Show The R e s u l t s Of Two Hays To Compute A Score On F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n ......... 78 4. Summary Of T e s t s Used For I n t e r n a l A n a l y s i s : By Te s t .88 5. Summary Of T e s t s Used F o r I n t e r n a l A n a l y s i s : By In s t r urn en t • * . , ,.-v . , , * «•••*• .;. * • .- . • •. . 89 6. Composition Of The Sample •,•»•';.«•*;..•'<«•»,'•'.••.'• 91 7. The Refi n e d F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n Instrument .....$6 8. Documents Measured By F o r m a l i z a t i o n Of R o l e D e f i n i t i o n 9. F o r m a l i z a t i o n Of Role D e f i n i t i o n Documents F o r C o l l e g e s And Departments .... ............ •• •.......... 100 10. Groups Of Items For A l t e r n a t i v e Analyses Of F o r m a l i z a t i o n Of Role D e f i n i t i o n ..vvwvWw 101. 11. C o n c e n t r a t i o n Of A u t h o r i t y R e f i n e d Instrument .......104 12. The R e f i n e d D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow Instrument .,110 13. S t r u c t u r a l V a r i a b l e s , Means, Ranges, Maxima 118 14. C o r r e l a t i o n s Between V a r i a b l e s Of S t r u c t u r e In The Sub—samples «..'..* . • ,<.. . , . < * • • *:•'• ••.. , , - 1 2 S 15. D i s t r i b u t i o n Of C o r r e l a t i o n s Between The V a r i a b l e s Of S t r u c t u r e And Of Perceived Adequacy Of Performance{Mean Nonself Rating) In The Sub-samples •• , -vv«.~V . M * W V •••'••,.•,> -1*2 x i 16., C o r r e l a t i o n s Among V a r i a b l e s Of S t r u c t u r e And P e r c e i v e d Adequacy Of Performance {Bating By C o l l e g e Chief E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r ) In The Sub-samples ......... 143 17. D i s t r i b u t i o n Of C o r r e l a t i o n s Among The V a r i a b l e s Of S t r u c t u r e And Of P e r c e i v e d Adequacy Of Pe r f o r m a n c e ( S e l f -Bating) In The Sub-samples ..........................144 18. D i s t r i b u t i o n Of C o r r e l a t i o n s Between The V a r i a b l e s Of S t r u c t u r e And Of P e r c e i v e d Adequacy Of Performance I n The Sub-^ samples .».,.,,v. . . . » • ...... .147 19. C o r r e l a t i o n s Between F o r m a l i z a t i o n Of Hole D e f i n i t i o n And Pe r c e i v e d Adequacy Of Performance In L i b r a r i e s (Hating By C o l l e g e C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r ) ......... 152 20. Banking Of Department Types In Each Category (number Of C o r r e l a t i o n s ) .171 21. D i s t r i b u t i o n Of C o r r e l a t i o n s Between The V a r i a b l e s Of Congruence And Of P e r c e i v e d Adequacy Of Performance(Mean Nonself Hating) I n The Sub-samples . w » w V » > w » v * • 1-81 22. C o r r e l a t i o n s between v a r i a b l e s of Congruence and Perceived Adequacy Of Performance(flating By C o l l e g e C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r ) In The Sub-samples ........ .182 23. D i s t r i b u t i o n Of C o r r e l a t i o n s Between The V a r i a b l e s Of Congruence And Of P e r c e i v e d Adequacy Of Performance(Self-Rating) In The Sub-samples ......... 183 24. D i s t r i b u t i o n Of C o r r e l a t i o n s Between The V a r i a b l e s Of Congruence And Per c e i v e d Adequacy Of Performance In The Sub-samples (by Categories) • r « . « v f » f , « « f f . ^ v » t f * , » ' > I8-* x i i The Occurrence Of C o r r e l a t i o n s With V a r i a b l e s Of Congruence Where There Was No C o r r e l a t i o n With V a r i a b l e s Of S t r u c t u r e 186 x i i i FIGURES Page 1. h Model Of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o n s t r a i n t s On The P e r c e i v e d Adeguacy Of Performance Of C o l l e g e Departments ..33 x i v Acknowledgement s In w r i t i n g t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n I was g r e a t l y a s s i s t e d and encouraged by the members of my committee. Dr. ,D. Brown, Dr. H. B a t z l a f f , and Dr. B. Tetlow. I wish t o r e c o r d a p a r t i c u l a r l y deep debt o f g r a t i t u d e t o a r e s e a r c h s u p e r v i s o r sans reproche. Dr. J.G.T. Kelsey, who alone knows how much X owe him. Thanks are due a l s o t o Dr. T. Sogers f o r h i s w i l l i n g help and i n f o r m a t i o n on s t a t i s t i c a l matters.. The C o l l e g e P r e s i d e n t s and B u r s a r s , together with the Department Heads and f a c u l t y who so k i n d l y gave me t h e i r time and thought made a c o n t r i b u t i o n without which t h i s work c o u l d not have been done. , 1 thank them., I t i s a l s o a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t I acknowledge the a s s i s t a n c e and encouragement I have r e c e i v e d from t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and from my c o l l e a g u e s a t Douglas C o l l e g e , who made i t p o s s i b l e f o r me t o undertake t h i s endeavour and t o b r i n g i t to c o m p l e t i F i n a l l y , I owe a debt of l o v e and g r a t i t u d e t o my wife Anne, whose forbearance was remarkable and whose endurance surpassed my own,; and t o ray c h i l d r e n , E h i a n f a , C h r i s t o p h e r and Sarah, whose k i n d l y a d v i c e and admonishments b r i g h t e n e d many an otherwise gloomy hour. , 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION People who work i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s are not f r e e to do whatever they l i k e . Obvious and not so obvious c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e i r freedom e x i s t , and are l i k e l y t o a f f e c t performance. I t i s of i n t e r e s t t o both managers and workers t o know what o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s are more l i k e l y t o improve performance, and a good deal of work on o r g a n i z a t i o n s has had t h i s end i n view. In t h i n k i n g about such problems, some o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s come immediately t o mind. I s a u t h o r i t y c e n t r a l i z e d ? How much r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s delegated? Do middle managers have much d i s c r e t i o n ? Are t h e r e job d e s c r i p t i o n s ? E f f e c t i v e r e s e a r c h must turn these i n t u i t i v e i d e a s i n t o p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n s . The r e s u l t i n g concepts, though couched i n f a m i l i a r language, may be l e s s i n t u i t i v e l y obvious. Nonetheless, they are grounded i n f a m i l i a r i d e a s , t o which we may t u r n at times, f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n . The concepts of t h i s study are d e r i v e d from a l i n e o f r e s e a r c h i n e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n which has been pursued f o l l o w i n g s t u d i e s c a r r i e d out by members of the U n i v e r s i t y o f Aston, England. These s t u d i e s have s i n c e become known as the Aston s t u d i e s , and t h e i r c o n c e p t u a l framework, which f o c u s s e s on 2 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , has sometimes been r e f e r r e d t o as the Aston framework, S i n c e the o r i g i n a l Aston c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n (Pugh e t a l . , 1963), a number of other s t u d i e s have been c a r r i e d out, which have extended the a r e a s i n which the Aston framework has been a p p l i e d . They have i n c l u d e d s t u d i e s of both d i v e r s e and of s i m i l a r o r g a n i z a t i o n s , of i n d u s t r i a l and s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and of o r g a n i z a t i o n s a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f independence {Pugh e t a l . , 1 968, 1969; Hickson e t a l . , 1969; Inkson et a l . , 1970; C h i l d , 1972, 1973)., Newberry (1971) has demonstrated that the framework can form the b a s i s f o r the study of Community C o l l e g e s , and K e l s e y (1973) has done the same f o r s c h o o l s . . Some of these s t u d i e s , w h i l e r e t a i n i n g the b a s i c elements of the Aston framework, have modified i t i n v a r i o u s ways f o r t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n s . (Newberry, 1971; Heron, 1972; Kelsey, 1973; Sackney, 1976; M a r s h a l l , 1978) The c o n c e p t u a l framework as f i r s t proposed e n v i s a g e d the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of performance v a r i a b l e s (Pugh e t a l . , 1963:312). None of the subsequent s t u d i e s , however, r e l a t e d f i n d i n g s c o n c e r n i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e , as c o n c e p t u a l i z e d i n the Aston framework, to measures o f performance... I n t u i t i o n might suggest t h a t an o r g a n i z a t i o n * s s t r u c t u r e could be r e l a t e d t o the adeguacy of i t s performance, but such a h y pothesis has not been t e s t e d w i t h i n the context of the Aston framework. One study (Hassen, 1976) has i n v e s t i g a t e d the r e l a t i o n s between s t r u c t u r e , technology and e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Hassen, however, used a q u i t e 3 d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e , based on the b u r e a u c r a t i c approach t o s t r u c t u r e developed by H a l l (1962) , and used by K o l e s a r (1967)., The f i n d i n g s of the Hassen study were i n c o n c l u s i v e . Hassen s t a t e s "when the experimental hypotheses were t e s t e d on the b a s i s o f Departments, only q u a l i f i e d support i n s p e c i f i c c a s e s was found", and "any d e c i s i o n s reached with regard to the acceptance or r e j e c t i o n of the experimental hypotheses are t e n t a t i v e a t b e s t . " (Hassen, 1976: 235,236). The study can t h e r e f o r e not be s a i d t o i n v a l i d a t e an a n a l y s i s u s i n g a d i f f e r e n t approach, nor t o have v a l i d a t e d the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f s t r u c t u r e w h i c h . i t adopted.. The Aston conception was intended t o l i n k three l e v e l s of a n a l y s i s of behaviour: o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e and f u n c t i o n i n g ; group composition and i n t e r a c t i o n ; i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n a l i t y and behaviour. The framework as i t has been developed so f a r has been used t o develop and r e f i n e v a r i a b l e s of s t r u c t u r e and co n t e x t . Some d i s c u s s i o n below w i l l show the d i s t i n c t i o n drawn between these two kin d s o f v a r i a b l e s . For the moment i t i s necessary t o note that the v a r i a b l e termed technology, which had p r e v i o u s l y been t r e a t e d as c o n t e x t u a l , has, i n two s t u d i e s , (Kelsey, 1973; M a r s h a l l , 1978) been d i s t i n g u i s h e d from other c o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e s , and c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as p o s s e s s i n g a s t r u c t u r e of i t s own., A convenient term f o r the r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of t h i s v a r i a b l e i s Workflow S t r u c t u r e , d i s t i n c t from the major Aston s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s which were, i n these two s t u d i e s , r e f e r r e d t o as the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e 4 S t r u c t u r e . The Aston framework has not p r e v i o u s l y been used to permit the examination of s p e c i f i c performance v a r i a b l e s . Thus, the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between an o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s s t r u c t u r e (or s t r u c t u r e s , i f the m o d i f i c a t i o n r e f e r r e d to above i s used) and i t s performance r e q u i r e d a new approach. THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose o f the study i s to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between; s t r u c t u r e and P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance, using a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the Aston-rbased model developed f o r the Kelsey (1973) study, i n a d i f f e r e n t type of o r g a n i z a t i o n . The study a l s o presented an o p p o r t u n i t y to t e s t the v a l i d i t y o f t h a t model, together w i t h some of Kelsey's f i n d i n g s . The Kelsey study had developed a conc e p t u a l framework which was capable o f a p p l i c a t i o n i n e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and to which performance v a r i a b l e s c o u l d be added without d i s t o r t i o n of the b a s i c concepts. The q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d by Kelsey concerning the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between. Sorkflow S t r u c t u r e and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e r a i s e d r e l a t e d i s s u e s concerning adequacy o f performance i n the presence o r absence of those r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 5 THE USEFULNESS OF MEASURING PERFORMANCE Adequacy of performance i n i n d u s t r i a l or business o r g a n i z a t i o n s might not be d i f f i c u l t t o measure, i n a number o f ways. P r o d u c t i v i t y , t o t a l output, l e v e l of d i v i d e n d s , or of gross p r o f i t s might be used as i n d i c e s of how well an i n d u s t r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n was performing i t s " t a s k " . In s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , however, there i s a l a c k o f such u s e f u l measures, ,, Numbers of graduates, p u p i l - t e a c h e r r a t i o s , t o t a l budget, budget breakdown, f o r example, are open t o s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n s of v a l i d i t y when used to measure adequacy o f e d u c a t i o n a l performance, though they a l l g i v e u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n about the i n s t i t u t i o n . , One of the problems i s t h a t the "task" o f e d u c a t i o n , i n c o n t r a s t t o that of the b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n , i s not w e l l - d e f i n e d . , l e t , i n e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e , s u b j e c t i v e judgements of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l performance are o f t e n made. , An i n d i v i d u a l may have a p e r c e p t i o n of an o r g a n i z a t i o n s adequacy, o r a group of people may have a shared p e r c e p t i o n . Such p e r c e p t i o n s can lead t o a c t i o n s t h a t have r e a l e f f e c t s on the o r g a n i z a t i o n , and these e f f e c t s i n turn may a l t e r t h e observer's p e r c e p t i o n of the adeguacy of performance. P e r c e p t i o n s of performance, while l i a b l e t o e r r o r , probably do h o l d some r e l a t i o n t o a c t u a l performance. I t i s a premise o f the Aston qroup t h a t s t r u c t u r e ; c o n t e x t and performance can be i n t e r - r e l a t e d w i t h i n a s i n g l e model o f 6 o r g a n i z a t i o n s , (Pugh et a l . , 1963} which i m p l i e s t h a t measures o f each of these elements can be placed i n r e l a t i o n to one another, although t h i s has not p r e v i o u s l y been t e s t e d . Part of the reason f o r the present study was t h a t i f i t c o u l d • be shown th a t there was a r e l a t i o n between measures of s t r u c t u r e and measures of P e r c e i v e d Adequacy o f Performance, c o n s i d e r a b l e impetus might be given t o f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t r u c t u r e and a c t u a l performance. Furthermore, i n l i g h t of the p o s s i b i l i t y noted above, t h a t P e r c e i v e d Adeguacy of Performance i s r e l a t e d t o a c t u a l adequacy of performance, measures o f P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance could be used t o help v a l i d a t e more s o p h i s t i c a t e d measures o f a c t u a l performance.^ The u s e f u l n e s s of such measures, both t h e o r e t i c a l l y i n the f u r t h e r refinement of the Aston framework, and p r a c t i c a l l y i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n s , would be c o n s i d e r a b l e . I f P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance were found t o vary c o n s i s t e n t l y with p a t t e r n s o f s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , ! then those p a t t e r n s themselves might be taken as proxy e v a l u a t i v e i n d i c e s f o r the purpose of comparison with n o n - a t t i t u d i n a 1 measures of performance of the type mentioned above - p u p i l -teacher r a t i o s , budget, e t c . I f i t c o u l d then be shown that t h e r e was a s i m i l a r c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between such non-a t t i t u d i n a l measures o f performance and s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s , i t might be p o s s i b l e t o p l a c e some confidence i n the t h r e e types of v a r i a b l e taken t o g e t h e r , as i n d i c a t o r s of a c t u a l performance. 7 Moreover, considered w i t h i n the context of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , perceived adequacy possesses another k i n d of appropriateness which d i s t i n g u i s h e s i t from other p o t e n t i a l measures of adequacy of performance, and which warrants i t s i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n t o such a model. To the degree t h a t a sub-unit of an o r g a n i z a t i o n •:. i s perceived as more or l e s s . adequate, personal behaviour, group f u n c t i o n i n g and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l patterns may vary, both i n the sub-unit i t s e l f , and i n the t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . , Budget and s t a f f a l l o c a t i o n s t o a sub-unit perceived as performing we l l might be c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t from a l l o c a t i o n s t o a sub-unit perceived as performing poorly. Degrees of assigned and earned a u t h o r i t y might be d i f f e r e n t also.,« Morale amongst members of a sub-unit who knew (or thought) themselves to be perceived as performing w e l l might be higher than w i t h i n a sub-unit whose members were conscious of a perception t h a t they were performing badly, or inadeguately. I t may be p o s i t e d that these kinds of e f f e c t s would, have an impact on a c t u a l performance, and i t t h e r e f o r e seems a l e g i t i m a t e p o s s i b i l i t y that there w i l l be a r e l a t i o n , c o n s i s t e n t to a greater or l e s s e r degree, between Perceived adequacy of Performance and the q u a l i t y of a c t u a l performance. , The concept of Perceived Adequacy of Performance thus seemed appropriate at a l l three l e v e l s of the Aston framework. I t was an appropriate a d d i t i o n to the Aston framework as i t had been developed i n previous work, and had considerable p o t e n t i a l f o r u s e f u l f i n d i n g s , which warranted the research c a r r i e d out i n 8 the present study. LEVELS OF ORGANIZATION AND THE CONCEPT OF CO HGR DEN CE The Kelsey study had i d e n t i f i e d an a s s o c i a t i o n between s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s c h o o l systems and those o f i n d i v i d u a l s c h o o l s . T h i s f i n d i n g f o c u s s e s a t t e n t i o n on the l e v e l s of o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h i n a given i n s t i t u t i o n , and suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t p e r c e p t i o n s of Departmental performance may r e l a t e d t o the way i n which the s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a sub- u n i t match (or do not match) those of the parent i n s t i t u t i o n . In the present study the p o s s i b i l i t y of those comparisons was i n c o r p o r a t e d by the use of a v a r i a b l e termed Congruence., T h i s was a measure o f s i m i l a r i t y of s t r u c t u r e s i n C o l l e g e s and i n t h e i r Departments and was d e r i v e d by comparison of the sc o r e s of Departments and C o l l e g e s on s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s . 9 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the study l i e s i n t h e o r e t i c a l , methodological and p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . , The t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n was found both i n the f u r t h e r a n c e of general o r g a n i z a t i o n s t u d i e s w i t h i n the e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g , and i n the development of a p a r t i c u l a r o r g a n i z a t i o n model to i n c l u d e Performance and Congruence v a r i a b l e s . M e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y , the study extended the model and developed s p e c i f i c instruments f o r a p p l i c a t i o n i n both . C o l l e g e s and t h e i r Departments. For the p r a c t i t i o n e r , the f i n d i n g s of the study may provide a b a s s i s f o r thought, and impetus f o r a c t i o n . They may help t o i d e n t i f y p o s s i b l e ways to assess or improve r e a l performance, by a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the ways i n which p e r c e p t i o n s of adequacy may be r e l a t e d to s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . , THE LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The study was r e s t r i c t e d to an examination of the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e , the s t r u c t u r a l Congruence and the P e r c e i v e d Adequacy o f Performance i n ten C o l l e g e s and f o r t y C o l l e g e Departments i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. In the ten C o l l e g e s and twenty of the Departments, the Workflow 10 S t r u c t u r e was a l s o examined. The study was l i m i t e d by the sm a l l s i z e of the sample. T h i s , together with the f a c t t h a t the nature of the data meant t h a t non-parametric a n a l y s e s had to be used i n analyses i n v o l v i n g the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s , r e s t r a i n e d the s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of p o s s i b l e a n a l y s i s . , ft f u r t h e r l i m i t a t i o n ^ common to a l l s t u d i e s u s i n g the Aston framework, arose from the f a c t t h a t the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s measured what i s permitted or supposed t o be done i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n , but not what i s always n e c e s s a r i l y done. By d e f i n i t i o n P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance was a measure of p e r c e p t i o n ; r a t h e r than a c t u a l performance. OVERVIEW AHD SOHHARX" OF THE THESIS The study attempted some a n a l y s i s i n the unexamined area of p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , and Congruence of s t r u c t u r e . I t was concerned with whether r e l a t i o n s between d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of an e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d , whether the Aston measures c o u l d be u s e f u l l y a p p l i e d a t the l e v e l of C o l l e g e Departments, and whether P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance bore any r e l a t i o n s h i p to s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s w i t h i n a sub - u n i t , or to the degree of Congruence of s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between a sub-unit and the t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . , 11 The o r g a n i z a t i o n s s t u d i e d were a number of Community C o l l e g e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia; the s u b - u n i t s were Departments i n those C o l l e g e s . , Two types of s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e were i n c l u d e d . They were the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e , and t h e Workflow S t r u c t u r e , and were d e r i v e d from the Aston s t u d i e s , and some subsequent m o d i f i c a t i o n s of them..,. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and Workflow S t r u c t u r e s , a t both the C o l l e q e and Department l e v e l s , was s t u d i e d . F i n a l l y , i t i n v e s t i g a t e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s and measures o f Perceived Adequacy of Performance i n the Departments and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s t r u c t u r a l Congruence of the Departments (in r e l a t i o n to t h e i r parent Colleges) and Perceived Adequacy o f Performance. T h i s chapter has d e s c r i b e d the purpose of the study, and o u t l i n e d the main a r e a s o f i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e , together with i t s l i m i t a t i o n s and d e l i m i t a t i o n s . Chapter 2 d e s c r i b e s the t h e o r e t i c a l background of the study, and reviews the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e . Chapter 3 i s concerned with the conceptual framework which was used, and chapter 4 d i s c u s s e s the research d e s i g n . Chapter 5 d e s c r i b e s the c o n s t r u c t i o n and refinement o f the instruments used. The remainder of the work i s concerned with the f i n d i n g s o f the study. In chapter 6 t h e s t r u c t u r e of C o l l e g e s and Departments i s c o n s i d e r e d . Chapter 7 i s concerned with r e l a t i o n s h i p s between Perceived Adequacy of Performance and 12 s t r u c t u r e , and chapter 8 with those between Perceived Adequacy of Performance and Congruence, The f i n a l chapter presents a summary and co n c l u s i o n s , with some suggestions f o r f u r t h e r r esearch, . 13 CHAPTER 2 THE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AHD RELEVANT LITERATURE The study examined v a r i a b l e s of S t r u c t u r e and Performance i n C o l l e g e s and C o l l e g e Departments. Because the study used a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the Aston c o n c e p t u a l framework, t h i s chapter w i l l f i r s t b r i e f l y o u t l i n e the Aston work. There f o l l o w s a d i s c u s s i o n of the concept of technology and i t s expansion, "workflow S t r u c t u r e " , p a r t i c u l a r l y as developed by Kelsey (1973). , The concepts of P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance and Congruence w i l l be r e l a t e d b r i e f l y to t h i s l i n e of r e s e a r c h . Some of the concepts used i n the study d e r i v e d from, , but were not e x t e n s i v e l y d i s c u s s e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed, and t h e r e f o r e are d e a l t with i n the succeeding c h a p t e r which d i s c u s s e s the study's conceptual framework. ,. THE ASTON APPROACH TO ORGANIZATION THEORY The study o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s took on a new a s p e c t with the development of a t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r what came l a t e r t o be known as the Aston s t u d i e s , f i r s t o u t l i n e d i n Pugh e t a l . (1963). T h i s approach attempted to a c h i e v e an 14 " i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y u n i f i e d study of o r g a n i z a t i o n t h e o r y " {Pugh, 1966:237). Pugh i d e n t i f i e d s i x e a r l i e r approaches: management theory, s t r u c t u r a l theory, group theory, i n d i v i d u a l t h e o r y , technology t h e o r y , economic theory.,. He contended that the Aston approach, drawing on a l l these, i n t e r r e l a t i n g them (and r e j e c t i n g something of a l l of them), o f f e r e d the best promise f o r f u t u r e development {Pugh, 1966:237) U n t i l t h i s time the s i n g l e most i n f l u e n t i a l approach t o the study o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s had been the concept of "bureaucracy", f i r s t propounded by Seber (1947)./ T h i s u n i t a r y concept e v e n t u a l l y came under a t t a c k . , A l t e r n a t i v e u n i t a r y types were proposed, such as Gouldner*s mock, punishment-centred and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e b u r e a u c r a c i e s (Gouldner, 1954), Gerth* s c h a r i s m a t i c bureaucracy (Gerth, 1952), o r P r e s t ^ u s * welfare bureaucracy (Presthus, 1961).,, C o n s i d e r a t i o n of the problems o f using u n i t a r y concepts i n experimental r e s e a r c h l e d the Aston group t o attempt the c o n s t r u c t i o n of an approach which would be d i m e n s i o n a l , m u l t i - f a c t o r , and s t r u c t u r a l . B r i e f l y , i t was proposed t o develop a framework which would i n c l u d e both Contextual and S t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s . The C o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e s proposed were O r i g i n and H i s t o r y ; Ownership and C o n t r o l ; S i z e ; C h a r t e r ; Technology; L o c a t i o n ; Resources; Interdependence. Those o f S t r u c t u r e i n c l u d e d S p e c i a l i z a t i o n ; S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n ; F o r m a l i z a t i o n ; C e n t r a l i z a t i o n ; C o n f i g u r a t i o n ; F l e x i b i l i t y (Pugh et a l . , 1963)., F l e x i b i l i t y was l a t e r dropped, as i t r e q u i r e d d i a c h r o n i c data which were, not 15 a v a i l a b l e . The c o n c e p t u a l scheme was f i r s t a p p l i e d i n a study reported i n Pugh e t a l . (1968, 1969). F i f t y - t w o d i v e r s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s were measured, u s i n g instruments developed t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e the concepts l i s t e d above, i n s i x t y - f o u r s c a l e s . I t i s to be noted t h a t these s c a l e s measured "what i s e f f e c t i v e l y expected should be done, and what i s i n p r a c t i c e allowed t o be done. • •" (Pugh et a l . , 1968:69) . As the authors acknowledged, t h i s i s not always n e c e s s a r i l y t h e same as what i s a c t u a l l y done. The a p p l i c a t i o n and a n a l y s i s of the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s i n the f i f t y - t w o work o r g a n i z a t i o n s l e d to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f f o u r b a s i c u n d e r l y i n g dimensions of s t r u c t u r e i n the sample. These were termed S t r u c t u r i n g of A c t i v i t i e s (which was composed of two s u b - s e t s , termed F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and F o r m a l i z a t i o n o f Bole D e f i n i t i o n ); Concentrat i o n of A u t h o r i t y ; L i n e C o n t r o l of Workflow: and S i z e of Support!ve Component (?ugh e t :aly,, 1968) • S t r u c t u r i n g o f A c t i v i t i e s r e f e r s t o the degree of formal r e g u l a t i o n of the intended a c t i v i t i e s of employees. Concentration o f A u t h o r i t y , i n the o r i g i n a l . Aston usage, d e s c r i b e s the l e v e l s w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n at which formal a u t h o r i t y r e s t s . L i n e C o n t r o l of Workflow r e f e r s to the degree to which c o n t r o l r e s t s with workflow personnel themselves and t h e i r l i n e s u p e r o r d i n a t e s , r a t h e r than i n impersonal or c e n t r a l i z e d procedures., S i z e o f S u p p o r t i v e Component d e s c r i b e s the p r o p o r t i o n s of non-workflow, n o n - c o n t r o l a u x i l i a r y s t a f f . 16 D e f i n i t i o n s of these terms are given below on pages 50-55. The f i r s t two of these u n d e r l y i n g dimensions were considered t o be the major f a c t o r s , and, together with Size of Supportive Component, formed the f o c u s of much subsequent work. L i n e C o n t r o l of Workflow being u s u a l l y omitted, although a t h i r d group of performance v a r i a b l e s , was a l s o proposed i n the o r i g i n a l c o n c e p t u a l o u t l i n e (Pugh e t a l . , 1963), these performance v a r i a b l e s do not appear t o have been o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d y e t . A r e p l i c a t i o n with a s m a l l sample was c a r r i e d out by H i l l i n g s and Lee (1971). Inkson e t a l . (19.70a) , and Hickson e t a l . (1971) r e p o r t e d on the use o f an a b b r e v i a t e d form of the o r i g i n a l Aston instruments, f o r measurement of the .two major s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s . S t r u c t u r i n g of A c t i v i t i e s and C o n c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y , together with two c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s . Technology and Dependence. T h i s a b b r e v i a t e d instrument has g e n e r a l l y been p r e f e r r e d f o r use i n subsequent s t u d i e s . However C h i l d (1972) r e p o r t e d a study using the o r i g i n a l measurements on a sample of e i g h t y two o r g a n i z a t i o n s . T h i s study, while c o n f i r m i n g the two main s t r u c t u r a l dimensions, S t r u c t u r i n g of A c t i v i t i e s and C o n c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y , found a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between them, not the mutual independence i n d i c a t e d by other s t u d i e s . K e l s e y * s (1973) f i n d i n g s confirmed t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p to a l i m i t e d e x t e n t , but the q u e s t i o n may s t i l l be regarded a s open. Four s t u d i e s of e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s have used the 17 Inkson s h o r t form i n somewhat modified f a s h i o n . , Newberry (1971) used the instrument f o r the measurement of Community C o l l e g e s i n A l b e r t a and i n B r i t i s h Columbia., T h i s study e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the measures were capable of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g among such o r g a n i z a t i o n s , although i t d i d not c o n s i d e r the g u e s t i o n of sub-runits w i t h i n Community C o l l e g e s . Heron (1972) extended i t s use i n an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o Igrowth stages of C o l l e g e s i n A l b e r t a . , Three main: s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s were found, c l o s e l y resembling those of the Aston studies.„ Sackhey (1976) a l s o used the s h o r t form of the Aston instrument as a b a s i s t o examine the s t r u c t u r e of secondary s c h o o l s i n Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Three u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s were found, resembling those of Aston. In a somewhat more e x t e n s i v e m o d i f i c a t i o n of the Inkson s h o r t form, Kelsey (1973), whose work w i l l be d e a l t with at some le n g t h below, a p p l i e d the measures i n a comparative study of secondary s c h o o l s i n England and i n A l b e r t a . , In t h i s study, the concept of technology, which had been c o n s i d e r e d i n the Aston s t u d i e s as an element of context, was examined a f r e s h i n t h e l i g h t of a t h e o r e t i c a l approach developed by Perrow (1967, 19 70) . T h i s c o n s i d e r a b l y wider view of the concept l e d Kelsey to conceive of technology as p o s s e s s i n g a s t r u c t u r e i n i t s own r i g h t , d i s t i n c t both from other elements of Context and from the Aston s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s , j. T h i s s t r u c t u r e he r e f e r r e d to a s the Workflow S t r u c t u r e , i n t c o n t r a s t to the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e 18 S t r u c t u r e of the Aston s t u d i e s . The concept of Workflow S t r u c t u r e was subsequently used i n modified form, i n a study by Ma r s h a l l (1978). I t was a l s o of rele v a n c e t o the present study that the, data c o l l e c t e d i n the o r i q i n a l Aston study were used i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of technology and an extended d i s c u s s i o n of the concept i n g e n e r a l r e p o r t e d by Hickson e t a l . , (1969) » y The concept o f technology occurs both i n the Aston s t u d i e s and i n r e l a t e d subsequent work, as w e l l as i n other l i n e s of thouqht. The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n reviews the concept and notes i t s r e l e v a n c e f o r the present study. THE CONCEPT OF TECHNOLOGY The Aston group had i d e n t i f i e d as one d i s t i n c t approach t o the study of o r g a n i z a t i o n s , t h a t of the technology t h e o r i s t s . They proposed t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h i s approach among others; i n t h e i r u n i f i e d framework. The technology t h e o r i s t s i n c l u d e d Woodward (1958, 1965), T r i s t and ot h e r s at the T a v i s t o c k I n s t i t u t e ( T r i s t e t a l . , 1963), and Thompson and Bates (1957) . In the Aston framework, technology was used as one o f a number of c o n t e x t u a l elements. Subsequently, Hickson 11969) d i s t i n g u i s h e d three c o n n o t a t i o n s - o p e r a t i o n s t e c h n o l o g y , m a t e r i a l s technology and knowledge technology., Only the f i r s t of these was i m p l i e d i n the Aston use of the term.. 19 I n c o n t r a s t to the technology t h e o r i s t s , the Aston group had argued that technology was not the s a l i e n t element of context. They posited seven c o n t e x t u a l elements, of which technology was only one, I t may be argued, however, t h a t t h i s p o s i t i o n was contingent upon t h e i r r e s t r i c t e d d e f i n i t i o n of the element, and that a broader d e f i n i t i o n would i n v a l i d a t e i t , Hore recent work (Kelsey, 1973; H a r s h a l l , 1978) has argued i n t h i s way, A considerably expanded d e f i n i t i o n of technology had been put forward by Perrow (1967, 1970).. In h i s usage, technology i s "the a c t i o n s t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l performs upon an o b j e c t , with or without the a i d of t o o l s or mechanical devices, i n order to make some change i n that o b j e c t . The o b j e c t , or 'raw ma t e r i a l , * may be a l i v i n g being, human or otherwise, a symbol or an inanimate o b j e c t . " (Perrow, 1967: 195) In Perrow*s view i t i s technology which i s the primary determinant of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . I n t u r n , he ass e r t s t h a t the raw m a t e r i a l determines the technology a p p l i e d to i t . In h i s argument, i t i s not the e s s e n t i a l or enduring q u a l i t i e s of the raw m a t e r i a l which determine the technology, but i t s perceived c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . He i d e n t i f i e s two important perceived c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i t s u n d e r s t a n d a b i l i t y , and i t s s t a b i l i t y or v a r i a b i l i t y . The f i r s t q u a l i t y determines for the processor, the degree to which the raw m a t e r i a l can be understood and th e r e f o r e c o n t r o l l e d , *• The second i n d i c a t e s the degree t o w h i c h . i t can be handled i n a r o u t i n i z e d manner, or whether new procedures and 20 processes must be developed t o handle e x c e p t i o n a l cases. T h i s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n has some a t t r a c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s when ap p l i e d t o people-processing o r g a n i z a t i o n s , r a t h e r than to o r g a n i z a t i o n s which process inanimate or symbolic raw m a t e r i a l s . Perrow himself i l l u s t r a t e s h i s case i n a study of two i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r d e l i n q u e n t s , and uses the concept of technology and the two primary perceived c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of people as raw m a t e r i a l s , to e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the ways i n which delinquents were t r e a t e d i n the two i n s t i t u t i o n s . Perrow's broader c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of technology, and h i s i n s i g h t s i n t o i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y i n people-processing o r g a n i z a t i o n s were used i n an e m p i r i c a l study which u t i l i z e d both Perrow*s viewpoint and the Aston work. This study (Kelsey, 1973) i s o u t l i n e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . THE KELSEY MODIFICATION OF THE ASTON FEAMEHOBK Kelsey used a modified v e r s i o n of the Aston framework i n a study of secondary schools i n Alberta and Y o r k s h i r e . , Two aspects of Kelsey*s work are r e l e v a n t . The f i r s t i s h i s m o d i f i c a t i o n of the Aston framework, and the second i s h i s use of the concept of technology.. 2 1 B o n i f i c a t i o n Of The llston Era me work Although Kelsey*s work modified the Aston instruments and y i e l d e d , i n the a n a l y s i s , some a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s derived from the b a s i c Aston v a r i a b l e "Concentration of A u t h o r i t y " f h i s most s i g n i f i c a n t change was a r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the l o c a t i o n i n the Aston framework of the v a r i a b l e technology. The o r i g i n a l Aston work proposed two kinds of v a r i a b l e s , elements of context and elements of s t r u c t u r e . , The c o n t e x t u a l elements were thought of, i n t h a t work, as e x t e r n a l t o and p a r t l y determinant of the elements of s t r u c t u r e . , The s t r u c t u r e i n guestion was that of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the o r g a n i z a t i o n , as d i s t i n c t from the workflow: of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . That i s to say, the Aston group was concerned with such elements as s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n , f o r m a l i z a t i o n , and c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , and not with such matters as how the metal i s shaped, or how the production l i n e i s set up, or how a teacher a c t u a l l y teaches i n a classroom. The one element i n the Aston framework which had to do with the workflow was that of technology, conceived by them as a c o n t e x t u a l element, e x t e r n a l t o the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e . Kelsey took t h i s concept of technology, pointed out that i t could be broadened along the l i n e s of Perrow's r a t i o n a l e described above, and reconceptualized i t as another kind of s t r u c t u r e - not now an A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e , but a Workflow S t r u c t u r e . This new Workflow St r u c t u r e was i t s e l f conceived as m u l t i - v a r i a t e , 22 M o d i f i c a t i o n Of The Concept Of Technology Kelsey*s use of the concept of technology was d e r i v e d from Perrow. In making t h i s d e r i v a t i o n , however, Kelsey added one more change. Whereas Perrow had expressed the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of raw m a t e r i a l s i n terms of r o u t i n i z a t i p n , Kelsey> f o r purposes of a p p l i c a t i o n i n an. e d u c a t i o n a l environment, expressed i t i n terms of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n . His measurement of technology was by means of an instrument concerned with D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Workflow. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow was i n i t i a l l y c o n c e i v e d as a composite, composed of s i x u n d e r l y i n g elements, termed equi p p i n g , sequencing, c o n t r o l , e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g * placement, and scope.. The o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n was done i n these terms. However, Kelsey*s f i n d i n g s d i d not v e r i f y these elements as d i s c r e t e f a c t o r s . Two u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r s were i d e n t i f i e d , termed P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n and Acceptance. In the work: of M a r s h a l l (1978), which used t h e Kelsey instrument, n e i t h e r of these f a c t o r s was i d e n t i f i e d , but a f a c t o r termed D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l was found.. These f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow i s a r i c h v a r i a b l e , capable of v a r i e d o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s . K e l s e y * s r e v i s e d model of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s i n c l u d e d two s t r u c t u r a l complexes - elements of school A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e , and elements of s c h o o l Workflow S t r u c t u r e , s u b j e c t t o e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t s , through the elements 23 of Context. He r e f i n e d t h i s model using r e s u l t s from the a n a l y s i s of twenty one s c h o o l s i n Y o r k s h i r e , England and Edmonton, A l b e r t a . . Because the concept of Workflow, S t r u c t u r e i s newly i n t r o d u c e d here, i t may be a p p r o p r i a t e t o c o n s i d e r b r i e f l y i t s r e l a t i o n t o other n o n - a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and non-contextual f e a t u r e s of an o r g a n i z a t i o n which are r e l a t e d t o the workflow. One may speak of the workflow processes o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n . These are " t h e a c t i o n s t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l performs upon an o b j e c t , . . . i n order t o make some change i n t h a t o b j e c t . " (Perrow, 1967: 195). The Workflow S t r u c t u r e may then be thought of as t h e : p a t t e r n s o f a c t i v i t i e s , which b r i n g order to the workflow processes. These two concepts - workflow processes and workflow s t r u c t u r e - must be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from two other c o n c e p t s . One i s the r u l e s and procedures co n c e r n i n g the workflow w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n , which may c o n s t r a i n t o a g r e a t e r o r l e s s e r degree both the Workflow S t r u c t u r e and the workflow, p r o c e s s e s . - They are not i d e n t i c a l with the Workflow S t r u c t u r e (the r e g u l a r patterns) but are proximate and p r e s c r i p t i v e t o th a t s t r u c t u r e . L a s t l y , one may conceive o f what H i l l s (1977) r e f e r s t o as the i d e o l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e , which denotes the p r e v a i l i n g a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n , that may c o n s t r a i n t o a gr e a t e r or l e s s e r degree each o f the other three concepts. These d i s t i n c t i o n s were not made by Kelsey, although they were i m p l i c i t i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n , and h i s o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of Workflow S t r u c t u r e corresponds t o 24 the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n j u s t o u t l i n e d . Among the Kelsey f i n d i n g s were two of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r r the present study. Contrary to h i s i n i t i a l s u p p o s i t i o n , Kelsey found l i t t l e or no r e l a t i o n s h i p between the elements o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and o f Workflow S t r u c t u r e . In a d d i t i o n , he found a s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between elements of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e at the system l e v e l and elements of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e at t h e s c h o o l l e v e l . The l a c k of r e l a t i o n s h i p between the elements o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and o f Workflow S t r u c t u r e i n the s c h o o l s s t u d i e d by Kelsey r a i s e d some i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n s . I f such a l a c k o f r e l a t i o n proved c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n g e n e r a l , one might ask whether t h i s i s an area of r e a l d i f f e r e n c e between e d u c a t i o n a l and other kinds o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s . What i s t h e purpose of s t u d y i n g e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , i f i n f a c t , i t has no impact o n i t h e process o f educating? A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i f only some e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s d i s p l a y t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , what e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r such d i f f e r e n c e s can be advanced? A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s that the two s t r u c t u r e s are not i n t r i n s i c a l l y u n r e l a t e d i n e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , but t h a t i n s i t u a t i o n s such as t h a t of the o r g a n i z a t i o n s of the Kelsey study, the i n f l u e n c e o f t h e s u p e r o r d i n a t e system i s strong enough t o prevent any i n f l u e n c e between . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and Workflow S t r u c t u r e s at the s u b o r d i n a t e l e v e l (Kelsey, 1973:230-238). To t e s t t h i s would r e q u i r e a s e t of s i m i l a r 25 o r g a n i z a t i o n s , not s a b j e c t to a s i n g l e system i n f l u e n c e , or i n which such i n f l u e n c e was weak. , Such a t e s t would be - d i f f i c u l t t o c a r r y out i n s c h o o l s l i k e those s t u d i e d by Kelsey, s i n c e most sc h o o l s do form a part o f a wider i n f l u e n t i a l system. Community C o l l e g e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, as t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , however, are r e l a t i v e l y autonomous. , Thus, they c o u l d meet t h i s requirement f o r t e s t i n g an i n t r i n s i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and workflow s t r u c t u r e s . ., Yet the absence of an o v e r a r c h i n g system does not n e c e s s a r i l y imply t h a t Community C o l l e g e s are u n l i k e s c h o o l s i n many other r e s p e c t s . The r e l e v a n t question i s whether they are s u f f i c i e n t l y l i k e the s c h o o l s s t u d i e d by Kelsey, i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s measured by him, t o permit v a l i d comparisons between the two s e t s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s . A case w i l l be made below t h a t the two are a l i k e enough t o permit t h i s comparison.,. Kelsey's second f i n d i n g , the s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between elements of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e a t the system l e v e l and such elements at the s c h o o l l e v e l , a l s o seems germane to the concept of P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance. ,; Although not suggested by Kelsey i t r a i s e s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s u b - u n i t s , such as s c h o o l s or C o l l e g e Departments may be p e r c e i v e d to be more or l e s s adequate, the more or l e s s c l o s e l y they correspond to system p r a c t i c e , p r e s c r i p t i o n , p a t t e r n s or i d e o l o g y . . I n t u r n , t h i s i m p l i e s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n as s u b j e c t s of r e s e a r c h . / These i d e a s w i l l be e x p l o r e d f u r t h e r i n Chapter 3, i n d i s c u s s i o n o f the c o n c e p t u a l 26 framework of the present study. PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE I t was noted on pages 5-7 t h a t there i s a l a c k o f o b j e c t i v e l y u s e f u l measures of performance i n s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n draws on a u s e f u l summary provided by Hassen (1976:33-39) .• Hassen, f o l l o w i n g H a l l (1972) d i s t i n g u i s h e d t h r e e kinds of approach t o the measurement o f e f f e c t i v e n e s s . . These were termed the go a l approach, t h e system-resources approach, and the m u l t i p l e c r i t e r i a approach. The g o a l approach measures e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n terms of whether the g o a l s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n are reached..; But, as E t z i o n i (1964) p o i n t s out, on t h i s b a s i s any o r g a n i z a t i o n can almost always be deemed a f a i l u r e . In a d d i t i o n , an o r g a n i z a t i o n may have many, perhaps c o n f l i c t i n g g o a l s . The systems-resources approach judges an o r g a n i z a t i o n on the b a s i s of how w e l l i t operates i n i t s environments , This was the approach used by Seashore and Yuchtman (1967). The major c r i t i c i s m of t h i s type o f e v a l u a t i o n i s t h a t i t s s i t u a t i o n -s p e c i f i c i t y i s not l i k e l y t o lead t o meaningful g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s . A c c o r d i n g l y , r e s e a r c h e r s were l e d t o co n s i d e r an approach which would c o n s i d e r many c r i t e r i a . Mahoney (1967) and Mahoney and H e i t z e l (1969) i d e n t i f i e d twenty f o u r dimensions of 27 e f f e c t i v e n e s s , which appeared t o be independent. A s i m i l a r approach was that of Coleman ( 197 2), who i d e n t i f i e d f i v e c r i t e r i a f o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . L i k e r t (1967:47-77) suggested t h a t m u l t i p l e c r i t e r i a f a l l i n t o three groups of (1) c a u s a l , (2.) i n t e r v e n i n g , and (3) output v a r i a b l e s . The instrument adopted by Hassen, was that developed by Mott (1972). The approaches o u t l i n e d above had been conducted l a r g e l y i n business and i n d u s t r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . That of Mott was concerned with s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , i t appeared to be l e s s s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c than many other approaches./ The instrument developed by Mott had a l s o been shown to be v a l i d and r e l i a b l e i n t e s t - r e t e s t s performed i n a government agency and i n a mental h o s p i t a l ( Mott, 1972: 199). Subsequently, Hassen used the instrument i n a study which examined one community c o l l e g e i n Al b e r t a (Hassen, 1976). SUMMARY A r a d i c a l departure from u n i t a r y concepts of bur e a u c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s was made by the Aston s t u d i e s . These s t u d i e s conceived of a set of Jva m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l i t y . Subsequent s t u d i e s confirmed i n larg e measure the major f i n d i n g s of the i n i t i a l s t u d i e s with regard t o s a l i e n t dimensions o f or g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e , but a l s o modified both the Aston instruments and one feature of the conceptual framework. 28 Kelsey*s (1973) r e v i s i o n p o s t u l a t e d two d i f f e r e n t kinds of s t r u c t u r e i n e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s - an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and a Workflow S t r u c t u r e . Among the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study, were two of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t . The l a c k o f r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the s c h o o l s , between the elements of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and those of Workflow S t r u c t u r e was unexpected, and i s i n need of re-examination. The strong r e l a t i o n s h i p which Kelsey found between elements of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e a t the system l e v e l and those o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e at the sub-unit l e v e l suggested t h a t a study of e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s which were not s u b j e c t t o such a str o n g system i n f l u e n c e might throw f u r t h e r l i g h t on the q u e s t i o n . Community C o l l e g e s were c o n s i d e r e d t o : o f f e r an a p p r o p r i a t e type of o r g a n i z a t i o n > f o r such study.., R e l a t i o n s h i p s among the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and Workflow S t r u c t u r e v a r i a b l e s a t the system and s c h o o l l e v e l s a l s o seemed germane t o the concept of P e r c e i v e d adequacy of Performance. The l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l e d , however, a p a u c i t y o f i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n s u i t a b l e f o r the study of e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . One study which examined r e l a t i o n s h i p s between e f f e c t i v e n e s s and s t r u c t u r e used an instrument developed by Mott ( 1972) which appeared u s e f u l f o r the examination o f e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . ,•• The l i t e r a t u r e seems to i n d i c a t e that a study which examined a d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and Workflow S t r u c t u r e i n Community C o l l e g e o r g a n i z a t i o n s would be u s e f u l . , The present 29 study attempted to do t h i s and was based on the conceptual framework described i n the following chapter, which w i l l outline how the framework was derived from Kelsey*s modification of the o r i g i n a l Aston framework, and deal at greater length ,:withv:;the concepts of Perceived Adequacy of Performance and Congruence. 30 CHAPTER 3 THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, THE VARIABLES AND DEFINITION OF TERMS CONCEPTU AL FRAMEWORK The conceptual framework of the present study was an extension of that developed by Kelsey., I t s o v e r a l l t h e o r e t i c a l perspective was tha t of the Aston researchers. The d i s t i n c t i o n which they made between elements of Context and elements of Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e , was used i n conjunction with the concept of Workflow Structure developed by Kelsey, f o l l o w i n g Perrow.,, K e l s e y ^ concept of Workflow S t r u c t u r e c o n s t i t u t e s , i n one sense, an adaptation of the Aston framework. I t abs t r a c t e d the element of Context c a l l e d technology from the general set of con t e x t u a l elements, and elaborated i t i n t o a set of s t r u c t u r a l elements.. These were s t i l l c o n t e x t u a l to those of Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e , but now c o n s t i t u t e d an independent set of s t r u c t u r a l elements, t h e o r e t i c a l l y d i s t i n c t from those of Context or A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e . The conceptual framework of the present study d i d not i n c l u d e most of the remaining c o n t e x t u a l elements of the Aston 31 framework. I t d i d i n c l u d e the c o n t e x t u a l element Type, o f t h e Kelsey model, but used i t only f o r convenience of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between sub-components of the whole sample, and not f o r purposes of any of the c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s e s . . In a d d i t i o n , the framework of the study i n c l u d e d the concepts of P e r c e i v e d adequacy of Performance, and of Congruence between elements o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e at parent o r g a n i z a t i o n and sub-unit l e v e l s , and between elements of Workflow S t r u c t u r e a t those l e v e l s . . F i g u r e 1 shows the model f o r the present study., I t may be viewed as a g e n e r a l i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the K e l s e y model. The elements of t h a t model are here reproduced a t two separate l e v e l s , t h a t of the parent C o l l e g e , and t h a t of the Department. The c o n t e x t u a l elements, and the s t r u c t u r a l element S i z e of Supportive Component are shown with dotted l i n e s , because they d i d not form p a r t of t h e model as i t was used and r e p o r t e d i n the present study.. The model c o n s i s t e d of t h i s double s e t of the remaining elements of F i g u r e 1, p l u s the d e r i v e d element of Congruence, of h y p o t h e s i z e d r e l a t i o n s among those elements, and of h y p o t h e s i z e d r e l a t i o n s among them and the element of P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance. The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s d e s c r i b e t h e assumptions of the model, and how these were d i f f e r e n t from those of K e l s e y . T h i s d i s c u s s i o n a l s o e n t a i l s f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the concepts of Perceived Adeguacy of Performance and Congruence, and of the n o t i o n of l e v e l s of o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h i n an e d u c a t i o n a l 32 o r g a n i z a t i o n . Assumptions Of The Model In the Kelsey study, seven assumptions were noted. Since t h a t was a comparative study, not a l l of the assumptions were a p p r o p r i a t e t o the present purposes, and some a d d i t i o n a l ones were needed. Moreover, the Kelsey study was concerned with s c h o o l s , while the present study focussed on C o l l e g e s . , The assumptions of the present study were as f o l l o w s . •I...,- A l l C o l l e g e o r g a n i z a t i o n s e x i s t i n a s o c i o - c u l t u r a l and economic environment, and t h a t environment impinges i n some way on a l l processes i n the C o l l e g e . . 2. A Co l l e g e w i l l be of a s p e c i f i c s i z e and type.. 3. A C o l l e g e Department (sub-unit) w i l l belong to a parent C o l l e g e o r g a n i z a t i o n , and w i l l be of a s p e c i f i c s i z e and type. 4. Although any a c t i v i t y i n a C o l l e g e o r g a n i z a t i o n or C o l l e g e Department (sub-unit) i s e s s e n t i a l l y a c t i v i t y on the p a r t o f one or more members of t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n ^ t h e r e e x i s t r e g u l a r i t i e s i n a c t i v i t y which make i t p o s s i b l e to speak of s t r u c t u r a l elements i n C o l l e g e and C o l l e g e Department o r g a n i z a t i o n s . 5. Although the C o l l e g e o r g a n i z a t i o n t o which the sub-unit belongs w i l l have o p e r a t i n g p o l i c i e s common to a l l s u b - u n i t s i n the C o l l e g e , each i n d i v i d u a l sub-unit w i l l e x h i b i t s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which may d i f f e r from those of other s u b - u n i t s i n the same College.,, C o l l e g e L e v e l Geographic .Location S o c i o -C u l t u r a l and Economic E n v i r o n -ment I C o n t e x t u a l | S i z e Type Loc_aticm_ Elements Elements of F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n F o r m a l i z a t i o n o f Role D e f i n i t i o n C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f A u t h o r i t y Autonomy  _ J D i s c r e t i o n  _ J I n - u n i t D e c i s i o n L e v e l _ _ l j J ^ S u p p o r t ^ v e Compmie.nt^ | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e Elements of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Workflow I Workflow S t r u c t u r e Congruence R e l a t i o n Department L e v e l ^- I C o n t e x t u a l "T | 1 S i z e 1_! r - t I I —L-r | t Type I 1 L o c a t i o n !_! j-4 _^ lilemen ts ^ -T-I _ Elements o f | F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n | | F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n | 1 C o n c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y | 1 Autonomy | | D i s c r e t i o n | I n - u n i t D e c i s i o n L e v e l | FJsize _f_S_P£o£tiy£ £ojm,ioneivt _ ] 1 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e |" Elements of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow 1 Workflow S t r u c t u r e | P e r c e i v e d Adequacy o f Performance F i g u r e I A Model o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o n s t r a i n t s on the P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance of C o l l e g e Departments CO co 6., Each C o l l e g e , and each C o l l e g e Department (sub-unit) w i l l use a technology which may be d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of other C o l l e g e s , or of other C o l l e g e Departments ( s u b - u n i t s ) . 7., In any C o l l e g e or C o l l e g e Department, the environment, the l o c a l system, the type and s i z e of C o l l e g e or C o l l e g e Department, the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and the s t r u c t u r e of the workflow w i l l impose c o n s t r a i n t s on i n d i v i d u a l classroom p r o c e s s e s . 8. The concepts of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and of Workflow S t r u c t u r e , which have proved u s e f u l i n the a n a l y s i s of i n d u s t r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and of secondary school o r g a n i z a t i o n s , can prove u s e f u l f o r the a n a l y s i s o f both C o l l e g e s and of C o l l e g e Departments ( s u b - u n i t s ) . , 9. Elements of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and of Workflow S t r u c t u r e s can be measured both i n C o l l e g e s and i n C o l l e g e Departments (sub-units) . / 1 0 . The p a r t i c u l a r elements o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and of Workflow S t r u c t u r e which have proved a p p r o p r i a t e and u s e f u l f o r the a n a l y s i s of secondary s c h o o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , are a p p r o p r i a t e and u s e f u l f o r the a n a l y s i s of C o l l e g e s and C o l l e g e Departments (sub-units) 1 1 . Elements of P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance can be measured both i n C o l l e g e s and i n C o l l e g e Departments (sub-units) 'i 1 2 . Congruence between C o l l e g e s and C o l l e g e Departments (sub-units);, on s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s can be measured. 35 The Present Model As An Extension Of The Kelsey, Model In the present study, the Kelsey model was extended i n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t ways. F i r s t t h e r e was an ex t e n s i o n o f the model from i t s use i n the a n a l y s i s o f s c h o o l s , to i t s use i n the a n a l y s i s of Community C o l l e g e s . , Second, the model was extended from use i n the a n a l y s i s o f a t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , t o i t s use i n the a n a l y s i s of both a t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and i t s s u b - u n i t s . T h i r d , a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s o f P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance and Congruence were i n c l u d e d i n the model. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of each o f these changes needed to be c o n s i d e r e d . / The Extension To Community C o l l e g e s . To extend the Kelsey model t o the study of c o l l e g e s assumes that apparent d i f f e r e n c e s between secondary s c h o o l s and the c o l l e g e s are not g r e a t enough to prevent the use of t h e same b a s i c c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n i n the study of both k i n d s of o r g a n i z a t i o n and a l s o that the same o r s i m i l a r r e s e a r c h instruments can be a p p l i e d t o both.,. The f i r s t of these assumptions can be supported by noting c e r t a i n s a l i e n t a s p e c t s of the two kin d s of o r g a n i z a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the context o f B.,C. where the sample of the present study was l o c a t e d . F i r s t , both s c h o o l s and c o l l e g e s were operated u n t i l r e c e n t l y under the B. C. P u b l i c S c h o o l s A c t . Second, notwithstanding the d i f f e r e n c e i n the average age of students i n s c h o o l s and c o l l e g e s , there i s some o v e r l a p i n the age ranges served by each. Students as young as f i f t e e n may e n r o l i n c o l l e g e s , and s c h o o l systems sometimes c a t e r f o r a d u l t 36 l e a r n e r s , , T h i r d , the c u r r i c u l a of the two k i n d s of o r g a n i z a t i o n are s i m i l a r i n many respects. Fourth, although schools are t y p i c a l l y thought of as having students who are compelled t o a t t e n d , t h i s compulsion stops a t f i f t e e n , so t h a t senior secondary s c h o o l students are under no l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n t o attend. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , a l s o , c o l l e g e s f r e q u e n t l y e n r o l students (e.g.. Students sponsored by the Department of Manpower) f o r whom a degree of compulsion i s e v i d e n t l y present. F i n a l l y , although the c o n t r o l of students i s more evident and more r i g o r o u s i n schools than i n c o l l e g e s , the c o l l e g e can by no means ignore the c o n t r o l of students, and i t i s p l a u s i b l e t o suggest that the f u n c t i o n of c o n t r o l l i n g students i s performed i n both o r g a n i z a t i o n s , a l b e i t i n d i f f e r e n t ways. , The assumption that the research instruments used i n schools could be a p p l i e d to c o l l e g e s was v e r i f i e d by a c l o s e examination of the underlying concepts, the items and the wording of the Kelsey instruments. I t was apparent t h a t the instruments measuring A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e were con c e p t u a l l y and o p e r a t i o n a l l y appropriate t o c o l l e g e s with only minor changes of wording.. The measurement of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n ? of Workflow n e c e s s i t a t e d greater changes i n wording, but the underlying c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the instrument was found to be appropriate t o the c o l l e g e o r g a n i z a t i o n * 3 7 The E x t e n s i o n To Two L e v e l s . The Kelsey study .dealt with whole o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The o r i g i n a l Aston s t u d i e s , however,, were concerned with both whole o r g a n i z a t i o n s and w i t h , s u b - u n i t s t h e r e o f . Indeed, one of the elements of the o r i g i n a l model was the v a r i a b l e Autonomy. There was thus t h e o r e t i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the study of sub-units,, In the course of the Kelsey study, i t was found necessary t o d i s t i n g u i s h between the s c h o o l and the system l e v e l s of two elements o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e , C e n t r a l i z a t i o n and F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Hole D e f i n i t i o n . , B h i l e the school system does not bear p r e c i s e l y t h e same r e l a t i o n t o i n d i v i d u a l s c h o o l s t h a t a C o l l e g e bears t o i t s c o n s t i t u t e n t Departments, i t seems reasonable t o suppose t h a t they are s u f f i c i e n t l y s i m i l a r , t o warrant b i - l e v e l a n a l y s i s , e s p e c i a l l y i n , view, of the g e n e r a l s i m i l a r i t y of s c h o o l s t o C o l l e g e s which has been d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r . Another problem rconcerned t h e s i z e of C o l l e g e Departments, measured i n numbers o f employees. Since these numbers may i n some cases be r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l , t h e r e was a guestion whether the Aston approach c o u l d u s e f u l l y be a p p l i e d . The i n i t i a l , s t u d i e s were c a r r i e d out i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s ranging i n s i z e from about two hundred and f i f t y t o over two thousand employees. The Newberry (1971) study, however, found t h a t t h e model was a p p l i c a b l e i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s with as few as f o r t y - t w o employees. I n the C o l l e g e s which formed the sample of the present study, the Departments s t u d i e d i n c l u d e d some of l a r g e r s i z e than t h i s . I n 38 t h e case of some which were s m a l l e r , the q u e s t i o n o f a p p l i c a b i l i t y c o u l d o n l y be answered empirically.;.; A f i n a l q u e s t i o n concerned the v a r i a b l e Workflow S t r u c t u r e . , Both C o l l e g e s and C o l l e g e Departments may have s e p a r a t e and i d e n t i f i a b l e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e s , but a C o l l e g e t y p i c a l l y has on l y one workflow, to which a technology i s a p p l i e d . T h i s f a c t r a i s e d the q u e s t i o n of whether t h e r e c o u l d be more than one technology i n a C o l l e g e . An examination of the ways i n which Departments may arrange f o r the education of students w i t h i n a C o l l e g e suggested t h a t t h e r e c o u l d be more than one Workflow S t r u c t u r e . What i s pe r m i t t e d and supposed t o occur w i t h i n the C o l l e g e as a whole, may be added t o o r modified w i t h i n a, s p e c i f i c Department, which may s t a t e other c o n d i t i o n s which are permitted or expected t o a p p l y . The Departmental technology may a l s o d i f f e r from t h a t of the C o l l e g e by a d d i t i o n , by s u b t r a c t i o n o r by m o d i f i c a t i o n . , A Department may sometimes deny the implementation of a C o l l e g e e x p e c t a t i o n , so t h a t i t s technology may d i f f e r by reason of s u b t r a c t i o n . , Aspects of the workflow may be unique t o c e r t a i n Departments which may t h e r e f o r e make s p e c i f i c a t i o n s which a r e not co n s i d e r e d a t a l l i n the C o l l e g e as a whole. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and implementation of p r a c t i c e s and procedures s p e c i f i e d by the C o l l e g e may vary between Departments. There are thus s e v e r a l grounds on which t o expect d i f f e r e n c e s of technology between the C o l l e g e and i t s Departments. , a d d i t i o n s To The Kelsey Model. The v a r i a b l e s o f Congruence and P e r c e i v e d adequacy of Performance were added t o the model. The i d e a of Congruence was based on the e x i s t e n c e of d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of o r g a n i z a t i o n i n c o l l e g e s . , . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of these two concepts i s d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s . L e v e l s Of O r g a n i z a t i o n and The Concept Of Congruence Many e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s do not c o n s i s t of a s i n g l e l e v e l , but are organized i n some kind of h i e r a r c h y o f Departments or o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l s . Thus, s c h o o l s f u n c t i o n w i t h i n a school d i s t r i c t , and may be i n t e r n a l l y d e partmentalized. C o l l e g e s are departmentalized and f u n c t i o n w i t h i n a r e g i o n a l education system./ Some of t h e aston v a r i a b l e s were shown t o be measurable i n both autonomous o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n s u b - u n i t s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s . K e l s e y (1973) found that C e n t r a l i z a t i o n and F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n could each be measured both at t h e l e v e l of the s c h o o l system, and a t the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l school - that i s to say, at two separate system l e v e l s . , Once one accepts the p o s s i b i l i t y o f measuring the same elements a t both o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and sub-u n i t l e v e l s , i t becomes t h e o r e t i c a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g to ask how the two l e v e l s compare with each other on the same measures., Such comparison might take s e v e r a l forms. In terms of the Kelsey model, i t might i n c l u d e comparison of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 40 S t r u c t u r e s or of Workflow S t r u c t u r e s . , In each case, the comparison would be of elements o f s t r u c t u r e a t two d i f f e r e n t system l e v e l s . I n the case of Workflow S t r u c t u r e , however, i t i s necessary to keep i n mind t h e d i f f e r e n c e d i s c u s s e d above between workflow processes and Workflow: S t r u c t u r e . In an o r g a n i z a t i o n t h e r e i s not, u s u a l l y , more than . one s e t of workflow, proc e s s e s . / There may, however, be more, than one way of s t r u c t u r i n g those processes, more than one Workflow S t r u c t u r e . In a C o l l e g e , t h e r e i s only one s e t of classroom p r o c e s s e s . The r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n i s whether what i s supposed or permitted t o happen i s d i f f e r e n t i n any way at each l e v e l , i n r e f e r e n c e t o the same workflow processes, whether the Workflow S t r u c t u r e which p a t t e r n s the processes i s d i f f e r e n t a t the two l e v e l s . , Another comparison might be made between the r e l a t i o n s h i p , i f any, of the elements o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and those of Workflow S t r u c t u r e a t one l e v e l , and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the elements of each k i n d o f s t r u c t u r e at the second l e v e l . Or, the comparison might be made i n r e s p e c t of a l l elements o f both s t r u c t u r e s at both l e v e l s - a comparison of o v e r a l l p r o f i l e . , With r e s p e c t to t h e concept of Congruence of Workflow S t r u c t u r e , t h e r e are a g a i n ; s e v e r a l ways i n which a C o l l e g e Department might d i f f e r from the C o l l e g e as a whole. An example may c l a r i f y t he p o i n t . The i n s t i t u t i o n may i s s u e v a r i o u s documents t o s e t out p o l i c y , d e f i n e terms of r e f e r e n c e . 4 1 e t c . Implementation of these w i l l u s u a l l y be c a r r i e d out a t the departmental l e v e l , p a r t i c u l a r l y when they , coneern the workflow.. Now; a given Department may r e p l i c a t e such documents with Departmentally generated documents of i t s own; repeating or i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e i r substance w i t h i n i t s own context,- Whether or not t h i s i s done, the Department may or may not implement the substance of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e x p e c t a t i o n s , or p r e s c r i p t i o n s , what t h i s means i s that the Department may be more or l e s s s i m i l a r t o the C o l l e g e , both by means of r e p l i c a t i o n and by means of implementation. , One f u r t h e r r e s u l t of the p o s s i b i l i t y of comparing the two l e v e l s w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n i s that i t permits one to ask whether such a comparison provides information which may be useful i n determining what a f f e c t s an observer's perception of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of performance of a sub-unit., The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n discusses the concept of Perceived Adequacy of Performance, and i s followed by a s e c t i o n d i s c u s s i n g the p o s s i b l e a s s o c i a t i o n between Perceived Adeguacy of Performance and Congruence., Perceived Adequacy Of Performance Some comments were made on pages 5-7 on the problems of measuring a c t u a l performance i n ed u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The view taken i n t h i s study was that measures of Perceived Adeguacy of Performance might c o n s t i t u t e a us e f u l step toward the 42 development of measures of a c t u a l performance. At the l e v e l of p r a c t i c e , one i s concerned with how w e l l an o r g a n i z a t i o n does whatever i t i s supposed to do. The d i f f i c u l t i e s of measuring t h i s are apparent. Bhat, i n f a c t , i s the o r g a n i z a t i o n supposed t o do? Are we measuring i t s a c t u a l performance, or a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s about i t ? I t seems l i k e l y t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , the b e t t e r or more s u c c e s s f u l l y an o r g a n i z a t i o n or one of i t s sub-units performs, the more adequate i t w i l l be seen to be, both by i t s own members and by e x t e r n a l informed or concerned observers.„ The Perceived Adequacy of Performance of an o r g a n i z a t i o n , as measured by the judgements of i t s own members and of outside observers may be r e l a t e d to i t s a c t u a l performance. I t a l s o seems p o s s i b l e that there could be a feedback e f f e c t from Perceived Adequacy of Performance to r e a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of performance.. The more adequate the :members of an o r g a n i z a t i o n f e e l themselves to be or f e e l .themselves perceived to be, the more e f f e c t i v e t h e i r performance may become. Although the mechanisms of such a s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy are f a r from c l e a r , and they were not i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s study, some support i s given to the idea i n those s t u d i e s of teacher perceptions of c h i l d r e n and c h i l d r e n V s performance, which suggest that the academic success of c h i l d r e n i s increased when the c h i l d r e n are given t o understand t h a t they have scored w e l l on c e r t a i n t e s t s , or when the teacher i s informed t h a t c e r t a i n c h i l d r e n are " b r i g h t " , even when the c h i l d r e n so 43 i d e n t i f i e d nay have been s e l e c t e d at random (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968). i In c o n s t r u c t i n g a model t o depict the i n f l u e n c e s which enter i n t o the e v a l u a t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l -perf:Qr^anciey.;;'it.;;:.i..s hard to ignore the pos s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p with s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . The multi-dimensional nature of the Aston framework i s well-adapted to the c o n s t r u c t i o n of such a wider model. Nonetheless, i t may w e l l be that even such a r e l a t i v e l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t r u c t u r a l model f a i l s to i n c o r p o r a t e a l l aspects of the p o t e n t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n between s t r u c t u r e and e v a l u a t i o n of performance.. One other k i n d of i n f l u e n c e may be r e l a t e d l e s s to s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n absolute terms, than t o the s t r u c t u r e i n comparison with other s t r u c t u r e s , with which the eval u a t o r may be f a m i l i a r . Congruence And Perceived Ad_eguacy Of Performance The concept of Congruence was used t o express comparisons between s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Colleges and t h e i r Departments. I t may also be u s e f u l i n c o n s i d e r i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s a department i s perceived t o have.., I t i s po s s i b l e that an observer i s more l i k e l y t o assess a sub-unit as more e f f e c t i v e , i f i t i s s i m i l a r i n some respects to the parent o r g a n i z a t i o n , than i f i t i s d i s s i m i l a r . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , aa observer's perception of the adeguacy of performance of a sub-unit might be i n f l u e n c e d by the degree of s i m i l a r i t y or d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t i n g between v a r i o u s s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s at the sub-unit l e v e l and at the t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l . The Perceived Adequacy of Performance of a sub-unit might be r e l a t e d to i t s degree of Congruence with the t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , i n terms of those s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s . . Such an e f f e c t on the observer's perception might occur, c o n s c i o u s l y or unconsciously, whether or not the s i m i l a r i t y has any r e a l e f f e c t on performance. Any estimate of adequacy i s made by comparison with some other r e f e r e n t , e i t h e r a r e a l example of adequacy, or a h y p o t h e t i c a l one. , For example, we might say t h a t Joe i s a slower runner than Hike, t h e school champion, or t h a t a College book store charges more money, and has a smaller stock than a O n i v e r s i t y bookstore.. H y p o t h e t i c a l r e f e r e n t s are i n mind when, f o r example, we say of a b e a u t i f u l woman t h a t she approaches p e r f e c t i o n , or of a shoe r e p a i r shop, t h a t i t did a job as w e l l as i t could have been done. In the case of a College Department,, there i s no common benchmark f o r comparison, but i t i s perhaps reasonable to suggest t h a t t o some degree, the parent o r g a n i z a t i o n may serve as a r e f e r e n t . That i s the other o r g a n i z a t i o n beside t h e i r own Department, with which most College observers w i l l be f a m i l i a r . But each Department i s d i f f e r e n t from othe r s , whereas the t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , because i t contains a l l - the .Depa£tmea^S:v#.ii:Hi'n,i^s s t r u c t u r e , w i l l presumably have some p o i n t s of s i m i l a r i t y t o each of them. 45 & second reason t o support a p o s s i b l e a s s o c i a t i o n between Perc e i v e d Adequacy o f Performance and Congruence i s t h a t i n a given o r g a n i z a t i o n , r e a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s u b - u n i t s may be r e l a t e d to t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y i n c e r t a i n r e s p e c t s , t o the tota1 o r g a n i z a t i o n . F o r example, i d e n t i t y , or s i m i l a r i t y o f goals between the t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and the s u b - u n i t c o u l d be r e l a t e d to the way adeguacy i s p e r c e i v e d , A concerted e f f o r t t o reach common g o a l s might be best forwarded by s i m i l a r l y s t r u c t u r e d o r g a n i z a t i o n . Another c o n s i d e r a t i o n has to do with what i s sometimes c a l l e d "the odd man out", as opposed to " g e t t i n g along by going alon g " . I t was suggested above t h a t p e r c e i v e d adeguacy might l e a d to e f f e c t s c r e a t i n g r e a l .adeguacy, a l l o c a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y , of budget, e t c . P e r c e i v e d s i m i l a r i t y might a l s o l e a d to such r e a l e f f e c t s . , Greater success i n o b t a i n i n g budgets and s t a f f may w e l l l e a d observers t o / p e r c e i v e b e t t e r performance., Of c o u r s e , those e x t r a s t a f f , t h a t bigger budget c o u l d l e a d to g r e a t e r r e a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s , and to a f u r t h e r consequent impact on the p e r c e p t i o n of o b s e r v e r s . THE VARIABLES The study examined seven v a r i a b l e s of s t r u c t u r e . . These were F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n , F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n , C o n c e n t r a t i o n of Author i t y . Discretion,,! - A utonomy, In-Unit L e v e l of D e c i s i o n - B a k i n g , and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of 46 Workflow.; , The study a l s o examined v a r i a b l e s of Conaruenee^ which were derived from the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s , and v a r i a b l e s of Perceived Adequacy of Performance. Some of these v a r i a b l e s were measured i n more than one way. Although c o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e s were not examined, one contextual v a r i a b l e , Tj£Ee* w a s incorporated t o permit examination of other v a r i a b l e s i n sub-components of the whole sample. , Formal d e f i n i t i o n s of the v a r i a b l e s are given below i n the D e f i n i t i o n of Terms. f The f o l l o w i n g paragraphs w i l l give some general d e s c r i p t i o n and the d e r i v a t i o n of these v a r i a b l e s , which are a l s o summarized i n Table 1. Contextual V a r i a b l e s The Aston s t u d i e s defined seven v a r i a b l e s of Context (Pugh et a l . , 1969): O r i g i n and H i s t o r y , Ownership and C o n t r o l , S i z e , Charter, Technology, Location (number of operating s i t e s ) and Dependence on other o r g a n i z a t i o n s . To these, Kelsey added an eighth> termed Type. For reasons given by Kelsey (1973), O r i g i n and H i s t o r y , Ownership and C o n t r o l , Charter and Dependence were considered i n a p p r o p r i a t e to the c o l l e g e s of the present sample. S i z e i s not reported, because r e l i a b l e counts of numbers of students could not be obtained from the i n s t i t u t i o n s . L o c a t i o n was not used i n the a n a l y s i s , i n e i t h e r the Kelsey or the Aston d e f i n i t i o n . Geographic l o c a t i o n , the form of the v a r i a b l e used by Kelsey, was c o n t r o l l e d i n the 47 TABLE 1 THE VARIABLES ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE I . FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION I I . FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION I I I . CONCENTRATION OF AUTHORITY IV. AUTONOMY ) DERIVED FROM:. V. DISCRETION ) CONCENTRATION, OF VI. IN-UNIT—DECISION—LEVEL ) AUTHORITY SCORES WORKFLOW STRUCTURE V I I . DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW OTHER VARIABLES V I I I . PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE IX. , CONGRUENCE X. TYPE study., Data were obtained f o r the number of o p e r a t i n g s i t e s , which was the Aston form of the v a r i a b l e , but -they.,-were:^n'otiused i n the a n a l y s i s . As noted above. Technology was r e d e f i n e d a s a s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e , and was r e c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as the Workflow S t r u c t u r e . In the present study, t h e r e f o r e , o n l y one c o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e , t h a t o f Type, was r e t a i n e d . . I t was used as a means of d e f i n i n g sub-rsamples, f o r study of the remaining v a r i a b l e s . 48 S t r u c t u r a l V a r i a b l e s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e , The Aston r e s u l t s had i n d i c a t e d the presence of two major and two minor s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Subsequent r e l a t e d work had c o n s i d e r e d mainly the two major and one o f the minor v a r i a b l e s . These were termed S t r u c t u r i n g of A c t i v i t i e s , C o n c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y , and S i z e of Supportive Component, The f i r s t of these was i t s e l f made up of two v a r i a b l e s . F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Hole D e f i n i t i o n , , Kelsey d i d not f i n d the same e m p i r i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e a d d i t i o n of these t o form the major f a c t o r , and i n h i s r e v i s e d model. S t r u c t u r i n g o f A c t i v i t i e s was r e p l a c e d by F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Hole D e f i n i t i o n as separate v a r i a b l e s (Kelsey, 1973: 176-177) , In the present study these two elements were used as the v a r i a b l e s , on the b a s i s of the Kelsey f i n d i n g s . C o n c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y was r e t a i n e d by Kelsey from t h e Aston framework, together with t h e v a r i a b l e Autonomy, which i s a d e r i v a t i v e of C o n c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y , o b t a i n e d by a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s c o r e s . . Each o f thes e v a r i a b l e s was u t i l i z e d i n the present study, together: with the two v a r i a b l e s which Kelsey d e r i v e d from C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f A u t h o r i t y and which were termed i n t h a t study, D i s c r e t i o n and In-Onit L e v e l of Decision-Making. D i s c r e t i o n was the d i f f e r e n c e between d e c i s i o n s which c o u l d be made by the Department or C o l l e g e head, and those which must be confirmed above t h a t 49 l e v e l . I n - U n i t L e v e l of Decision-Making u t i l i z e s C o n c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y s c o r e s to measure the average l e v e l of d e c i s i o n -making w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . , The v a r i a b l e s of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e were t h e r e f o r e F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n . F o r m a l i z a t i o n '.of B o l e D e f i n i t i o n , and C o n c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y with the d e r i v a t i v e s A utonomy, D i s c r e t i o n and I n - U n i t L e v e l of Decision-Making. , Workflow S t r u c t u r e . T h i s concept was t a k e n , from the Kelsey study and was used with l i t t l e change. I t was c o n s i d e r e d a v a r i a b l e of s t r u c t u r e , f o l l o w i n g the m o d i f i c a t i o n which was made i n the Kelsey study. In the K e l s e y study i t was found p o s s i b l e to i d e n t i f y two dimensions of Workflow S t r u c t u r e , which were termed P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n and Acceptance (Kelsey, 1973:169)., In the present study i t was not assumed t h a t these p a r t i c u l a r u n d e r l y i n g v a r i a b l e s would be i d e n t i f i e d , s i n c e they had not been confirmed i n any o t h e r study. The one f o l l o w - u p study which had been performed i d e n t i f i e d a d i f f e r e n t u n d e r l y i n g v a r i a b l e , which was termed D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l {Marshall, 1978:17-18). Data o b t a i n e d i n the c o u r s e of the present study were analyzed to i n v e s t i g a t e the presence o f these or other dimensions, but i n i t i a l l y . Workflow S t r u c t u r e was t r e a t e d as a u n i t a r y v a r i a b l e c o n s t i t u t e d by t h e s i x elements d e s c r i b e d on page 22. 50 Other Variables Two other variables were used. They were termed Perceived adequacy of Performance and Congruence. The f i r s t of t i e s e was a variable not derived from previous studies i n the f i e l d s discussed above, except insofar as the Aston .: framework t h e o r e t i c a l l y permitted the incorporation of as then undefined performance variables.. The appropriateness of t h i s variable has been discussed above. One study (Hassen, 1976) has attempted to investigate relationships between organizational structure and effectiveness, using a d i f f e r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l approach, and conceptual framework from that of the present study. / Congruence was also a new variable, whose appropriateness was discussed on pages 39-45. The basis for i t s incorporation lay i n certain of the Kelsey findings, and the l o g i c of the conceptual framework of the present study. DEFINITION OF TERMS The following l i s t includes the concepts which have been discussed. Most of them represent elements of the conceptual framework of the present study., A few represent elements of the Aston framework which are included f o r the sake of c l a r i t y . The variables of the study are also l i s t e d here. Where 51 a p p r o p r i a t e , d e f i n i t i o n s f o l i o s t h e i r o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i q n i n t h e Kelsey study. Some are s p e c i f i c t o the present study.;, I n some cases explanatory comments accompany the d e f i n i t i o n s . , 1.,, A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e . The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e of a C o l l e g e or o f a C o l l e g e s u b - u n i t i s i t s non-Hdrkflow S t r u c t u r e . , Such a s t r u c t u r e cannot be d e s c r i b e d i n terms of a s i n g l e v a r i a b l e . Three main elements are used i n the present study: F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n , F o r m a l i z a t i o n o f Role D e f i n i t i o n , and C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f A u t h o r i t y . Each C o l l e g e , and each s u b - u n i t i s con s i d e r e d to e x h i b i t a s t r u c t u r a l p r o f i l e , which i n c l u d e s a d e s c r i p t i o n of each of these dimensions. C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f A u t h o r i t y p e r m i t t e d the d e r i v a t i o n of three a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s , termed Autonomy, D i s c r e t i o n and In-Onit L e v e l of Decision-Making, which were a l s o used i n the present study. 2 . Autonomy., The degree t o which d e c i s i o n s may l e g i t i m a t e l y be made w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n or su b - u n i t i t s e l f . The g r e a t e r the number o f d e c i s i o n s {from a s e t l i s t ) which can be made l e g i t i m a t e l y by personnel w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , the g r e a t e r i s i t s Autonomy. (see C o n c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y , from which t h i s v a r i a b l e i s derived) 3. C o l l e g e . For t h e purposes o f t h i s study, a College i s a two-year, p u b l i c l y - f u n d e d , post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n f o r edu c a t i o n , i n B r i t i s h Columbia. I t s c u r r i c u l u m may encompass the academic, v o c a t i o n a l or t e c h n i c a l , r e m e d i a l , c a r e e r or 52 c o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n of students, or any combination of these. 4. C o l l e g e Department., An i n t e r n a l s u b - u n i t of a C o l l e g e , which i s o r i e n t e d p r i m a r i l y toward the workflow. A C o l l e g e i s c o n s i d e r e d to have s u b - u n i t s o f two types - non-workflow o r i e n t e d such as p e r s o n n e l , or accounting Departments, and workflow-oriented Departments, such as E n g l i s h or Mathematics Departments, or L i b r a r i e s . A g i v e n workflow-o r i e n t e d sub-unit may be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from other such .sub-u n i t s , by s p e c i f i c a t i o n of c u r r i c u l u m i n t e r e s t s , by. type o f i c l i e n t e l e , or by a d m i n i s t r a t i v e convenience., {see a l s o Sub-u n i t ) 5. C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f A u t h o r i t y . , T h i s v a r i a b l e d e s c r i b e s the l e v e l s w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n at which formal;„legitimate a u t h o r i t y r e s t s . In the present study, the lowest l e v e l was t h a t of i n s t r u c t o r or s t a f f member. The h i g h e s t was the M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n . (see a l s o the d e r i v e d v a r i a b l e s Autonomy, D i s c r e t i o n and ln-?rjnit L e v e l of Decision-Making) 6.,, Congruence. The degree of s i m i l a r i t y ,between a C o l l e g e s u b - u n i t and the t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . , For convenience of a n a l y s i s , t h i s v a r i a b l e was measured i n the form of lack of Congruence. I t was c a l c u l a t e d as the d i f f e r e n c e between the standard s c o r e of a given C o l l e g e and the standard s c o r e of a given Department, on each of the v a r i a b l e s of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and Horkflow S t r u c t u r e . , For each s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s c o r e i n a Department t h e r e was a corresponding Congruence s c o r e . 53 7. Department./ See College Department. 8. Discretion., The difference between the number of decisions which may be made by the head of a Department or by a Chief Executive O f f i c e r , and those which can be recommended at that l e v e l with certainty of acceptance, but which must be formally legitimized at a l e v e l above. (see also Concentration of Authority from which the variable i s derived) 9. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow. The structuring of any aspect of the workflow in such a way as to increase the number of ways i n which that aspect may be handled. This d e f i n i t i o n i s based on a view of students as the raw material : of educational organizations. The way i n which they are viewed by members of the organization w i l l constrain the technology used i n the workflow, manifested i n the degree of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n -that i s , the li m i t e d or the manifold ways of handling the raw material. The degree of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n may vary between sub-units, and between a sub-unit and the parent organization.,, TO. Formalization of Hole De f i n i t i o n . , The s p e c i f i c a t i o n of roles or a c t i v i t i e s by written documents. , The extent of t h i s element i n a College or College sub-unit i s assessed by the number of such documents from a set l i s t , and i n some cases b y the extent of t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n . ! 54 11. F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n . The d i v i s i o n of labour among the non-sorkflow tasks. The degree of t h i s element i s assessed by c o n s i d e r i n g the number of a c t i v i t i e s (from a set l i s t ) which are performed, the number which are s p e c i f i c a l l y and e x c l u s i v e l y delegated to one or more employees, and the number of d i f f e r e n t people or groups t o whom such de l e g a t i o n s are made. 12. In-Onit L e v e l of Decision-Making./ The average l e v e l of d e c i s i o n making i n a College or a C o l l e g e Department., (see a l s o Concentration of a u t h o r i t y from which t h i s v a r i a b l e i s derived) 13. Perceived adeguacy of Performance. The degree to which a Department i s stated to be performing adequately, on each of eleven a c t i v i t i e s , plus an o v e r a l l assessment. 14. S t r u c t u r e . The ways i n which the a c t i v i t i e s of a College or College sub-unit are s p e c i f i e d or r e g u l a t e d . Two kinds of s t r u c t u r e were measured. (see a d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e , and Workflow Structure) 15. Sub-unit. A Department of a C o l l e g e . I n t h i s study, only sub-units o r i e n t e d p r i m a r i l y toward the workf low , were st u d i e d . / (see a l s o C o l l e g e Department and Type (of Sub-On i t ) ) . 5 5 16. Technology. & Co l l e g e ' s or a College sub-unit's technology i s i t s means of processing i t s raw m a t e r i a l s , students.. I t i n c l u d e s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of resources and the handling and e v a l u a t i o n of students i n matters p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e i r education, 'This term i s synonymous with workflow processes., 17. Type (of Sub-Onit) . A v a r i a b l e used only at the Departmental l e v e l . I t d i s t i n g u i s h e s between the f o u r kinds of Department which were s t u d i e d . These were L i b r a r i e s , Counseling Departments, S o c i a l Science Departments, and Natural Science Departments. 18. Workflow processes.. This term is; synonympus with technology. 19. Workflow S t r u c t u r e . Those r e g u l a r i t i e s of a c t i v i t i e s i n the workflow processes which c o n s t i t u t e =a coherent pattern i d e n t i f i e d as c o n t i n u i n g over a period of time. For example, a workflow may be more d i v e r s i f i e d or more r o u t i n i z e d , de pending on the view taken of the raw m a t e r i a l , by those who work w i t h i t . 56 CHAPTER 4 THE RESEARCH DESIGN Th i s Chapter reviews the purpose of the study, and shows how the main problem was r e s t a t e d as a s e r i e s of sub-problems. The composition of the sample, and the ways i n which the data were c o l l e c t e d and the v a r i a b l e s measured are d e s c r i b e d . The Chapter concludes with a review of the ways i n which the data were analysed. THE PBOBLEH The major purpose of the study may be stated i n the form of a problem: Hhat does an examination of a number of two-year, B r i t i s h Columbia Colleges and t h e i r Departments r e v e a l about: (1) the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among s e l e c t e d s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s i n these o r g a n i z a t i o n s , (2) the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a Department's s t r u c t u r e and the Perceived Adequacy of the Department's Performance, and ( 3 ) the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Congruence of the Department s t r u c t u r e with that of the C o l l e g e , and the Perceived Adequacy 5 7 of Performance of the Department.. For o p e r a t i o n a l purposes, t h i s problem was s t a t e d i n the form of f o u r sub-problems., 1. What r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i f any, e x i s t among each o f t h e v a r i a b l e s of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and Workflow S t r u c t u r e s t r u c t u r e i n the C o l l e g e s which form the sample? 2....y What r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i f any, e x i s t among each of the v a r i a b l e s of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and Workflow . S t r u c t u r e s t r u c t u r e i n the C o l l e g e Departments? 3. What r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i f any, e x i s t between the v a r i a b l e s of s t r u c t u r e i n the C o l l e g e Departments, and the P e r c e i v e d Adeguacy of Performance of those Departments? . 4. What r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i f any, e x i s t between the degree of Congruence between C o l l e g e s and s e l e c t e d C o l l e g e Departments, and the Per c e i v e d Adeguacy of Performance of the Departments? THE SAMPLE The sample i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the study c o n s i s t e d of ten two-year C o l l e g e s i n t h e Pr o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia, to g e t h e r with f o u r Departments i n each C o l l e g e . These Departments; were a Natural Science Department, a S o c i a l Science Department (termed a Communications Department at one College) , the L i b r a r y and the Counseling Department. The c h o i c e of t h i s sample was made f o r the, f o l l o w i n g reasons.. 58 1. I t c o n s t i t u t e d an i d e n t i f i a b l e group of C o l l e g e s w i t h i n a s i n g l e s o c i o - c u l t u r a l , geographic environment. I n terms of the model depicted i n F i g u r e 1, t h i s permitted c o n t r o l of geographic l o c a t i o n . , At a l a t e r date, t h i s c o u l d allow f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n of comparative a n a l y s i s . At the same time, the C o l l e g e Departments f e l l i n t o two sub-groups, Teaching Departments, and Non-Teaching Departments. 2. I t c o n s t i t u t e d a group o f p u b l i c C o l l e g e s , a l l of whichioperate w i t h i n a s i n g l e p r o v i n c i a l e d u c a t i o n a l system, yet r e t a i n s u b s t a n t i a l autonomy. T h i s e s t a b l i s h e d the necessary c o n d i t i o n - a s e t of l i k e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , not c o n s t r a i n e d by an overarching system - t o attempt an answer t o a q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by K e l s e y * s f i n d i n g s . These i m p l i e d the p o s s i b i l i t y that the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e would be found t o be r e l a t e d to the Horkflow S t r u c t u r e a t the C o l l e g e l e v e l , but, not at the Departmental l e v e l . 3. I t i n c l u d e d members of one sub-group of an e a r l i e r study (Newberry, 1971).., Although the instruments used i n the present study were not i d e n t i c a l with those of Hewberry, there e x i s t s a degree o f s i m i l a r i t y , r e s u l t i n g from the f a c t t h a t both used the Aston framework and instruments as a b a s i s . For t h i s reason, though i t was not c e n t r a l t o the purposes of the study, the use of t h i s group c o u l d permit subseguent comparison -i n d i c a t i v e , i f not c o n c l u s i v e - with Newberry's data. Furthermore, Newberry's data, and those of t h i s study, having been obtained s e v e r a l years a p a r t , might permit d i a c h r o n i c 59 a n a l y s i s and comparison with Heron's (1972) f i n d i n g s . T h i s was h e l d to c o n s t i t u t e a s t r e n g t h of the sample, a l b e i t not a primary purpose of the study., 4. I t p e r m i t t e d a reasonable compromise between s i z e of sample and a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s . Although the number o f C o l l e g e s i n the sample i s not g r e a t , any i n c r e a s e would have e n t a i l e d c o n s i d e r a b l e expansion of an a l r e a d y r a t h e r l a r g e number of departments. The sample i n c l u d e d examples of a l l major v a r i a n t s i n the Province, urban, r u r a l , s m a l l ; l a r g e , few campuses and many campuses. , 5;. As argued on pages 35-38, the sample c o u l d be regarded as s u f f i c i e n t l y s i m i l a r t o the Kelsey sample, i n e s s e n t i a l r e s p e c t s , t o permit use of the same instruments, and comparison with t h e Kelsey f i n d i n g s . . In a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e e a r l i e r arguments r e l a t i n g the present sample to that of Kelsey i t was necessary to c o n s i d e r the guestion o f the i n t e r n a l s i z e of the o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The o r g a n i z a t i o n s of the Kelsey study ranged i n s i z e from about s i x hundred t o twenty f i v e hundred p u p i l s . The C o l l e g e s o f the present sample ranged from a few hundred t o s e v e r a l thousand. One C o l l e g e had c l o s e to ten thousand s t u d e n t s . Apart from t h i s e x c e p t i o n a l case (which i s s u b d i v i d e d i n t o a. number of campuses, thus re d u c i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e s i z e at any g i v e n point) , the remainder of the C o l l e g e s were comparable i n t h i s r e s p e c t to the Ke 1 sey sample. . Most departments were not expected to have numbers of 60 employees equ i v a l e n t to the s i z e ranges of the ftston sample. , S i z e i n terms of numbers of students aas not used i n the present study, but i n f a c t many of the departments of the sample f e l l w i t h i n the s i z e range of the Kelsey study. Given the nature o f the questions posed i n t h i s study, which required a sample composed of r e l a t i v e l y autonomous e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , post-secondary o r g a n i z a t i o n s seemed the only p r a c t i c a b l e p o s s i b i l i t y . In view of t h i s , i t d i d not seem p o s s i b l e t o improve much upon the proposed sample i n respect to s i z e . 6. The proposed sample permitted the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the two sub-samples of Teaching Groups and Non-Teaching groups, as w e l l as the f o u r smaller groups c o n s t i t u t e d by the four d i f f e r e n t types of Department., These smaller sub-samples allowed f o r a n a l y s i s of v a r i a t i o n s w i t h i n the sample., 6 " l COLLECTION OF DATA AND MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES In t h i s s e c t i o n i s d e s c r i b e d the way the data were c o l l e c t e d , with some d i s c u s s i o n of v a r i o u s problems of measurement. C o l l e c t i o n Of Data In the Kelsey and Aston s t u d i e s , data were o b t a i n e d from two sources, i n t e r v i e w s with o r g a n i z a t i o n a l heads or sub-heads, and i n s p e c t i o n of documents. I n g e n e r a l t h i s procedure was f o l l o w e d i n the present study. The t o t a l number of i n t e r v i e w s was 50, i n C o l l e g e s i n a l l areas of the P r o v i n c e . These i n t e r v i e w s were c a r r i e d out i n the p e r i o d between December 1978 and A p r i l 1979, i n ten C o l l e g e s , ten L i b r a r i e s , ten C o u n s e l i n g Departments, ten S o c i a l Science Departments, and ten N a t u r a l Science Departments. Wherever p o s s i b l e , i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w s were c a r r i e d out with Department heads, and with t h e C o l l e g e Principal..,, In two C o l l e g e s t h i s was not p o s s i b l e , and the i n t e r v i e w was c a r r i e d out with the next s e n i o r C o l l e g e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . , In one o f these c a s e s , the i n t e r v i e w was c a r r i e d out with the B u r s a r . I n the other i t was with the Bursar h o l d i n g an i n t e r i m appointment as Chief Executive O f f i c e r . The r e s u l t i n g data were used to measure each v a r i a b l e in ways c o n s i s t e n t with those o f the Aston and K e l s e y s t u d i e s . The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s d e s c r i b e i n g e n e r a l terms the measurement of these v a r i a b l e s . D e t a i l s o f instrument c o n s t r u c t i o n or ad a p t a t i o n are d e s c r i b e d i n cha p t e r f i v e . , The Measurement Of Co n t e x t u a l V a r i a b l e s One c o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e . Type, was used to d i s t i n g u i s h between Departments. I t was determined a c c o r d i n g t o a s e t l i s t , c o n s i s t i n g of l i b r a r i e s . Counseling Departments, S o c i a l Science Departments and N a t u r a l Science Departments. Departments were assigned t o the a p p r o p r i a t e category. The (Measurement Of S t r u c t u r a l V a r i a b l e s The c o n c e p t u a l framework f o r t h e study proposed two kinds of s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s , those of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and those of Workflow S t r u c t u r e . The measurement of each v a r i a b l e i s d e s c r i b e d under a separate heading i n the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs. , F u n c t i o n a l S pec i a 1 i za t i on... Measurement of t h i s v a r i a b l e was based on Kelsey r a t h e r than on Aston, or the Her on/New berry approach. Heron> Newberry and Kelsey a l l r e j e c t e d the Aston d e f i n i t i o n , which counted an a c t i v i t y as s p e c i a l i z e d when performed by an employee f u l l - t i m e . . . T h i s was f e l t to be i n a p p l i c a b l e t o e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , where many a c t i v i t i e s 63 are performed by teaching s t a f f on a part-time basis. Heron and Newberry, i n studying Colleges, had counted an a c t i v i t y as specialized i f i t was performed at least half-time by a staff member. . Kelsey pointed out some d i f f i c u l t i e s in t h i s approach, and proposed an alternate approach by measurement of delegation, i n order to represent the underlying concept more e f f e c t i v e l y (Kelsey 1973). This approach was used i n the present study. In the Kelsey study, three elements of Functional Sp e c i a l i z a t i o n were considered: whether an a c t i v i t y i s performed; whether or not i t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y delegated; and the extent to which delegation i s extensive or intensive., Each of these could be determined by counting. „ To combine the r e s u l t i n g three scores into a sing l e score may be done i n several ways, with d i f f e r i n g r e s u l t s . Two were used in the present study, and they are described i n chapter .5.,/ Formalization Of Bole D e f i n i t i o n . Formalization of Bole D e f i n i t i o n was measured by the number of documents (from a set l i s t ) i n a College or Department, together with t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n . The set used was based on that of the Kelsey study, and was modified i n three ways.„ Some adaptations had to be made for use i n the post-secondary environment., Others were made necessary by the inclusion i n the sample of both Colleges and College Departments. Also, the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Kelsey of a system influence on i n d i v i d u a l schools led to an attempt to measure the separate importance of Department documents and of College documents in the Departments. The way t h i s was done i s 6 4 d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 5. Conc e n t r a t i o n Of a u t h o r i t y And I t s D e r i v a t i v e s . I n the case of Concentration o f A u t h o r i t y , Kelsey*s instrument produced f i n d i n g s which r e s u l t e d , i n h i s r e v i s e d model, i n the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of a number of d i s c r e t e v a r i a b l e s . In a d d i t i o n to Concentration o f A u t h o r i t y i t s e l f , these were: System C e n t r a l i z a t i o n , Autonomy, In-s c h o o l D e c i s i o n L e v e l , and D i s c r e t i o n . Although i t was not expected t h a t i d e n t i c a l f i n d i n g s or u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r s would appear i n both C o l l e g e s and sc h o o l s , t h e r e were concre t e as w e l l as a n a l y t i c elements o f both which were s i m i l a r enough to suggest the p o s s i b i l i t y of comparable or analogous f i n d i n g s . , In a d d i t i o n , the instrument used by Kelsey appeared c o n c e p t u a l l y and o p e r a t i o n a l l y capable of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i t h i n C o l l e g e s . A c c o r d i n g l y the Kelsey instrument was used, with some minor changes of wording. Responses t o items on t h i s instrument i d e n t i f i e d the l e v e l , i n a give n h i e r a r c h y , a t which v a r i o u s d e c i s i o n s could be made, each l e v e l being a s s i g n e d a numerical v a l u e . , Scores on the v a r i a b l e C o n c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y were c a l c u l a t e d by summing the responses. The v a r i a b l e Autonomy was c a l c u l a t e d as the number o f d e c i s i o n s which c o u l d be made w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t . In the case of the Departments, t h i s p r o c e s s was s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . In the C o l l e g e s , however, each d i s p l a y e d v i r t u a l l y complete Autonomy, when t h i s v a r i a b l e was c a l c u l a t e d with the i n c l u s i o n of d e c i s i o n s which were made by t h e Board. 65 A c c o r d i n g l y , f o r the C o l l e g e s , Autonomy was c a l c u l a t e d a t the l e v e l of the C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r or below. The v a r i a b l e D i s c r e t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d the d i f f e r e n c e between d e c i s i o n s which c o u l d be taken by a Department head or a Ch i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r , and those which must be confirmed at a higher l e v e l . Kelsey had d i s t i n g u i s h e d between d e c i s i o n s which c o u l d be made without f u r t h e r a u t h o r i z a t i o n and those which c o u l d best be d e s c r i b e d as recommendations made with c e r t a i n t y of acceptance.; I n t h a t study these were r e f e r r e d to as nD" (true d e c i s i o n s ) and "DRC" (recommendations made with c e r t a i n t y of acceptance) d e c i s i o n s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Responses to the instrument were s c o r e d t o i n d i c a t e which kind o f d e c i s i o n a p p l i e d f o r a g i v e n , item.. Only "D" s c o r e s were used i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of C o n c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y . , The number of "D-RC" scor e s was taken t o i n d i c a t e an area i n which, while f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y had not been granted, p r a c t i c a l a u t h o r i t y had, and was used as a score on D i s c r e t i o n . The same procedures were f o l l o w e d i n the present study, The v a r i a b l e In-On i t L e v e l of D ec i s i on-; H ak i nq was c a l c u l a t e d as the mean of the s c o r e s used to d e r i v e an<Autonomy s c o r e . T h i s process i d e n t i f i e d an average l e v e l of d e c i s i o n -making wit h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , i n c o n t r a s t t o the o v e r a l l C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f A u t h o r i t y s c o r e . 6 6 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow. Of the Kelsey instruments, t h a t used f o r measurement of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow presented the greatest d i f f i c u l t y of a d a p t a t i o n . / I n the Kelsey study,' the instrument i n i t i a l l y c o n s isted of f i f t y , two items. Refinement, i n that study i d e n t i f i e d three sub^sets of items, two of which were r e t a i n e d as measuring two d i s t i n c t elements, and named P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n and Acceptance. I t seemed p o s s i b l e that the same underlying f a c t o r s would not be found to be present i n the sample of the present study, which was not comparative, and which comprised C o l l e g e s rather than schools. In a d d i t i o n there were problems of a p p l i c a t i o n of the s p e c i f i c o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s of the instrument. Nonetheless, the fundamental concepts seemed e q u a l l y v a l i d i n Colleges and i n s c h o o l s . S p e c i f i c a l l y the s i x major c a t e g o r i e s of equipping, sequencing, e v a l u a t i o n and rep o r t i n g , , placement, c o n t r o l and scope, which were measured by the instrument, seemed as a p p l i c a b l e i n C o l l e g e s as i n schools. The items i n these were reworded f o r a p p l i c a t i o n i n C o l l e g e s . Where p o s s i b l e , i d e n t i c a l or s i m i l a r wording to Kelsey*s was used. The Measurement Of Congruence Congruence was measured only i n the Departments and two d i f f e r e n t ways of s c o r i n g i t were considered.... I f a given v a r i a b l e were measured i n a C o l l e g e and again i n a Department, and the two scores were compared d i r e c t l y , an " a b s o l u t e " value of Congruence on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e might be h e l d to be 67 obtained. T h i s method leads i n t o d i f f i c u l t i e s connected with p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n t maximum ob t a i n a b l e s c o r e s , which may vary from Department to Department, or C o l l e g e t o C o l l e g e , and between C o l l e g e s and Departments. A second p o s s i b l e method of measurement would be a comparison of mean s c o r e s . I t would be d e s i r a b l e , however, t o avo i d c o m p l i c a t i o n s a r i s i n g from t h e f a c t t h a t not a l l sub-samples of the whole sample were of the same s i z e . The method chosen > was to t r a n s l a t e the s c o r e s on a given v a r i a b l e i n t o standard s c o r e s , and compare the standard score of C o l l e g e and Department as a measure of Congruence., T h i s method g i ves a score f o r the Department which shows how f a r i t i s from the mean f o r a l l Departments, as compared with how f a r the C o l l e g e i s from the mean f o r a l l C o l l e g e s , on a g i v e n v a r i a b l e . I t thus i n d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e s a l l C o l l e g e s and a l l Departments o f the sample i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Congruence s c o r e f o r each i n d i v i d u a l Department... T h i s second method of c o n s t r u c t i n g a Congruence score was used i n the study, and Congruence was measured as the d i f f e r e n c e between the standard s c o r e of a Department and of a C o l l e g e on each s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e . To avoid ; c o m p l i c a t i o n s i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a s c o r e , and i n the a n a l y s i s of Congruence s c o r e s , the v a r i a b l e was a c t u a l l y c a l c u l a t e d i n the form of l a c k of Congruence. I t was p o s s i b l e to o b t a i n a standard score f o r a Department, on a given s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e , i n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t ways, depending on whether the Department was c o n s i d e r e d a s a 68 member o f the sab-sample c o n s i s t i n g of a l l Departments,, of t h a t c o n s i s t i n g only o f Teaching or Non-Teaching Departments, or of one of the f o u r sab-samples of types of Department.; Because the c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s was t o be performed i n each of these sub-samples, each of the t h r e e p o s s i b l e Congruence s c o r e s was c a l c u l a t e d , using each kind of standard s c o r e . The approprate r e s u l t i n g Congruence scores were used i n the c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s with P e r c e i v e d adequacy of Performance s c o r e s c a r r i e d out i n the va r i o u s sub-samples., For example. Congruence scores d e r i v e d from standard scores c a l c u l a t e d from the Teaching Group sub-sample, were used only i n analyses of the Teaching, Group sub-sample. The Measurement Of P e r c e i v e d adequacy Of Performance Per c e i v e d adeguacy of Performance and the l o g i c of i t s i n c o r p o r a t i o n have been d e s c r i b e d on pages 41-43. There was not a v a i l a b l e f o r i t s measurement, any instrument which had been developed i n the co n t e x t o f the aston framework., Hassen (1976:32-3 9) had provided a s u c c i n c t review o f p o s s i b l e approaches t o the measurement of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . He noted the p a u c i t y of inst r u m e n t s designed f o r use i n s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , o f which e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s may be hel d t o be one kin d . , One instrument noted by Hassen appeared to possess c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which would make 69 i t appropriate f o r use i n t h i s study... I t Has Mk^0^'qiu$M^Tr^ oti% (1972). This instrument was o r i g i n a l l y developed, f o r use i n s e r v i c e i n s t i t u t i o n s . I t was r e l a t i v e l y f r e e from siiituatiqnTr s p e c i f i c i t y and i t had been tested i n a v a r i e t y of s e t t i n g s , where i t was found v a l i d and r e l i a b l e . & t e s t - r e t e s t : a t NASA, with a year and a h a l f between t e s t s , obtained a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .68 {Mott, 1972:194). , The instrument was used by Hassen i n e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , i n a study whose conceptual framework,;while /not i d e n t i c a l with t h a t of t h i s study, d i d possess some p o i n t s of resemblance. Both s t u d i e s were concerned with the s t r u c t u r e and technology of e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , a l b e i t v i a d i f f e r e n t o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s of the concepts.,; Since the instrument had proved adaptable t o use by Hassen i n a Community College s i m i l a r to those of the present study, i t was decided t o use i t with some m o d i f i c a t i o n s , i n the present study... T h i s instrument, as used by Hassen, measured perceptions, of adequacy of performance on ten dimensions. In the present study, the instrument was expanded t o i n c l u d e twelve items. For each Department st u d i e d , the instrument was completed by the head of that Department, by the heads of each other Department stu d i e d i n that Colleqe, and by the C h i e f Executive O f f i c e r of the C o l l e q e . , S p e c i f i c s of the instrument w i l l be discussed i n the f o l l o w i n q chapter. 70 SEQUENCE OP ANALYSES The Sample And Sub-samples Nine p o s s i b l e groupings of the sample could be i d e n t i f i e d . These were the whole sample, the Colleges alone, a l l Departments together, the Teaching Group, the Non-Teaching Group, and each of the f o u r types of Department taken separately,,. These d i f f e r e n t sub-samples did not a l l c ontain the same number of members. , The ex i s t e n c e o f the sub-samples introduced some complications i n t o both the processes of refinement of the instruments and the subsequent c o r r e l a t i o n analyses.,,„. Another c o m p l i c a t i o n arose from the f a c t that some of the instruments contained multi-category items. This was a f a c t o r only i n the refinement process., The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s describe how these matters were dealt with. ., Refinement Of The Instruments In the refinement of the instruments which were used t o measure s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s , i t was des i r e d t o i s o l a t e a set of items which would c o n s t i t u t e a Guttman s c a l e . , The; guestion heeded t o be considered whether a set which would c o n s t i t u t e such a s c a l e i n the whole sample would n e c e s s a r i l y do so i n 7 1 various sub-samples., In order t o meet t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , the processes of refinement sere c a r r i e d out i n a l l groupings of the sample, and a set was only accepted i f i t met the c r i t e r i a i n each one. In * the case of multi-category items, each a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out at each s c o r i n g l e v e l . , an item which scored at a given l e v e l was assumed t o have scored at a l l l e v e l s below, a s e t of items was held to be acceptable only i f i t met the c r i t e r i a at a l l l e v e l s of the multi-category instrument, i n each of the groupings of the sample Two s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s were used.,,. The f i r s t was an item a n a l y s i s , using the Brogden b i - s e r i a l c o e f f i c i e n t . T h i s t e s t i s used t o determine whether or not a given set of items c o n s t i t u t e s an approximation of a sc a l e (Levy:.-;, and Pugh 1969:199). However, item a n a l y s i s alone does not e s t a b l i s h the un i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y of a set of items as r i g o r o u s l y as de s i r e d . One way to deal with t h i s problem i s t o use a d d i t i o n a l t e s t s , on the b a s i s that c o n f i r m a t i o n by a t e s t of a d i f f e r e n t type can enable the s e l e c t i o n of a s c a l a b l e set of items to be. made with greater confidence. In the present study, a second t e s t was c a r r i e d oat using a s p l i t - h a l f a n a l y s i s . The p a r t i c u l a r t e s t used i s c a l l e d the Hoyt/anova t e s t , and i t produces a r e s u l t which i s i d e n t i c a l to the mean of a l l p o s s i b l e s p l i t - h a l f analyses which might be c a r r i e d out on a given set of scores. F a c t o r a n a l y s i s was used on the scores on i the Perceived adeguacy of Performance v a r i a b l e s , t o i d e n t i f y p o s s i b l e 72 u n d e r l y i n g dimensions. Scores And C o r r e l a t i o n s In the c o r r e l a t i o n analyses. Spearman's rho was used on raw data. ; The c o m p l i c a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d by m u l t i - c a t e g o r y instruments was not a f a c t o r , s i n c e the analyses used the t o t a l s c o r e s on the v a r i a b l e s . However, the analyses were c a r r i e d out on each o f t h e e i g h t sub-groups of the sample, i n order t o determine whether the v a r i a b l e s were a s s o c i a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t ways i n these sub-groups., C o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s e s were not c a r r i e d out i n the whole sample, because i t was f e l t i t h a t the e x i s t e n c e of the two l e v e l s of o r g a n i z a t i o n would make i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of any r e s u l t s problematic.,, More d e t a i l about the a n a l y s e s i s found i n chapter f i v e . , SUMMABY T h i s Chapter has d e s c r i b e d the research design o f the study. The g e n e r a l problem was r e f o r m u l a t e d i n the form of fou r s p e c i f i c sub-problems. One v a r i a b l e of Context, s i x o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and one of Workflow S t r u c t u r e were measured i n ten C o l l e g e s and f o r t y Departments of those C o l l e g e s . These data permitted the c a l c u l a t i o n of s c o r e s on the v a r i a b l e Congruence. In a d d i t i o n , data were c o l l e c t e d on 73 the Perceived adequacy of Performance of Departments. , The analysis of data began with the i s o l a t i o n of sets of items to constitute scales f o r each variable and used item analysis and Boyt/Anova analysis. Factor analysis was used on the Perceived adeguacy of Performance instrument. Subsequent analysis used Spearman"'s rho to assess the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the variables measured.. Because the manner of scoring was an i n t e g r a l part of the construction and refinement of the instruments, further explanatory material appears i n the following chapter which describes how the instruments were prepared, modified and refined. , CHAPTER 5 PREPARATION AND REFINEMENT OF THE INSTRUMENTS This Chapter i s divided i n t o two parts. The f i r s t part i s concerned with preparation of the instruments. Each of these sections deals with one s p e c i f i c instrument. Since the instruments were adaptations of those used i n previous studies, some discussion of necessary modifications i s presented.„ Table 2 l i s t s the dimensions, t h e i r constituent variables and the instruments used to measure each. The complete instruments are l i s t e d i n Appendix A. PREPARATION OF THE INSTRUMENTS The major modification to the instruments was necessitated by the fact that the study carried out research at two d i s t i n c t organizational l e v e l s : - that of the Colleges as a whole, and that of the in d i v i d u a l Departments within the Colleges. Consequently i t was necessary t o ensure that the sets of items were appropriate to each l e v e l , and took i n t o account differences between l e v e l s where they existed, yet ensured that these differences did not lead to the measurement of di f f e r e n t TABLE 2 THE VARIABLES AND THEIR MEASUREMENT DIMENSION VARIABLES MEASURED BY CONTEXT TYPE SET LIST ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE SPECIALIZATION FORMALIZATION OF BOLE DEFINITION CONCENTRATION OF AUTHORITY AUTONOMY DISCRETION MODIFIED KELSEY INSTRUMENT IN-UNIT DECISION LEVEL WORKFLOW MODIFIED KELSEY STBUCTUBE INSTRUMENT STRUCTURAL CONGRUENCE COMPARISON OF SCORES RELATIONSHIPS ON STRUCTURE EFFECTIVENESS PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE MODIFIED HASSEN/MOTT INSTRUMENT elements. I t was a l s o necessary t o provide f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s between the i n d i v i d u a l Departments, and between types of Departments, p a r t i c u l a r l y between the Teaching Departments and the Non-Teaching Departments. Further, i t was necessary t o ensure that the s p e c i f i c wording of the instruments was appropriate to the post-secondary environment. F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n This i s a measure of the d i v i s i o n of labour i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n . I n the o r i g i n a l Aston instrument (Pugh et a l . , 1968) i t was measured on a s c a l e of s i x t e e n items, and t h i s s c a l e was unchanged i n the Inkson e t a l . (1970a) r e p l i c a t i o n . Each item d e a l t with an a c t i v i t y which was assumed to be present i n a l l work o r g a n i z a t i o n s , For the Aston researchers, s p e c i a l i z a t i o n was defined t o mean performance of an a c t i v i t y by one or more persons f u l l -time. Newberry (1971), and Heron (1972) i n adapting the Aston work t o College s t r u c t u r e s , counted an a c t i v i t y as s p e c i a l i z e d i f performed by an employee at l e a s t h a l f - t i m e . , Kelsey (1973) took a d i f f e r e n t approach, on the b a s i s , confirmed by a p i l o t study (Kelsey, 1973:95), th a t very few f u l l - t i m e or ha l f - t i m e delegations of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y would be made i n s c h o o l s . Most delegation would be t o teachers without a s p e c i f i c a l l o c a t i o n of time f o r performance of the a c t i v i t y . Kelsey therefore considered s p e c i a l i z a t i o n to be i n d i c a t e d by the s p e c i f i c and 77 e x c l u s i v e d e l e g a t i o n o f an a c t i v i t y t o one or more employees, however much of t h e i r time was spent on i t . T h i s approach was f o l l o w e d i n the present study, s i n c e i t was f e l t t h a t a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n was l i k e l y t o be found i n C o l l e g e s . , S c o r i n g F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n . When the Aston r e s e a r c h e r s computed a s c o r e f o r F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n , they took i n t o account two elements of each of the s i x t e e n component a c t i v i t i e s . These were the performance, and the s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of the a c t i v i t y . , . In Kelsey* s a d a p t a t i o n , a t h i r d element was added, t o compensate f o r the change made i n the o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n . e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . T h i s was the e x t e n t to which :. d e l e g a t i o n was e x t e n s i v e or i n t e n s i v e (Kelsey, 1973:97). T h i s t h i r d element was computed as the number of persons or groups to whom tasks were de l e g a t e d . There are s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e methods of combining these three elements t o produce a score on f u n c t i o n a l s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . Table 3, which shows how h y p o t h e t i c a l data f o r ten o r g a n i z a t i o n s would be combined t o produce these two a l t e r n a t e s c o r e s i s taken from Kelsey (1973:99). I t i s apparent from t h i s t a b l e t h a t d i f f e r e n t r a n k i n g s w i l l r e s u l t from the d i f f e r e n t emphasis placed on the t h r e e components. I n the present study, the two forms of the v a r i a b l e a r e r e f e r r e d to as F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n (B 2/AI) and F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n (B. A. I ) . , K e l s e y i n i t i a l l y adopted the two a l t e r n a t i v e formulas B^/AI and B. A.I. In the r e f i n e d K e l s e y instrument the former was 78 TABLE 3 HYPOTHETICAL DATA TO SHOW THE RESULTS OF TWO WAYS TO COMPOTE A SCORE 013 FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION ORGAN- I.,, A. . B. , J B.A.I. 1 B2/AI IZATION I J J SCORES RANKS 1 SCORES RANKS 3 I 1--7 1-10 J :•. . i -1-7 1-10 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 20 20 20 | 8000 | 1 1 1 1.00 j 1 1 2 20 15 15 | 4500 | 2 2 i 0.75 | 2 l 2 3 20 15 10 | 3000 3 3 4 i 0.33 i 3 3 4 20 10 10 | 2000 | 4 5 i 0.5 | 4 4 5 20 10 5 J 1000 J 5 7 1 0.125 J 5 6. 5 6 20 5 5 | 500 | 6 8 1 0.25 | 6 9 7 20 5 2 J 200 | 7 10 5 0.04 \ 7 -: 10 8 24 12 6 | 1728 | 6 1 0.125 | 6.5 9 12 6 3 I 216 J 9 1 0.125 j 6. 5 10 32 16 8 i 4096 | 3 i 0.125 J 6.5 NOTE: THE SYMBOLS ARE DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: I = NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED A = NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES DELEGATED B = NUMBER OF DIFFERENT DELEGATES s e l e c t e d as the p r e f e r r e d formula, on the b a s i s of i n t e r n a l a n a l y s i s which i n d i c a t e d t h e items were more c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d . Both formulae were used t o c a l c u l a t e a l t e r n a t i v e s c o r e s i n the present study. 79 Adapting The Con tent Of The Instrument..... The instrument used was an adaptation of that used by Kelsey J1973) which was i t s e l f based on Inkson et a l . ( 1970a) . , Both instruments were founded upon a l i s t of sixteen generalized a c t i v i t i e s , drawn from Bakke {1950, 1959), and found to be present i n most organizations. The Kelsey adaptation of the instrument resulted^:,in,w.ai.... .set of f o r t y items to represent f i f t e e n of the Aston a c t i v i t i e s . , In the present study, these f o r t y items were subjected to changes of wording required to f i t them for use in a College rather than a school environment, and formed the instrument l i s t e d i n Appendix A. Formalization Of Bole Definition Formalization i s a measure of "the extent to which rules, procedures, i n s t r u c t i o n s and communications are written ' V (Pugh et a l ^ , 168;75) . / The Aston short form instrument l i s t s nine kinds of document and assesses the nature and extent of the i r d i s t r i b u t i o n to various o f f i c e holders. In the Kelsey adaptation changes were made i n the t i t l e s of some o f f i c e holders and some amplification was given to document t i t l e s . / The r e s u l t i n g fourteen items i n the Kelsey instrument yielded i n i t i a l l y twenty-one i n d i v i d u a l item scores since the f i r s t seven items were each scored twice, once f o r system documents and once for school documents {Kelsey, 1973:112). 80 Because the Kelsey study i n d i c a t e d the i n f l u e n c e i n s c h o o l s of documents o r i g i n a t i n g a t the system l e v e l , the p r e s e n t study attempted t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h i s f i n d i n g d i r e c t l y i n t o the c o n c e p t u a l framework, by measuring the same s e t of items both i n the Department and i n the C o l l e g e as a whole., Thus, t h e Kelsey a d a p t a t i o n of the above l i s t was f i r s t m odified so as to u t i l i z e wording a p p r o p r i a t e t o Colleges.,, The adapted l i s t was then a d m i n i s t e r e d i n the C o l l e g e s without f u r t h e r change. However, f o r use i n the Departments th e f i r s t seven questions were r e -organized so as to r e f e r t o documents o r i g i n a t i n g both i n the Department and a t the C o l l e g e l e v e l . The d e t a i l e d l i s t i n both v e r s i o n s i s presented i n Appendix A C o n c e n t r a t i o n Of A u t h o r i t y T h i s v a r i a b l e d e s c r i b e s the l e v e l s a t which formal a u t h o r i t y r e s t s i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n {Inkson e t a l . , 19,?0a;320), by determining who has the a u t h o r i t y t o make each of a number o f l i s t e d d e c i s i o n s . The a b b r e v i a t e d Aston instrument used twenty t h r e e items from the o r i g i n a l Aston measure of c e n t r a l i z a t i o n . Adapting the instrument f o r use i n e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s r e s u l t e d i n some a d d i t i o n s . , The instrument used i n t h e Departments c o n t a i n e d t h i r t y - t w o items.,/ That used i n the C o l l e g e s i n c l u d e d an extra t h r e e f o r a t o t a l , o f t h i r t y - f i v e i t ems, but these t h r e e were dropped i n the course of refinement. 81 and were not used i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of scores. As a r e s u l t of the unegual number of items i n the two ve r s i o n s of the instrument, i d e n t i c a l items i n some cases have d i f f e r e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers. For each of the l i s t e d d e c i s i o n s , the Aston s t u d i e s assigned a score by n o t i n g the l e v e l w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a t which a u t h o r i t y to make the d e c i s i o n r e s t e d . The o r i g i n a l s t u d i e s i d e n t i f i e d s i x such l e v e l s , scored 0 t o 5. The r e s u l t i n g data were scored i n two ways... The t o t a l score was used as an i n d i c a t i o n of the average l e v e l of d e c i s i o n making. The score was a l s o dichotomized t o i n d i c a t e f o r a given o r g a n i z a t i o n i t s degree of Autonomy. In the abbreviated r e p l i c a t i o n , (Inkson e t a l . , 1970a), only the l a t t e r approach was used, and reversed so as to measure l a c k of Autonomy.;, In the Kelsey study, i t was found that i n ^ schools. P r i n c i p a l s sometimes f e l t confident t o make a d e c i s i o n which would v i r t u a l l y always be upheld by a u t h o r i t y above the l e v e l of the P r i n c i p a l , even i n cases where the P r i n c i p a l did, not have the formal a u t h o r i t y t o make the d e c i s i o n . Accordingly Kelsey u t i l i z e d the data t o produce two s e t s of scores, those which represented d e c i s i o n s , and those which represented recommendations which were considered t o be made with c e r t a i n t y of acceptance. The d i s t i n c t i o n between these two permitted the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a derived v a r i a b l e , termed D i s c r e t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , a v a r i a b l e termed In-Onit D e c i s i o n L e v e l wa s i d e n t i f i e d . This double approach t o d e c i s i o n making and 82 recommending, and the added v a r i a b l e s were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the present study. The h i e r a r c h y u t i l i z e d by Kelsey i d e n t i f i e d one more l e v e l than t h a t of the Aston s t u d i e s , and permitted one a d d i t i o n a l l e v e l of s c o r i n g . In the present study, a h i e r a r c h y based on t h a t o f Kelsey, but modified t o s u i t the C o l l e g e environment, was used, as f o l l o w s . 0 I n s t r u e t o r / s t a f f member 1: Head of D i s c i p l i n e , or Group of D i s c i p l i n e s 2 Director/Chairman 3 D e a n / V i c e - P r i n e i p a l / B u r s a r 4 P r i n c i p a l 5 C o l l e g e C o u n c i l 6 P r o v i n c i a l C o u n c i l 7 Government Department The complete ins t r u m e n t i s l i s t e d i n Appendix A D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Borkflow T h i s instrument was based upon t h a t developed by Kelsey (1973) i n h i s r e f o r m u l a t i o n of the Aston c o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e o f technology. K e l s e y * s approach was t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e technology on the b a s i s of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of a c t i v i t i e s , conceived of i n the s i x areas d e s c r i b e d on page 22 above. 8 3 In the Kelsey study, f i f t y scores sere calculated for d i f f e r e n t aspects of the variable from responses to a f o r t y item schedule. The instrument was used with v i r t u a l l y no change by Marshall (1978). It was t h i s instrument which presented the most serious d i f f i c u l t y of adaptation. Kelsey*s conceptual framework and instrumentation were, i n large part, fundamental to the present study, which extended the l i n e of research there developed.,. In addition to the minor changes of wording which would be reguired i n administering the instrument i n Colleges rather than i n schools, some s p e c i f i c items were inappropriate f o r Colleges. In p a r t i c u l a r they were inapplicable i n Non-Teaching Departments. One way to meet t h i s d i f f i c u l t y would have been to re-operationalize the instrument so that i t could be applied i n the Colleges and Departments a l i k e . However, the sample included both Teaching and Non-Teaching. Departments, and i t was thought probable that each kind was l i k e l y to d i f f e r from the other, and from the College, i n important respects. For this, reason i t was feared that such a course of action would involve so great a generalization of the underlying concepts, that a loss of s i t u a t i o n - s p e c i f i c i t y would occur. , This was f e l t to be p a r t i c u l a r l y undesirable in an instrument designed to investigate the workflow. Perrow*s basic premise, outlined on pages 18-20, was that the technology of an organization i s highly dependent on both the nature of the raw materials and o n 84 the perception which i s held of them. Each of these may vary from one s i t u a t i o n t o another.,, For t h i s reason such a fundamental change was r e j e c t e d . The a l t e r n a t i v e chosen was t o administer the instrument i n the C o l l e g e s and the Teaching Departments only.,, The instrument was modified f o r t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n , and the f o r t y items of the o r i g i n a l instrument were reduced to t h i r t y s i x . Eight Kelsey items (numbers 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, and 35) were omitted, because they were i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r use i n C o l l e g e s . Four new items were included and numbered 4, 15, 16, 36. A number of items were s l i g h t l y reworded. The r e v i s e d instrument i s shown i n Appendix A. Perceived Adequacy Of Performance The instrument was that adapted by Hassen (1976) from Mott»s e i g h t item instrument (Mott 1972)., Hassen added two new items, which were r e t a i n e d i n the present study. One of these measured problem-solving a c t i v i t y and the other was an estimate of o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . , The format of the instrument, as used by both Mott and Hassen, was designed f o r use i n connection with a s i n g l e Department at a time. In t h i s study i t was r e o r g a n i s e d , so t h a t respondents could complete i t with reference t o a number of Departments. Because of t h i s change, a p i l o t t e s t of the instrument was c a r r i e d out i n a C o l l e g e of the Province, which was not ;part of 85 the sample, but was within the range of sizes and types of College contained i n the sample., The instrument was completed for each of four Departments by the College P r i n c i p a l , the Dean of Instruction and a head of a Department. Each reported no d i f f i c u l t y i n completion of the instrument., A suggestion was made by one respondent, that two additional items, dealing with on-the-job effectiveness, and with co-operation be included. These proposals were discussed with the other respondents, and were then incorporated into the revised instrument. The Perceived adequacy of Performance instrument therbefore included twelve items used to measure d i f f e r e n t aspects of adequacy., The revised instrument i s qiven i n f u l l i n Appendix a. Other Variables Congruence scores were actually measured i n the, form of lack of Congruence scores, and were derived from standard scores on s t r u c t u r a l variables, as described on page 66-68. , Type was measured only i n the Departments on a nominal four-category scale. 86 Sunimary Of The P r e p a r a t i o n Of The Instruments T h i s s e c t i o n has described the adaptation of four instruments from the Kelsey study, and of one from the Hassen study,: t o measure the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and Workflow S t r u c t u r e s of Coll e g e s and College Departments, together with the Perceived Adeguacy of aspects of t h e i r Performance,,, The adaptation of these instruments f o r use i n C o l l e g e s , posed a number of problems., The most important of these was th a t of ensuring t h a t the underlying concepts and elements were unchanged, i n the process of rewording questions so as to be appropriate t o the post-secondary environment. In some cases, an item was dropped, where rewording posed problems: i n maintaining i n t e g r i t y of the unde r l y i n g concept. i the adaptation of the instruments r e s u l t e d i n most cases i n a longer set of items than were included i n t^e o r i g i n a l instruments. Some instruments were constructed i n s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s f o r use i n the Departments, from those used i n the C o l l e g e s . The f i n a l s e t s of items formed the b a s i s f o r refinement of the instruments by t e s t s of i n t e r n a l consistency. These procedures form the subject of the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . , 87 REFINEMENT OF THE INSTRUMENTS BY TESTS OF. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY This s e c t i o n describes the r e s u l t s of the t e s t s which were performed on each instrument used t o measure s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s . These were performed to i s o l a t e a subset of items which would approximate a s c a l e , and presents the f i n a l sets of items which were used as a measure of each v a r i a b l e . The t e s t s which were used t o measure i n t e r n a l consistency are summarized i n Tables 4 and 5. The s e c t i o n a l s o describes the r e s u l t s of f a c t o r a n a l y s i s used on the Perceived Adeguacy of Performance instrument. For the instruments adapted from Kelsey, the t e s t s , u s e d were derived from procedures used i n t h a t study... Those t e s t s were: item a n a l y s i s using the Brogden general b i s e r i a l c o e f f i c i e n t (GBR) , a s p l i t - h a l f t e s t and Ke n d a l l ' s c o e f f i c i e n t of concordance.„ I n the present study, Kendall's c o e f f i c i e n t was not used. Item a n a l y s i s was r e t a i n e d , and a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d v a r i e t y of s p l i t - h a l f a n a l y s i s was. used, c a l l e d the Hoyt/Anova a n a l y s i s , g i v i n g a r e s u l t which i s e g u i v a l e n t to the mean of a l l p o s s i b l e s p l i t - h a l f c o e f f i c i e n t s (Hoyt 1941) . Item a n a l y s i s and Hoyt/Anova were used on the instruments measuring A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and Workflow S t r u c t u r e . Use of f a c t o r a n a l y s i s on• the Perceived Adequacy of Performance instrument fo l l o w e d the p r a c t i c e of Mott (19 72) and Hassen (1976). In order t o c l a r i f y the procedures followed i n the i n t e r n a l a n a l y s i s , the composition of the sample should be kept i n mind. 88 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF TESTS USED FOB INTERNAL ANALYSIS' ARRANGED BY TYPE OF TEST TEST STATISTIC USED FOB NOLL DECISION. HYPOTHESIS BULB IT EH ANALYSIS GBR STRUCTURAL VARIABLES ACCEPT ITEMS AS A HOMOGENEOUS SET IF (A) EACH ITEM GBR > 0.4 (B) MEAN GBR >0. 63 HOYT/ ANOVA (SPLIT/ HALF) BHO STRUCTURAL VARIABLES NO ASSOCIATION EXISTS ON DIFFERENT ITEMS BETBEEN: RANKS FACTOR ANALYSIS EIGEN-VALUE PERCEIVED ADEQUACY AS ABOVE TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF TESTS USED FOR INTERNAL ANALYSIS ARRANGED BY TYPE OF INSTRUMENT INSTRUMENT TESTS APPLIED FUNCTIONAL ITEM ANALYSIS SPECIALIZATION HOYT/ANOVA {SPLIT/HALF) FORMALIZATION OF AS ABOVE ROLE DEFINITION CONCENTRATION OF AS ABOVE AUTHORITY DIVERSIFICATION OF AS ABOVE WORKFLOW, PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE FACTOR ANALYSIS 90 Table 6 shows the r e l a t i o n of the various sub-samples, to the whole sample. Ten Colleges were examined and measured on each v a r i a b l e (excluding the v a r i a b l e s of Congruence and Perceived Adeguacy of Performance). I n each C o l l e g e , two Teaching Departments, and two Non-Teaching Departments, were a l s o measured on a l l v a r i a b l e s , except t h a t D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow was measured only i n the Teaching Departments. , Thus the sample c o n s i s t e d of a t o t a l of f i f t y o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s , at two h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l s . I t comprised f i v e sub-groups of ten u n i t s each, but could a l s o be thought of as composed of two unequal sub-groups -ten C o l l e g e s i n one and f o r t y Departments i n . the other. F i n a l l y , the f o r t y Department sub-group could a l s o be d i v i d e d i n t o two sub-groups, the Teaching and the Non^feaching Departments, each group composed of twenty u n i t s . I n order to provide the most r i g o r o u s i n t e r n a l ; a n a l y s i s , and t o ensure that the sets of items i d e n t i f i e d were measuring the same element i n each of the sub-groups of the sample, each t e s t of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y was c a r r i e d out both i n the o v e r a l l sample, and i n each of the sub-groups, f o r a t o t a l of nine separate groups. (Col l e g e s , L i b r a r i e s , Counseling Departments, S o c i a l Science Departments, Natural Science Departments, a l l Departments together. Teaching Departments t o g e t h e r , Non-Teaching Departments together, and the whole sample). Items were t e s t e d i n each set t o s a t i s f y c r i t e r i a f o r acceptance. C r i t e r i a f o r the s t r u c t u r a l instruments were taken TABLE 6 COMPOSITION OF THE SAMPLE NAME OF SOB-SAMPLE TYPE OF MEMBERS NUMBER OF MEMBERS COLLEGES COLLEGES 10 LIB BABIES LIBRARIES 10 COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS 10 SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPABTMENTS 10 • NATURAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS NATURAL SCIENCE DEPABTMENTS 10 NON-TEACHING DEPARTMENTS LIBRARIES/ COUNSELING DEPABTMENTS 20 TEACHING DEPARTMENTS SOCIAL AND NATUBAL i SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS 20 ALL DEPARTMENTS LIBRARIES/ COUNSELING/SOCIAL/ NATUBAL SCIENCE DEPABTMENTS 40 HHOLE SAMPLE ALL DEPARTMENTS AND COLLEGES 50 92 from the Kelsey study. These were as follows. , For item analysis, c r i t e r i o n values were taken from the Aston and Kelsey practice. The minimum acceptable GBfi value for any i n d i v i d u a l item was 0.40. In addition, any set of items was held acceptable only i f the mean GBS valuer for the entir e set was not less than 0.63. These values were s p e c i f i e d by the o r i g i n a l Aston studies, were used by Kelsey and were accordingly retained for the present study (Sachs ,1964; 334) . In the case of Hoyt/Anova analysis i t was desired to obtain r e l i a b i l i t y estimates of at least 0.4. For each instrument the d e t a i l s of the figures obtained are given, and the few cases where t h i s l e v e l could, not be obtained are identified.*/ For nearly a l l of the items i n ; the set accepted, the c r i t e r i a were met or exceeded. In a few cases they were not, and acceptance was then contingent on a l l i e d considerations, which : are dealt with below. As w i l l be discussed, the e f f e c t of r e p l i c a t i n g the tests i n so large a number of groups, was to reduce the number of items which could be accepted f o r the f i n a l s e t . The implications of t h i s are considered i n subsequent chapters. In the case of the Perceived Adequacy of Performance instrument, the question of c r i t e r i a for acceptance of a set of items did not aris e i n the same way.-. This instrument was composed of twelve items, each of which measured a d i f f e r e n t aspect of adequacy of performance. Factor analysis was used to i d e n t i f y any underlying 9 3 factors. Since no cl e a r cat r e s u l t s were obtained, c o r r e l a t i o n analyses were performed using each i n d i v i d u a l item score. The twelfth item in the instrument was a measure of• o v e r a l l adeguacy. To supplement t h i s o v e r a l l test item, c o r r e l a t i o n analyses were carried out using two mean scores. one mean score was calculated from scores on a l l twelve items. , The other was calculated on the basis of the f i r s t eleven items, and omitting the o v e r a l l item score. There were therefore fourteen scores obtained from the Perceived Adeguacy of Performance instrument which were used i n the corr e l a t i o n analysis.. The following sections discuss the i n t e r n a l analyses carried out for each instrument. Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i on Item analysis resulted i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a set of eleven items. These were subjected to a Hoyt/Anova t e s t , which confirmed t h e i r unidimensionality, and the set was accepted, as the refined instrument. Item Analysis, In the Kelsey study, item analysis was performed on sets of items performed, and on sets of items delegated, i n the three di f f e r e n t groupings of schools* f o r a t o t a l of six analyses. In the present study, the analysis was carried out on sets of performed items, and on sets of delegated items, i n each of the nine groupings i d e n t i f i e d above, for a 94 t o t a l of eighteen analyses.. The c r i t e r i a were to be met i n each analysis. A set of eleven items was i d e n t i f i e d , which met the c r i t e r i a (numbers 4,9, 15,17,18,19,23,26,31,37,40).,, In t h i s set, there were two instances i n which an item f a i l e d to meet the c r i t e r i o n . , Item #26 f a i l e d to meet the c r i t e r i o n value i n the College sub-group, f o r delegated items. Item #3 f a i l e d to meet the c r i t e r i o n i n the Non-Teaching Departments sub-group. after several hundred i t e r a t i o n s had f a i l e d to i d e n t i f y any superior set of items, t h i s set was ten t a t i v e l y accepted for further analysis, using Hoyt/Anova f o r three reasons. 1. ( The two items each had high c o e f f i c i e n t s i n a l l other groups. , 2. ,„ In the two affected sub-groups, the mean c o e f f i c i e n t s were high. / 3. The two c o e f f i c i e n t s , although below the c r i t e r i o n J value, were, not excessively low. , Hoyt/Anova Analysis. This analysis was c a r r i e d out on both the performed and delegated items, i n each of the. nine sub-samples. In the resulting eighteen :. analyses, one r e l i a b i l i t y estimate was found to be below the c r i t e r i o n value, a t 0.20. This occurred i n the performed items i n the Colleges. However, in this sub-sample using the delegated items, a value of .51 was obtained. For the remaining instances, the range was from .40 to .88, and the median value was .62. The set was then 95 accepted f o r use i n subsequent analyses. I n the Kelsey study a s p l i t h a l f t e s t was a l s o c a r r i e d out on the scores on F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n (B 2/AI) , and (B.A.I). An attempt was made to f o l i o s t h i s procedure i n ; the present study./ The s m a l l number of items i n the s e t - h o . w ^ e r v i r e s u l t e d i n an unduly l a r g e number of zero scores, when only h a l f the items were used.. Consequently the procedure was not completed. The Refined Instrument. •, The f i n a l set of items i s shown i n Table 7 , i n only one case was the o r i g i n a l .:• ls^Q%;^;;aic%Jt?iit,y-represented by more than one item. F i v e Aston a c t i y i t i e s were no l o n g e r represented. The f a c t that these items were not represented; i n the set by which F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n could be measured does not, however, n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e t h a t these a c t i v i t i e s are not performed i n C o l l e g e s or i n Co l l e g e Departments. More probably i t was a r e s u l t o f the f a c t t h a t these a c t i v i t i e s are performed i n d i f f e r e n t ways i n d i f f e r e n t kinds of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l •'.'unit... In some ins t a n c e s they may not have been s p e c i a l i z e d . The attempt t o obt a i n a s e t of items which would be the same f o r each kind of u n i t may have n e c e s s i t a t e d the e l i m i n a t i o n of these d i f f e r e n c e s . TABLE 7 THE REFINED FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION INSTBDMENT ITEH ITEM NUMBER 4.,, PRODUCING A COLLEGE (DEPABTBENT) MAGAZINE 9, LIAISON WITH CANADA MANPOWEB 15. HIBING NON—TEACHING STAFF 17. CO-OBDINATION OF IN-SEBVICE TBAINING OB STAFF DISCUSSION GROUPS (OTHER THAN DEPABTMENTAL MEETINGS) 18. CO-OBDINATION OF STAFF WELFABE, SOCIAL OR SPORTS ACTIVITIES 19. OPERATING CANTEEN CAFETEBIA (OR STAFF LOUNGE) ; ACTIVITIES 23. BUYING MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT 26. OPERATING CARETAKINGSEBVICES 31 . TIMETABLING AND CURRICULUM : {OR OPERATIONS);. CO-ORDINATION (AND SCHEDULING) 37. DESIGNING WAYS OF INCORPOBATING NEW COURSES, PBOGBAMMES (OB SEBVICE ABEAS) t OB K ; CO-OBDINATING SUGGESTIONS IN THIS AREA 40. HANDLING LEGAL OS INSURANCE AFFAIRS NOTE: WORDING SPECIFIC TO DEPARTMENTS IS SHOWN IN BRACKETS. , 97 F o r m a l i z a t i o n Of Role D e f i n i t i o n . I n t e r n a l a n a l y s i s of t h i s instrument was complicated by two co n s i d e r a t i o n s . The f i r s t arose from the i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n t o the study of an attempt to t e s t Kelsey's f i n d i n g r e l a t i n g t o system i n f l u e n c e . The College v e r s i o n of the F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n instrument had r e f e r r e d only to College documents. In the Departments, however, documents o r i g i n a t i n g i n both College and Departments were l i s t e d . . I t was t h e r e f o r e necessary to ca r r y out analyses on s e v e r a l combinations of documents. The f i r s t was c a r r i e d out on the College instrument using College documents, and i n the Departments using Departmental documents only. Two a d d i t i o n a l analyses were then c a r r i e d out on the Department instrument. The f i r s t used a l l College and Departmental documents. , The second used a combination of some College and some Departmental documents, ( i . e College documents f o r items 1 to 7, and Department documents f o r items 8 to 14) . This f i n a l a n a l y s i s r e s u l t e d i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a s e t of items which was confirmed by a Hoyt/Anova t e s t . . The second c o m p l i c a t i o n arose from the f a c t t h a t data obtained through t h i s instrument were multi-category, rather than dichotomous. I t was necessary t o carry out the item a n a l y s i s at each s c o r i n g l e v e l , f o r a t o t a l of seven l e v e l s . A c c o r d i n g l y , f o r the Departmental v e r s i o n of t h i s instrument, the a n a l y s i s was performed f o r t y - n i n e times f o r each set of 98 i t ess t r i e d . The analysis was carried oat i n seven groupings {each of the four kinds of Department, plus the Teaching Departments, the Non-Teaching Departments, and a l l Departments taken together), f o r each of the seven l e v e l s , and t h i s was done f o r the three d i f f e r e n t combinations of item groupings, which have just been; described. For the College version of the instrument, analysis was carried out only i n the College group, at each of the seven le v e l s . Item Analysis. In the Formalization of Bole D e f i n i t i o n instrument used by Kelsey, three kinds of document were i d e n t i f i e d . , For convenience they are referred to here as A system documents B school documents analogous to system documents C school documents unigue to the schools In the present study, these three categories were expanded to f i v e . Table 8 shows the f i v e kinds of documents, and th e i r r e l a t i o n to the types of documents found by Kelsey, and labelled A B and C above.„ Item numbers 1-7 were based on documents i n the Kelsey study which were found to originate i n school systems,, but not in i n d i v i d u a l schools. In the present study, analogous College documents were i d e n t i f i e d . These were measured both in the Colleges and i n the Departments, because a College.document could well be of influence upon the structure of a College Department. Items 8-14 refer to Departmental documents,similar to the TABLE 8 DOCUMENTS MEASURED BY FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION INSTRUMENT GROUP KELSEY WHERE MEASURED ITEM NUMBERS TYPE IN PRESENT STUDY 1 A IN COLLEGES 1-7 2 A IN DEPARTMENTS 1-7 3 B IN DEPARTMENTS 8-14 4 C IN DEPARTMENTS 15-22 5 C IN COLLEGES 15-22 Kelsey "B" documents l i s t e d above, and analogous to the College documents of items 1-7, and which were measured only i n the Departments. ,• Items 15-22 were based on documents i n the Kelsey study which were found t o be o r i g i n a t e d i n i n d i v i d u a l s chools but not i n school systems. Because Colleges were f e l t t o bear resemblance to i n d i v i d u a l schools i n some r e s p e c t s , these documents were thought l i k e l y to be o r i g i n a t e d s e p a r a t e l y i n both C o l l e g e s and Departments.„ These documents were therefore l i s t e d and measured s e p a r a t e l y i n both C o l l e g e s and Departments. The r e s u l t i n g scores were based on d i f f e r e n t but analogous documents at each l e v e l of the organization.,, In the College instrument there was t h e r e f o r e a t o t a l of f i f t e e n documents l i s t e d . The Department instrument l i s t e d twenty-two, because i t i ncluded the seven items unique t o Departments., Table 9 d i s p l a y s the s t a t u s of the various items of the 100 instrument. TABLE 9 FORMALIZATION OF BOLE DEFINITION DOCUMENTS ^ FOB COLLEGES AND DEPARTMENTS ITEM # 1, 1m 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8,9, 10,11,12, 13,14,15, 16,17, 18,19,20, 21, 22 IN <KELSEY > < NOT > < KELSEY TYPE C > COLLEGE TYPE A M EASUBED (D (5) IN DEPABT-MENTS <KELSEY TYPE A (2) > < KELSEY TYPE B (3) > < KELSEY TYPE in c > NOTE: NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES INDICATE THE CATEGORIES DESCRIBED IN TABLE 8. While item a n a l y s i s could be performed only on one group of items f o r Co l l e g e s , four d i f f e r e n t analogous groups could be used f o r Departments. Table 10 shows the groups of items f o r each of these p o s s i b l e analyses Using group number one f o r Colleges and number two f o r Departments, a s e t of ten items was i d e n t i f i e d , whichmet or exceeded the c r i t e r i a i n a l l cases. I n the Departments, t h i s set c o n s i s t e d of item numbers 10-13, 15-17, 19-21. In the C o l l e g e s , the item numbers were 3-6, 8-10, 12-14., 10.1 TABLE 1 0 GBOOPS OF ITEMS FOE ALT EE NATIVE ANALYSES OF FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION GROUP ITEM NUMBERS MEASURABLE IN NUMBER 1 1-r7 AND 15-22 COLLEGES AND DEPARTMENTS 2 8 - 2 2 DEPARTMENTS 3 1-:22 DEPARTMENTS 4 1-7 (USING PARENT COLLEGE DEPARTMENTS SCORES) AND 15-22 (USING DEPARTMENTAL SCORES) A second s e t of eleven items was i d e n t i f i e d , whichmet t h e c r i t e r i a , u s i ng the f o u r t h a l t e r n a t i v e f o r Departments; i n which C o l l e g e s c o r e s on items 1-7 were used, together, with item numbers 1 5 - 2 2 . T h i s s e t comprised item numbers 1 , 2 , 5 , 7 , 1 5 , 17-22 Hoyt/Anova A n a l y s i s . Hoyt/Anova a n a l y s i s on the ten item set produced a c c e p t a b l e r e l i a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s i n a l l sub-samples except, that composed o f the C o l l e g e s , where; the f i g u r e of 0 was obta i n e d . F o r t h i s reason the s e t was not ac c e p t e d . . In the s e t of eleven items, the lowest estimate was found i n L i b r a r i e s , 0 . 2 9 . A l l other r e s u l t s ranged from 0 . 4 6 t o 0 . 6 9 , with a median o f 0 . 5 5 . T h i s s e t was accepted as the s e t 102 on which a score f o r F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n would be c a l c u l a t e d . However only seven items i n t h i s set used scores on documents which were unique t o a Department of a given C o l l e g e . The other f o u r item scores were taken from College scores, and wh i l e these would d i s c r i m i n a t e between the Departments of d i f f e r e n t C o l l e g e s , they would not do so amongst Departments of the same C o l l e g e . ; This set of items therefore s t r o n g l y emphasized the parent College i n f l u e n c e i n a l l cases, and diminished that of the Departments., For these reasons, i t was decided t o c a r r y out c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses on both sets of items. Item a n a l y s i s had i n d i c a t e d the f i r s t set could be he l d to c o n s t i t u t e a Guttman s c a l e , and even though Hoyt/Anova d i d not confirm t h i s , i t was f e l t that u s e f u l , i f t e n t a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n might be gained through i t s use. , The Befined Instrument. The r e f i n e d instrument contained eleven items., However, i t was found necessary to u t i l i s e the parent College score f o r items 1,2 and 5-7. As i n the case of the F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n instrument, t h i s suggests t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s between the types of Department were important i n the attempt t o i d e n t i f y a set of items which would be common t o each. U t i l i z a t i o n of the common College scores reduced the d i f f e r e n c e s and made the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a common> s e t f e a s i b l e , and p o s s i b l y represents, i n a d d i t i o n , the importance of College i n f l u e n c e s on the F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n of Departments. „ The set of ten items, using only the Department documents 10 3 for the Departments was retained for comparative purposes, i n the c o r r e l a t i o n analysis. Concentration Of Authority This instrument consisted of a set of items which indicated who had the authority to make each of a set of l i s t e d decisions. One item did not discriminate between? respondents ' and was removed from the an a l y s i s . The remaining items were-reduced to twelve by item analysis. The analysis was carried put in the nine d i f f e r e n t groupings. , Because t h i s was a multi-category instrument, with eight possible responses, the analysis was carried out at a l l eight l e v e l s , i n each of the nine groupings, f o r each set of items. The c r i t e r i a were to be met i n each of the resulting 72 analyses. l ? The set i d e n t i f i e d as a r e s u l t of item analysis was then subjected to Hoyt/Anova analysis for confirmation. Item Analysis. A set of twelve items was i d e n t i f i e d , which met the c r i t e r i a , i n a l l cases. This set was composed of item numbers 6, 10, 14, 17, 18, 20-23, 29, 31, 32, i n the Departmental version of the instrument., In the College version, i t was i d e n t i f i e d by item numbers 6, 11, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 32, 34, 35. The d i f f e r i n g item numbers arose because of the unequal numbers of items i n the two versions of the instrument as was described i n chapter 5. „• 104 TABLE 11 CONCENTRATION OF AUTHOBITY REFINED INSTRUMENT ITEM WORDING NUMBER HBO DECIDES: € THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INSTRUCTOR 11; (10) TO APPOINT AN INSTBUCTOB TO OB BEHOVE AN INSTBUCTOB FBOM AN EMOLUMENT-BEABINGl POSITION 15 (14): THE INTRODUCTION OF A NEB COURSE {OR SERVICE), 18 (17) WHICH EMPLOYMENT OR FOBTHEB EDUCATION OPPOBTUNITIES SHALL BE PRESENTED TO STUDENTS 19 (18) WHAT ITEMS OB PBOCESSES SHALL BE COSTED 21 (20) TO DISMISS A DEAN/ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL OR EQUIVALENT (ASSISTANT DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD) 22 (21) TO DEMOTE A DEAN/ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL OB EQUIVALENT (ASSISTANT DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD) 25 (22) TO DISMISS AN INSTBUCTOB 26 (23) THE METHODS OF TBAINING OB HELP FOB NEW INSTRUCTORS (EMPLOYEES) 32 (29) TO ALT EE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF CARETAKERS 34 (31) TO CREATE A NEW NON-TEACHING STAFF POSITIpN 35 (32) TO CREATE A NEW TEACHING POSITION NOTE: DEPARTMENT ITEM NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES. AND DEPARTMENT WORDINGS ABE SHOWN 105 Some of the items i n t h i s s e t were n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t i n g i n some sub-groups of the sample, but a l l items d i s c r i m i n a t e d across the sample as a whole. Hoyt/Anova a n a l y s i s . Hoyt/anova a n a l y s i s gave r e l i a b i l i t y estimates ranging i n the various samples from 0 . 5 3 to; 0*s88,; with a median of 0 . 7 2 . Accordingly, t h i s set of items was accepted f o r c a l c u l a t i o n of a score on Concentration of a u t h o r i t y . The Refined Instrument. The f i n a l s et of twelve items i s shown i n Table 1 1 . I n t h i s s e t , two of the Aston items (#14 and #23) were represented by more than one item, both having t o do with s t a f f i n g . , T h i s r e s u l t was s i m i l a r to that of the Kelsey study.. Twelve of the Aston items were not represented i n , the, r e f i n e d instrument., This f i n d i n g also i s s i m i l a r t o that of the Kelsey study. The f a c t that the Aston items r e t a i n e d d i f f e r e d somewhat i n these two s t u d i e s may w e l l r e f l e c t the d i f f e r e n c e s which do e x i s t between Schools and C o l l e g e s . , D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of workf low The procedure followed by Kelsey (1973) and M a r s h a l l (1978) had included the c a l c u l a t i o n of Kendall's c o e f f i c i e n t of concordance, to assess the degree of a s s o c i a t i o n between elements i n each of the s i x aspects of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n . Since the items were not found t o be a s s o c i a t e d i n t h i s way i n e i t h e r 106 study, i t »as decided to omit t h i s analysis. In the present study, the instrument was used only i n the Colleges and the Teaching Departments., Consequently the number of groups i n which analysis had to be ca r r i e d out was reduced by four. L i b r a r i e s , Counseling Departments, Hon-Teaching Departments, and a l l Departments taken together were not included. The instrument was multi-category, and the analysis was carried out at each of four l e v e l s , in f i v e groups. These were the Colleges, S o c i a l Science Departments, Natural Science Departments, the Teaching Group, and i n the whole sample (in t h i s case consisting of only t h i r t y cases, however, since the Non-Teaching Groups were omitted). A number of items were omitted from the analysis, because they could not be completed by a majority of the respondents. The items corresponding to the dimension termed equippinq by Kelsey (numbers 31, 32, 33 of the present instrument), presented s p e c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . , Item 31 asked how l a ay : p i eces. of •, visual equipment the Department or College possess&d.^-y.^In^most' Colleges nearly a l l such equipment was centralized. In many instances inventory control was inaccurate, and t h i s was often accompanied by the existence of various pieces of u n o f f i c i a l equipment. Item 32 asked how many pieces of duplicating equipment were possessed. This was also frequently centralized, and was complicated by d i f f i c u l t i e s of distinguishing . between 107 duplicating and printing eguipment, and by various, types of contract and leasing arrangements. Item 33 asked about the number and types of teaching spaces.. Most of the Colleges sere growing, and were not i n a stable state i n t h i s respect. Rental of school classrooms and community f a c i l i t i e s , , such as churches and greenhouses, f o r short and long periods of time, and use of portable units was common. For these reasons these three items were removed from the analysis, and the refined instrument therefore did not contain the o r i g i n a l Kelsey dimension equipping. Item 3, the hours of operation, was removed from the analysis, because i n most cases, the hours were not formally defined. To some extent item 4, which asked whether there was a policy governing variations from the scheduled t i m e t a b l e helped to make up for the omission of t h i s item. ,, .Items 34 and 35, s i z e of teaching groups and period length and s t a r t times were also removed, the f i r s t because the data were unavailable, and the second because there was such d i v e r s i t y the item could not be scored i n the way o r i g i n a l l y planned. Two other items were removed, numbers 17 and 18. The f i r s t asked what programmes were offered. Differences of d e f i n i t i o n i n Colleges created a lack of consistency. The second item asked what courses were compulsory, and i n most cases there were none at the College or Department l e v e l . The remaining 28 items were used in the tests of i n t e r n a l consistency. 108 Item A n a l y s i s . A set o f ten items was i d e n t i f i e d which met the c r i t e r i a f o r item a n a l y s i s , at each l e v e l i n a l l groupings. This set f a i l e d to be substantiated by Hoyt/Anova a n a l y s i s . Accordingly, item a n a l y s i s was repeated on a l t e r n a t i v e s e t s of items drawn from v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n of c o e f f i c i e n t s on a l l the o r i g i n a l 2 8 items. As a r e s u l t , three d i f f e r e n t s e t s were i d e n t i f i e d , each of which met the c r i t e r i a i n one grouping, but not i n a l l . . These s e t s were then confirmed by Hoyt/Anova a n a l y s i s . The items i n the dimensions i d e n t i f i e d i n the Kelsey and Marshall s t u d i e s - P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n and Acceptance, and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l , r e s p e c t i v e l y , were analyzed i n the present study. * Not a l l items of these dimensions were included i n the modified instrument, but to the extent to which each set could be r e p l i c a t e d the a n a l y s i s was repeated. , These analyses d i d not confirm the existence of the same underlying dimensions. A set of ten items which was composed of item numbers 2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 20, 21, 24, 26, 29, was i d e n t i f i e d as meeting the c r i t e r i a . T h i s s e t was not confirmed by Hoyt/Anova a n a l y s i s . Three d i f f e r e n t sets were i d e n t i f i e d by item a n a l y s i s , f o r Colleges, S o c i a l Science Departments, and Natural Science Departments, r e s p e c t i v e l y . I n the C o l l e g e s , a twelve item set was i d e n t i f i e d > composed of item numbers 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 21-25, 29. In t h e S o c i a l Science Departments, an eleven item s e t was i d e n t i f i e d , c o n s i s t i n g of item numbers 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 109 and 25., In the Natural Science Departments, an eight item set »as i d e n t i f i e d composed of item numbers 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 24, 25, and 27. Table 12 displays these sets. Hoyt/Anova Analysis. „ The three sets of items which were i d e n t i f i e d i n the item analysis were subjected t o Hoyt/Anova analysis, i n each of the three sub-samples., R e l i a b i l i t y estimates of 0.65, 0.68 and 0.72 were obtained. ; These sets were then accepted as the refined instruments for the three sub-samples. The Refined Instrument., Since i t did not prove possible to i d e n t i f y a single set of items which met the c r i t e r i a i n a l l groupings, the refined instrument had three versions. They consisted of three d i f f e r e n t sets of items, one for each type of organizational unit measured on t h i s v a r i a b l e . , T h e implications of t h i s are discussed at greater length below, but there was a p o s s i b i l i t y that the three sets might.not be measuring the same thing. , This was p a r t i c u l a r l y impprtant, not only t h e o r e t i c a l l y , but also in l i g h t of the f a c t that the scores were to be used to derive Congruence scores. A l l the items did, i n f a c t , by d e f i n i t i o n express a facet of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow, and each, item had proved measurable i n each sub-group. Hany combinations of the items had also proved scalable i n one or other of the sub-groups. On t h i s basis, the position was taken that the sets, although d i f f e r e n t i n s p e c i f i c composition, did not necessarily 110 TABLE 12 THE REFINED DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW INSTRUMENT ITEM TOPIC NUMBER 2 ENROLLMENT IN A SECTION 6 CHANGING SECTIONS 8 PROGRAMME CHANGE 11 POLICY ON ATTENDANCE 12 ABSENCE PROCEDURES 16 PLAGIARISM 21 FREE PERIODS 22 HOUSE SYSTEM 23 FACULTY ADVISOR 24 COURSE LOAD POLICY 25 TYPE OF EVALUATION 29 FEEDBACK USED IN COLLEGES 4 VARIATIONS FROM TIMETABLE SOCIAL SCIENCES 6 CHANGING SECTIONS 7 DROPPING A COURSE 12 ABSENCE PROCEDURES 13 MOVEMENT OF PERSONNEL 15 APPEALS 17 NO. OF WAYS STUDENTS REPRESENTED 18 STUDENT ASSOCIATION . 20 STUDENT INVOLVEMENT 21 FREE PERIODS 25 TYPE OF EVALUATION ' 10 NO.,,OF COURSE DROPS NATURAL/SCIENCES 11 POLICY ON ATTENDANCE .-!••<<'••••-.•• 15 APPEALS 16 PLAGIARISM 18 STUDENT ASSOCIATION 24 COURSE LOAD POLICY 2 5- TYPE OF EVALUATION 27 STUDENT ADVANCEMENT POLICY NOTE: ITEMS NUMBERS ARE THOSE OF THE REDUCED SET OF ITEMS, j THEY REFER TO THE ITEM NUMBERS SHOWN IN PARENTHESES IN APPENDIX A. 111 measure d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s . The need f o r d i f f e r e n t s e t s demonstrated the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n t o f f i q r k f l o w was expressed somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y i n d i f f e r e n t environments, thus suggesting a r e a l d i f f e r e n c e between the types of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t of the sample, which i t was one of the purposes of the study t o i n v e s t i g a t e . Accordingly the three s e t s were accepted f o r purposes of the subsequent a n a l y s i s . However, because the three s e t s were d i f f e r e n t , the f i r s t , common set which had been i d e n t i f i e d by item a n a l y s i s , was a l s o used f o r comparison i n the c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s . Perceived Adequacy Of Performance In Hassen's a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s instrument,, f a c t o r a n a l y s i s revealed two u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r s , which were termed p r o d u c t i v i t y (Hassen item numbers 1, 2, 3) ( i d e n t i c a l item numbers i n the present study) ; and a d a p t a b i l i t y (Hassen item numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ) . (item numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 i n the present st u d y ) . Hassen a l s o found t h a t the t o t a l set of items c o r r e l a t e d s u f f i c i e n t l y h i g h l y with the o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s item, which had been incorporated i n the instrument on a p r o v i s i o n a l b a s i s , t o warrant using only the l a t t e r , f o r c a l c u l a t i o n of a t o t a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s score. In the present study, f a c t o r a n a l y s i s on the Perceived Adequacy of Performance instrument was performed on the item scores i n each of the Departmental groupings p r e v i o u s l y 112 des c r i b e d . The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s were not conclusive*. I n i t i a l l y a p r i n c i p a l components s o l u t i o n was performed, using scores on the twelve v a r i a b l e s as assigned by the Department heads f o r t h e i r own Departments o n l y . , The number of common f a c t o r s was determined using the K a i s e r / G u t t m a n r u l e (Harman 1976:134-135).... In two sub-samples, the S o c i a l Science Departments and the n a t u r a l Science Departments, two f a c t o r s were i d e n t i f i e d . , A varimax r o t a t i o n was then c a r r i e d out (Harman 1976:290-299). The f a c t o r s were not accepted a t t h i s stage, because they were not found i n a l l Departmental groupings, and a l s o because i n the two groupings i n which they d i d occur, the f i r s t f a c t o r accounted f o r 90.6 and 90.75S of the common variance r e s p e c t i v e l y i n the two sub-samples., A second p r i n c i p a l components s o l u t i o n was then c a r r i e d out, using scores on each v a r i a b l e as assigned by a l l respondents.. Again the Kaiser/Guttman r u l e was used. For the same two sub-samples two f a c t o r s were found. Because of the p o s s i b i l i t y that the f a c t o r s might be c o r r e l a t e d an oblique transformation by d i r e c t o b l i m i n was performed, i n which M a x i m u m o b l i q u i t y was allowed (Harman 1976: 320-327) . , A moderate c o r r e l a t i o n was found between the f a c t o r s i n both instances (.59 and .61). As i n the pr e v i o u s l y described a n a l y s i s , the f i r s t f a c t o r accounted f o r over 90S of the common variance. In l i g h t of the moderately high c o r r e l a t i o n s and the st r e n g t h of the f i r s t f a c t o r , i t was decided not t o accept the two f a c t o r solution.„ 113 accordingly, i t was decided to use only individual, item scores i n the co r r e l a t i o n analysis, together with the two mean scores which were described on page 93. Each of the twelve items of the instrument; was used separately to calculate scores on Perceived adeguacy of Performance... These Perceived adeguacy variables w i l l be referred to as Production, Quality, E f f i c i e n c y ^ Effectiveness,  a n t i c i p a t i o n , Response to Chjingej. Speed of ad i us t me nt.., Proportion adjusting. Problem S o l v i n g L C r i s i s Coping, Co-operation and Overall adeguacy. Two mean scores were calculated and the twelve i n d i v i d u a l items were each/used to measure di f f e r e n t aspects of Perceived adeguacy of Performance. There was therefore a t o t a l of fourteen Perceived adeguacy of Performance scores available f o r use i n the subsequent analysis. SUMMARY OF THE REFIBEMENT OF THE INSTRUMENTS This section has described how the raw instruments were refined by the use of item analysis, Hoyt/Anova ( s p l i t / h a l f ) analysis and factor analysis. In Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n , Formalization of Role Definition and Concentration of Authority, single sets of items «ere i d e n t i f i e d f o r use in each sub-group of the sample. In the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow and Perceived Adeguacy of Performance instruments, underlying dimensions found i n previous studies were not confirmed.,. In 114 the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow instrument separate sets were i d e n t i f i e d for each of the three groups studied., In Perceived Adeguacy of Performance, i n d i v i d u a l item scores were used, together with two mean scores. The refined instruments were used to calculate scores on the variables for each member of the sample. Resulting scores formed the basis f o r further analyses. The results of these analyses are described in the following chapters. 115 CHAPTER 6 THE STRUCTURE OF COLLEGES AND DEPARTMENTS This chapter i s concerned with sub-;problems 1 and 2: what r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i f any, e x i s t among each of the v a r i a b l e s of Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and Workflow S t r u c t u r e i n the c o l l e g e s which form the sample? What r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i f any, e x i s t among each of the v a r i a b l e s of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and Workflow St r u c t u r e i n the Co l l e g e Departments. The study was i n part a r e p l i c a t i o n of the Kelsey study, performed i n a d i f f e r e n t k i n d of e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . The f i r s t two sub-problems enabled an attempt to be made to s u b s t a n t i a t e some of the Kelsey f i n d i n g s , and t o i n v e s t i g a t e some guestions a r i s i n g from t h a t study. These sub^problems a l s o permitted guestions about the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the Aston framework t o C o l l e g e Departments. The chapter f i r s t reviews the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s which were used and b r i e f l y discusses the scores on those v a r i a b l e s . T h i s i s fol l o w e d by a s e l e c t i v e review and d i s c u s s i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n s among the s t r u c t u r a l variables.,. Spearman's rank c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was used t o examine the degree of a s s o c i a t i o n among the v a r i a b l e s . Tests were c a r r i e d out i n a l l sub-groups of the sample, but not i n the whole sample. The reason f o r t h i s was that the whole sample inc l u d e d two h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l s , and i t was expected th a t the 116 nature of any associations might vary from one level to another. Using the whole sample could have created spurious c o r r e l a t i o n s , or masked v a l i d ones. , The c o r r e l a t i o n analyses revealed considerable differences among the sub-groups. For t h i s reason, the focus of discussion i s placed on the Colleges and the four types of Department, i n t h i s and in succeeding chapters. Results of the c o r r e l a t i o n analysis i n a l l sub-groups are tabulated in Appendix C./, In the discussion of c o r r e l a t i o n s , a reference to a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n indicates that a c o r r e l a t i o n s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at alpha=0.1 or beyond was found. A statement that no c o r r e l a t i o n was found indicates that no c o r r e l a t i o n s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at alpha=0. 1 or beyond was found. In some cases, the absence of a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n i s of i n t e r e s t . Where a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of exactly .001 i s shown, i t must be read as a minimum of .001. Correlations beyond t h i s are not reported more s p e c i f i c a l l y . , For example, occasionally c o e f f i c i e n t s of 1.000 were observed.,, In these cases, the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e i s s t i l l given as .001, due to the l i m i t s of the computer program which was used.. The review of the c o r r e l a t i o n s i s followed by a consideration of the commonalities and differences among the sub-groups, and by a f i n a l summary of the chapter.. 117 SCORES ON VARIABLES OF STRUCTURE The seven v a r i a b l e s of s t r u c t u r e which were ;measured y i e l d e d ten separate scores f o r the purpose of c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s . These were as f o l l o w s : two a l t e r n a t i v e scores on F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n , {using B 2/AI, and B. A. I r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , two a l t e r n a t i v e scores on F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n , scores on Concentration of A u t h o r i t y , Autonomy, D i s c r e t i o n , In-Unit L e v e l of Decisipn-Haking, and two a l t e r n a t i v e scores on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow., The scores on these v a r i a b l e s are given i n f u l l i n Appendix B. Table 13 shows the means, ranges and maxima f o r the v a r i a b l e s i n the Colleges and i n each type of Department. An important p r e l i m i n a r y question concerned the v a l i d i t y of the Aston framework i n College Departments, and whether Aston and Kelsey v a r i a b l e s could be measured i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s as s m a l l as some of the Departments i n the sample. The instruments used i n the study d i s c r i m i n a t e d between the C o l l e g e s , between the Departments, and, i n c e r t a i n w a y s , between the four types of Department. The r e s u l t s of ;the .study thus i n d i c a t e that the v a r i a b l e s could be measured, and supported the v a l i d i t y of t h i s use of the conceptual framework...,„. The f o l l o w i n g paragraphs b r i e f l y comment on the scores f o r each v a r i a b l e i n the sample, and i t s sub-groups, p r i o r to a d i s c u s s i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n s amongst them.. 118 T A B L E 13 STRUCTURAL ; VARIABLES - MEANS, RANGES, MAXIMA COLLEGES LIBRARIES C O U N S E L I N G S O C I A L S C I E N C E S M E A N R A N G E MAX M E A N R A N G E M A X M E A N R A N G E M A X M E A N R A N G E MAX 1 .669 .598 .875 .4 35 1.7 1.7 .362 1.3 1.3 . .185 .714 .71 4 2 548.3 690 900 59.9 191 196 30.1 90.0 9 0.0 24.2 175 175 3 53.2 15.0 60.0 43.2 17.0 49.0 45.4 16.0 55. 0 41.0 19.0 51.0 4 6.4 6.0 10.0 4.1 4.0 6.0 2.6 4.0 5. 0 4. 0 5.0 7. 0 5 4.0 6.0 7.0 2.7 5.0 6.0 3. 1 4.0 5. 0 2.3 6.0 6.0 6 4.5 1.1 5.1 3.9 1.5 4.4 4. 1 1.4 5. 0 3.7 1.7 4.6 '7.'; 10.0 11.0 17.0 9.0 9.0 14.0 9.6 12.0 17.0 10.0 8.0 15.0 8 12. 1 7.0 15.0 11.3 8.0 15 .0 7.2 14.0 16.0 5. 1 14.0 15.0 9 16.8 11.0 24.0 20.9 9.0 26.0 10 19. 2| 6.0 22.0 . _ . : . — - — - — . — . — _ 16.5 9.0 26.0 N A T U R A L S C I E N C E S T E A C H I N G D E P T S . , N O N - ' T E A C H I N G / ^ E P T S " M E A N R A N G E MAX M E A N R A N G E M A X M E A N R!ANGil:;:MA"X:'"'-''' 1 .201 .500 .500 .193 .714 .714 .399 1.777 1.777 2 19.0 60.0 60.0 21.6 175 175 45. 0 196 196 3 43.8 23.0 53.0 42.4 23.0 53.0 4 4. 3 23.0 55.0 4 3.3 5.0 6.0 3.6 6.0 7.0 3.3 5.0 6.0 5 3.2 7.0 8.0 2.7 8.0 8.0 2.9 5.0 6.0 6 3.9 2.0 4.8 3.8 2.0 4.8 4.0 2.0 5.0 7 9.9 10.0 16.0 9.9 10.0 16.0 9.3 12.0 17.0 8 4.9 13.0 14.0 5.0 14.0 15.0 9.2 14.0 16.0 9 15.4 11.0 19.0 18.1 18.0 26.0 10 16.1 10.0 20.0 16. 3 10.0 20.0 NOTE: COLUMN 1 IDENTIFIES THE VARIABLES. ,IN OBDEB, THESE ABE: 1. FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION (B*/AI) 2. FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION {B. A.I) 3. CONCENTRATION OF AUTHORITY 4. AUTONOMY 5. / DISCRETION 6. IN-UNIT DECISION LEVEL 7. ;, FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION 8. ; FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION 9. DIVERSIFICATION OF JfOSKFLOB (1) 10. DIVERSIFICATION OF HORKFLOB (2) (2) 119 Fa.notional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n Kelsey (1973:228) found that t h i s variable appeared to be of less importance in schools than i n o t h e r r k i n d s of organization. In the refined model of that study,, the variable was renamed Delegation, to r e f l e c t the way i t had been operationalized by Kelsey, in comparison with the o r i g i n a l Aston studies. , Appendix B shows two scores f o r t h i s variable, which are based on the Kelsey study., The f i r s t was calculated according to the formula B 2/AI, and the second by the formula B.A.I. In the present study, no clear preference for either- alternative could ; be established, and both were retained f o r subsequent use in the co r r e l a t i o n analysis. I t i s of interest to note that the means on each Functiona! Sp e c i a l i z a t i o n variable were higher i n the Non-Teaching Departments than i n the Teaching Departments, both when taken as the four kinds of i n d i v i d u a l Department and when considered as two types of Department. Each mean was higher i n the Colleges than i n the Departments. 120 F o r m a l i z a t i o n Of Bole D e f i n i t i o n As noted i n the previous chapter. F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n was measured i n two ways, of which only the: f i r s t had i t s r e l i a b i l i t y v e r i f i e d by Hoyt/Anova. The f i r s t measure y i e l d e d scores which showed very l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n between Colleges and Departments or between the kinds of Department, The second measure y i e l d e d s i m i l a r p a r i t y i n Colleges and Non-Teaching Departments, but showed lower mean scores i n : Teaching Departments. Both : measures were r e t a i n e d f o r use i n the c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s because the scores on each set were not i n general very d i s s i m i l a r , and because the f a i l u r e of one t e s t t o confirm v a l i d a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d by another does not i n i t s e l f e s t a b l i s h beyond doubt th a t the measure i s i n v a l i d . Nevertheless, the only p a r t l y e s t a b l i s h e d v a l i d i t y of t h i s measure r e g u i r e s t h a t a n a l y s i s based upon i t must be accepted with some c a u t i o n . The v a l i d a t e d set i s i d e n t i f i e d as v a r i a b l e number 8 i n Table 13. The d i f f e r e n c e i n s i z e of mean scores between types of Department which appeared i n regard t o F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n was not so marked i n the case of Fo r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n . Nor was there so pronounced a d i f f e r e n c e between College and Department means. Concentration Of Authority The scores d e r i v e d from the Concentration of A u t h o r i t y instrument were used i n fo u r ways: 121 1. :; As t o t a l scores to i n d i c a t e the average l e v e l a t which decision-making occurs. This average i n c l u d e s scores on d e c i s i o n s taken above the l e v e l of the Department head, or C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r ; 2 . As binary scores t o i n d i c a t e a C o l l e g e 1 s or Dej»artmeat's Autonomy in•terms of t h e number of d e c i s i o n s which could be made at the l e v e l of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e head of the p r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t ; , 3 . , As the d i f f e r e n c e between the Decisions and the Recommendations B i t h C e r t a i n t y , to i n d i c a t e the D i s c r e t i o n enjoyed by an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t ; 4. To i n d i c a t e the average l e v e l at which d e c i s i o n s w i t h i n a College or Department were made.„ I n c o n t r a s t to 1 above, t h i s average d i d not i n c l u d e d e c i s i o n s taken above the l e v e l of the Department head or College Chief Executive O f f i c e r . . The t o t a l Concentration of A u t h o r i t y scores were comparable i n a l l sub-groups o f the sample./ Those on Autpnomy were ge n e r a l l y somewhat lower i n the Departments than i n the C o l l e g e s , which suggested that College C h i e f Executive O f f i c e r s tended t o delegate l e s s power downwards than was the p r a c t i c e with College Boards. Ranges and maxima i n d i c a t e t h a t scores on D i s c r e t i o n and t o a l e s s e r extent on In-rOnit L e v e l of D e c i s i o n m a k i n g were 122 generally highest i n the Natural Science Departments and next i n Colleges, but mean scores did not vary greatly between: the sub-groups, and the variables had a wide range of scores i n a l l sub-groups. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow This variable was measured i n Colleges and the two Teaching Departments, but not i n L i b r a r i e s or Counseling Departments. The process of refinement of the instrument had i s o l a t e d a set of items which met the c r i t e r i a f o r a Guttman scale i n the item analysis, but not in the Hoyt/Anova analysis. No single set could be is o l a t e d which met both c r i t e r i a i n each of the three sub-groups.; To i s o l a t e a set which could do so i t was necessary to use a diff e r e n t set f o r each sub-group|.These three sets were used as the primary measures, i n the appropriate group respectively, but i f used alone would have provided l i t t l e assurance of comparability among the sub-groups., For t h i s reason the f i r s t , unconfirmed set was also used, In order to determine whether resulting scores would be widely . d i f f e r e n t from any or a l l of the three confirmed set scores. Scores on the confirmed set are represented as D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow variable 1 i n Table 13., In that table, D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow variable 2 i d e n t i f i e s the unconfirmed set. Examination of the scores reveals that while differences i n the mean scores on the two measures were found, they are not greatly 12 3 divergent, p a r t i c u l a r l y since the ranges are large i n comparison with the mean. The use of the unconfirmed set thus helped to v a l i d a t e the use of the others as measuring the same concept i n each type of o r g a n i z a t i o n u n i t . ., ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN THE VARIABLES: COMHONALITY AND/DIFFERENCES As has been noted above, the scores, means and ranges obtained f o r the v a r i a b l e s of s t r u c t u r e examined i n ; t h i s study i n d i c a t e that the measures do d i s c r i m i n a t e between the C o l l e g e s and Departments or groups of Departments i n the sample.. Of greater i n t e r e s t than these s c o r e s , however, are the a s s o c i a t i o n s found among the v a r i a b l e s . , The number of c o r r e l a t i o n s generated by the attempt to examine a matrix formed by the 34 v a r i a b l e s s t u d i e d i n each of nine p o s s i b l e sub-groups makes a d e t a i l e d l i s t i n g of them i n the t e x t cumbersome and d i f f i c u l t t o a s s i m i l a t e . Such a l i s t i n g , moreover, i s of questionable v a l u e , unless i t can be done i n such a way as t o point t o s a l i e n t f i n d i n g s . Repeated i n s p e c t i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n s obtained l e d t o the conclusion that the most u s e f u l way of p r e s e n t i n g the information y i e l d e d by them was to d i s c u s s what emerged as common among v a r i a b l e s i n the d i f f e r e n t sub-samples, and what emerged as d i f f e r e n t . Accordi ngly, f o r a d e t a i l e d p r e s e n t a t i o n of a l l s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s , the reader i s r e f e r r e d t o 124 Tables 26-104 (Appendix C ) a n d the present section:/no»/tnrn%:to a d i s c u s s i o n of the s a l i e n t f e a t u r e s of those c o r r e l a t i o n s . T h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s f a c i l i t a t e d by Table 14which shows i n .which groups s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s occurred between v a r i a b l e s o f s t r u c t u r e i n Colleges and the four types of Departments, Both the scores on and the c o r r e l a t i o n s amongst the v a r i a b l e s of s t r u c t u r e tended t o d i s c r i m i n a t e between the sub-groups of the sample. In p a r t i c u l a r there were repeated d i f f e r e n c e s between the Colleges and the Departments, as w e l l as between Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments., In some in s t a n c e s . Natural Science Departments d i f f e r e d from the other Departments. This group a l s o appeared to resemble the parent Colleges more than d i d the other Departments i n respect of some s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Table 14 shows, f o r each p o s s i b l e c o r r e l a t i o n among s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s , i n which sub-group i f any, a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found.. I n t h i s , and subsequent Tab l e s , a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i s denoted by the use of uppercase, and a negative c o r r e l a t i o n by lowercase* The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n f i r s t c o n s i d e r s the general d i f f e r e n c e s , i n c o r r e l a t i o n s revealed i n these t a b l e s , and t h e i r p o s s i b l e s i g n i f i c a n c e , and then examines i n more d e t a i l the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the way each v a r i a b l e was associated with others. , Reference to Table 14 shows only three instances i n which a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found i n a l l f o u r Department types, as w e l l as i n Colleges.„ These were between Concentration of Au t h o r i t y and Autonomy, and between both Concentration of TABLE 14 125 DISTRIBUTION OF COBB EL AT IONS BETWEEN : VARIABLES OF STRUCTURE IN SUB-GROUPS OF THE SAMPLE 2 J3 H 15 16 17 |8 J9 1 1 0 C 1 CL L S I i ] C | J s | S I n i 1 c 1 s 1 S | C s i ;;cl I 2 } C | | S 1 S 1 I c ) s 1 N J c S N j c i j i '• s n J 3 j 1 C l l c | CL | s n | 1 CL L C | S N 1 CL J s . | ' 1 : n 4 J 1 1 c l j c l 1 c J s n \ c l c I s i _ ' N j : 5 ! i i J CL ] CL | L 6 i' ! ! J J CL | s J CL J ' J' J n 7 i ! 1 ', i S N J CL ; J : J n J 8 : ' i ! r ! g ! ! 1 ; j j CL •. Kit.. . i - N 10 i j i !• j i NOTE: UPPEBCASE DENOTES A POSITIVE COBBELATION. LOBEBCAS E DENOTES A NEGATIVE CO R R EL AT I ON • ,/CL=. CO LL E G ES , L-LIBB ABIES, C=CO ON SELING DEPARTMENTS, S»SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS, N= NATURAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS. VARIABLE" NOS. AFUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION (B 2/AI) , . • 2= FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION (BAI) , 3=CONCENTBATION OF AUfHOBITY, 4= AUTONOMY, 5=DISCBETION, 6=IN-UNIT DECISION LEVEL, 7 AND 8 =FO REALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION (1) AND {2) , 9 AND 10=DIVEBSIFICATIOH OF WORKFLOW {1) AND (2) RHO=.5640 ALPHA=0.1 N=10 FOR ALL SUB—SAMPLES 126 A u t h o r i t y and Autonomy and In—Onit L e v e l of Decision-Making., This p a r t i c u l a r r e s u l t i s not unexpected, because a l l three v a r i a b l e s are derived from d i f f e r e n t uses of the same data. I t was s u r p r i s i n g , however, to note that the v a r i a b l e D i s c r e t i o n , which was derived a l s o from the same data, was not a s s o c i a t e d with any of these three v a r i a b l e s , i n any Department type. There were e i g h t cases where a c o r r e l a t i o n i n Colleges was not accompanied by another i n any Department., There were e i g h t cases where a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the same two v a r i a b l e s of s t r u c t u r e was found both i n Col l e g e s and i n at l e a s t one of the Teaching Departments., I n two of these, the c o r r e l a t i o n i n C o l l e g e s was accompanied by another i n S o c i a l Science Departments but not by one i n Natural Science Departments.,. In two cases, i t was accompanied by one with Natural Science Departments but not by one i n S o c i a l Science Departments. There were s i x cases where the c o r r e l a t i o n i n Colleges was accompanied by another i n both of the Teaching Departments, one of which was with D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of.-'workflow 1, a v a r i a b l e not measured i n the Non^Teaching Departments., Other than the three instances i n which a c o r r e l a t i o n i n C o l l e g e s was accompanied by another i n a l l three Departments, there were only two cases where a c o r r e l a t i o n i n Colleges was accompanied by another i n a Non-Teaching Department. One was with L i b r a r i e s , and the second was with Counseling Departments. , There were a l s o s e v e r a l cases where a c o r r e l a t i o n i n a Department type was not accompanied by a 127 c o r r e l a t i o n i n any other Department type. Examination of Table 14, with these Kinds of question - i n mind, demonstrates t h a t the pattern of c o r r e l a t i o n s i s d i f f e r e n t i n the d i f f e r e n t types of Department and i n the C o l l e g e s . This f i n d i n g suggests that the s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Colleges are i n t e r r e l a t e d somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y than i s the case i n Coll e g e Departments. The f a c t t h a t the d i s s i m i l a r i t y o f c o r r e l a t i o n a l pattern i s more s t r o n g l y pronounced i n the Non-Teaching Departments suggests t h a t the degree of d i f f e r e n c e from C o l l e g e s , i n s t r u c t u r a l i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s greater i n Non-Teaching Departments than i n Teaching Departments,,,, Since the primary mission of the Colleges may be s a i d to be the p r o v i s i o n of Teaching, and the Non-Teaching s e r v i c e s are a n c i l l a r y , t h i s greater d i f f e r e n c e may be a p p r o p r i a t e . / The apparent greater s i m i l a r i t y of Colleges to the Teaching Departments i s somewhat unexpected, however, i n l i g h t of the comments expressed by employees of some of the Colleges i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the study. These comments, and other anecdotal evidence suggest t h a t Colleges and t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia are not always viewed by f a c u l t y as being s t r u c t u r e d i n a way which i s h i g h l y e f f e c t i v e f o r the p r o v i s i o n of Teaching. Table 14 provides other evidence t o suggest that the s t r u c t u r e s of Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments a r e i n t e r -r e l a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t ways. While there are i n s t a n c e s of s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s o c c u r r i n g i n any of the f o u r types of Department alone, or with any combination of types, t h e r e are 128 s i x i n s t a n c e s where a c o r r e l a t i o n occurs i n both S o c i a l . Science Departments and N a t u r a l Science Departments, and only three where a c o r r e l a t i o n appears i n both L i b r a r i e s and Counseling Departments. There were a l s o more c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the Teaching Departments, most obviously i n S o c i a l Science Departments, where there were nineteen. In Nat u r a l Science Departments there were t h i r t e e n as compared with eleven i n Counseling: Departments, and only f i v e i n L i b r a r i e s . There i s a l s o some support f o r a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments i n the pattern of p o s i t i v e and negative c o r r e l a t i o n s . In a l l cases, p a i r s of c o r r e l a t i o n s i n both members of each group have the same d i r e c t i o n , whereas there are a few ins t a n c e s where a c o r r e l a t i o n i n a member of one group i s accompanied by a c o r r e l a t i o n of opposite d i r e c t i o n i n a member of the other group. Two other f i n d i n g s are apparent i n t h e Table, which seem worth f u r t h e r study. One i s the occurrence of only a s i n g l e c o r r e l a t i o n i n L i b r a r i e s , between v a r i a b l e s not measuring some aspect of the same basic concept. T h i s c o r r e l a t i o n f w a s between D i s e r e t i o n and Form a l i z a t i q n of Sole D e f i n i t i o n . , The absence of i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s d i s t i n g u i s h e s L i b r a r i e s f:EOi|f*a^it;i0^.1ie.r Departments. k second i n t e r e s t i n g - f i n d i n g . iss..thje-'-;< se#e;a;\: pages i n c o r r e l a t i o n s between F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n t and other v a r i a b l e s , where a c o r r e l a t i o n i n Counseling Departments i s accompanied by another i n S o c i a l Science Departments, on two occasions i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . 129 The f o l l o w i n g paragraphs w i l l consider the way i n which the v a r i a b l e s were a s s o c i a t e d . F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n Although F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n d i s c r i m i n a t e d among the members of the sample i n the Kelsey study, the f i n d i n g s of that study seemed to suggest that t h i s v a r i a b l e , was of l e s s importance i n e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , . In the present study, ranges, means and maxima f o r the v a r i a b l e were d i f f e r e n t i n the d i f f e r e n t sub-groups, and the patterns of c o r r e l a t i o n s were markedly d i f f e r e n t , These f i n d i n g s suggest that i n C o l l e g e s and t h e i r Departments F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n i s of importance,, The degree t o which i t i s present v a r i e s from one type of Department to another, and i t i s associated with other v a r i a b l e s i n d i f f e r e n t ways i n these d i f f e r e n t types of Department. I n p a r t i c u l a r , the nature of the c o r r e l a t i o n s between F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and Perceived Adeguacy of Performance, and Congruence which w i l l be discussed i n f o l l o w i n g chapters, support t h i s contention. Both measures of F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n were n e g a t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d with D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow 1, but not with D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow 2,„ Since D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow 1 was t h e measure which was obtained from instruments which were somewhat d i f f e r e n t f o r each group, i t seems probable t h a t the d i f f e r e n t ways i n which d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n may be 130 expressed i n d i f f e r e n t Departments are c o n s i s t e n t l y enhanced by a l o s e r degree of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n the Department. F o r m a l i z a t i o n Of Bole D e f i n i t i o n The two measures which were used gave s i m i l a r r e s u l t s . T h i s v a r i a b l e was l i t t l e a s s o c i a t e d with D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow.: There were two c o r r e l a t i o n s i n C o l l e g e s , between F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n l and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflowl, and between F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n 2 and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow2. In Natural Science Departments there was a s i n g l e c o r r e l a t i o n between F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n l and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflowl. There were no c o r r e l a t i o n s between F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow i n S o c i a l Science Departments. I t appears from these r e s u l t s that F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n may c o n s t i t u t e an aspect of s t r u c t u r e which t r u l y i s , as Kelsey has suggested (1973: 229, 236-7) , r e l a t i v e l y independent of the Teaching process. The v a r i a b l e d i s p l a y e d d i f f e r e n t p a tterns o,f • a^s^ia^tiion:-in->• the f o u r types of Department. There were seven c o r r e l a t i o n s i n S o c i a l Science Departments and three i n N a t u r a l Science Departments, of which one was with D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflowl. This compared with one i n L i b r a r i e s and three i n Counseling Departments./ S i x were found i n C o l l e g e s . , In most cases the c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the Departments were with d i f f e r e n t p a i r s of 13,1 v a r i a b l e s . . In only two cases was a v a r i a b l e i n the Colleges accompanied by another i n a Department., The greater number o f c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the Teaching Departments, and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n s lends some support to the arguments which have been advanced f o r d i f f e r e n c e s of s t r u c t u r a l p a t t e r n between the f o u r kinds of Department, and to a b a s i c d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between the two general types of Department, as w e l l as t h a t between the C o l l e g e s as a group and the Departments as a group. concen t r a t i o n Of A u t h o r i t y And I t s D e r i v a t i v e s The f i n d i n g s i n respect to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Concentration of Authority and D i s c r e t i o n , were of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t . D i s c r e t i o n c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y with Concentration of A u t h o r i t y i n Colleges but not at a l l i n other groups. T h i s appears t o be an area of d i f f e r e n c e between the C o l l e g e s and the Departments. In C o l l e g e s , the higher the Concentration o f A u t h o r i t y , the greater the D i s c r e t i o n which the C h i e f Executive O f f i c e r considers himself t o be permitted. D i s c r e t i o n does not seem to be enjoyed i n the same way by Department heads i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r C h i e f Executive O f f i c e r s . The d i f f e r e n c e s i n respect to D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow suggest that i n Na t u r a l Science Departments, the greater the Concentration of A u t h o r i t y , the l e s s d i v e r s i f i e d the workflow. A low score on Concentration of A u t h o r i t y can be argued t o 132 represent a greater involvement of employees i n management, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the present study, which s t u d i e d the concept through an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f d e c i s i o n -making, The r e s u l t s seem to suggest t h a t i n Natural Science Departments the more the involvement of employees i n management, the more d i v e r s i f i e d the ways they use to teach..;. In S o c i a l Science Departments these two measures were not c o r r e l a t e d , so that the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n cannot be extended t o Teaching Departments i n general on the b a s i s of the present study. Further research might w e l l - i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s p o s s i b i l . i t v ^ . which seems to possess s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the p r a c t i c e of education. Autonomy. Autonomy was c o r r e l a t e d w i t h D i s c r e t i o n only i n the C o l l e g e s . At the same time i t had f i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Departments, and only one i n Colleges with v a r i a b l e s not derived from the Concentration of A u t h o r i t y data., These f i n d i n g s again suggested a d i f f e r e n c e between th e Colleges and the De pa rtments. The negative a s s o c i a t i o n with Xn^Onit Le v e l of D e c i s i o n -Making i n a l l groups, suggested that i n Colleges and Departments a l i k e , to the degree t h a t Autonomy e x i s t e d i t was accompanied by a handing down of decision-making power, t o lower l e v e l s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . 133 D i s c r e t i o n , The r e l a t i o n s h i p s between D i s c r e t i o n and Concentration of a u t h o r i t y and autonomy have already been noted. There were f i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between D i s c r e t i o n and other v a r i a b l e s i n C o l l e g e s , and only two i n Departments / w h i c h r e i n f o r c e s the apparent d i f f e r e n c e s between the C o l l e g e s and the Departments,, In-U n i t Level Of D e c i s i o n-M a k i n q.,,, T h i s v a r i a b l e c o r r e l a t e d with a considerable number of other v a r i a b l e s i n each of the groups. a d i f f e r e n c e between the C o l l e g e s and the Departments could be seen i n t h a t , i n seven tinstanees, an a s s o c i a t i o n i n Colleges was not accompanied by; one i n a Department or v i c e versa., I n only two cases, i n v o l v i n g the r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s Concentration of a u t h o r i t y and autonomy, was a c o r r e l a t i o n i n Co l l e g e s found together with one i n a Department, again rthere appeared t o be some d i f f e r e n c e s between the patterns of c o r r e l a t i o n i n the Teaching Departments as opposed to the Non-Teaching Departments. For example, In-Unit L e v e l of Decision^Haking c o r r e l a t e d with both : F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n v a r i a b l e s i n S o c i a l Science Departments and C ounseling Departments, but i n each i n s t a n c e , the d i r e c t i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n was p o s i t i v e i n Counseling Departments, and negative i n S o c i a l Science Departments. There were more negative c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the Teaching Departments, and more p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the Non-Teaching Departments., 134 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow A t o p i c addressed i n the study was the r e l a t i o n between the ad m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and the Workflow Structure,;, Kelsey found l i t t l e or no r e l a t i o n between them., As dicussed on pages 24-26 above, i t was considered p o s s i b l e that i n the present study they would be found to be r e l a t e d at the C o l l e g e l e v e l , but l e s s s t r o n g l y or not a t a l l a t the Department l e v e l . There was some support f o r t h i s p r e d i c t i o n i n the f i n d i n g s of the study.. I n each of Colleges and N a t u r a l Science Departments there were f i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s with v a r i a b l e s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e Structure.,, However, in S o c i a l Science Departments there were only two, and these were with the two measures of F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n * The f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t i n the S o c i a l Science Departments, the College i n f l u e n c e may be strong enough t o l a r g e l y mask or e l i m i n a t e the posited r e l a t i o n s h i p * but t h a t i n Natural Science Departments, the Coll e g e i n f l u e n c e may be weaker. T h i s f i t s with the general s i m i l a r i t y of Natural Science Departments to Colleges which was observed i n other f i n d i n g s of the study, but a l s o serves to i n d i c a t e that the s i m i l a r i t i e s which e x i s t between the members of the two groups are a l s o accompanied by d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s between members of the same group. 13.5 SOHHAEY This Chapter has been concerned with sab-problems numbers 1-2. Scores on the variables of structure were presented, and the c o r r e l a t i o n s amongst these variables were reviewed and discussed. I t was found that the variables could be measured in College Departments, and that the Kelsey modification of the Aston framework appeared to be capable of useful application i n the post-secondary environment, at least that of the community colleges of B.C. The scores yielded by the variables of the framework discriminated between members of the sample.,, I t was of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t that, i n , addition to any differences between the Colleges or the Departments themselves, the r e s u l t s repeatedly suggested that the four types of Department, L i b r a r i e s , Counseling Departments, Social Science Departments and natural Science Departments, tended to display d i f f e r e n t patterns of r e l a t i o n of st r u c t u r a l variables, and that the Colleges d i f f e r e d from the Departments, but more so from the Non-Teaching Departments. Of the four types of Department, there were a number of instances where Natural Science Departments appeared more s i m i l a r to the Colleges than did the other Departments. There were a l s o several instances where the two Teaching Departments displayed s i m i l a r i t i e s , compared with the Non-Teaching Departments, and where the l a t t e r had resemblances not found i n the Teaching Departments. These two facts suggest that Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments can, i n 136 some r e s p e c t s , be considered as two sab-groups. , The d i f f e r e n t patterns of r e l a t i o n s h i p which have been r e f e r r e d t o are of three b a s i c kinds. One c o n s i s t s of the a s s o c i a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l p a i r s of v a r i a b l e s i n one or more sub-samples., For example, a c o r r e l a t i o n was found between F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Eole D e f i n i t i o n l and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflowl only i n C o l l e g e s and N a t u r a l Science Departments, which seems to suggest a s i m i l a r i t y between these two sub-samples i n that s i n g l e respect., Another example i s found i n the c o r r e l a t i o n between Autonomy and F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n l , which was found only i n C o l l e g e s and Counseling Departments. A second k i n d of p a t t e r n i n v o l v e s groups of v a r i a b l e s . , Examination of the c o r r e l a t i o n s between each of the two F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n v a r i a b l e s and a l l the other s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s shows that while c o r r e l a t i o n s occurred i n each of the f o u r types of Department, there were many more i n one or other of the two Teaching Departments than i n the Non-Teaching Departments, where i n f a c t they were almost e n t i r e l y : r e s t r i c t e d t o Counseling Departments. Although the same c o r r e l a t i o n was not always found t o occur i n S o c i a l Science Departments and Natural Science Departments together, the o v e r a l l p a t t e r n seems t o point t o some kind of s i m i l a r i t y of the two, and of d i f f e r e n c e between them and the Non-Teaching Departments, i n t h i s respect. The f i n d i n g s with regard to F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n , f o r example, saggest that there are i n f a c t . 137 d i f f e r e n c e s between the ways i n which F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n f i t s the blend of other s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in; .Colleges and i n the f o u r kinds of Department s t u d i e d r e s p e c t i v e l y , as w e l l as i n Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments i n g e n e r a l . The t h i r d k i n d of patte r n has t o do with the d i r e c t i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n s . , I n the c o r r e l a t i o n s of Autonomy, f o r example, i t can be observed that a l l i n s t a n c e s i n the Non-Teaching Departments are negative, whereas h a l f of those i n the Teaching Departments are p o s i t i v e . I t i s on the b a s i s of these kinds of d i f f e r e n c e that the argument of t h i s chapter was advanced.. S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s i n r e l a t i o n to the v a r i a b l e s of Perceived Adeguacy of Performance are discussed i n the f o l l o w i n g chapter. 138 CHAPTEB 7 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PEBCEIVED ADEQUACY OP. PERFORMANCE AND STRUCTURE IN COLLEGES AND COLLEGE DEPARTMENTS This chapter i s concerned with sub-problem number 3, what r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i f any, e x i s t between- the v a r i a b l e s of Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and Workflow S t r u c t u r e s t r u c t u r e i n the College Departments and the Perceived Adeguacy of Performance of those Departments? Perceived Adequacy of Performance was measured i n fourteen ways. Because f a c t o r a n a l y s i s f a i l e d t o , . . . . . . . . , . , , . . , . t o i d e n t i f y underlying f a c t o r s , the twelve i n d i v i d u a l ; i t e m s of the instrument were t r e a t e d as separate v a r i a b l e s i n the c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s . The mean score on the twelve items was a l s o used as a v a r i a b l e . . This mean inc l u d e d item number twelve, which was an assessment of o v e r a l l adequacy. . A second mean was c a l c u l a t e d on the basis of the f i r s t eleven items. For s i m p l i c i t y , i n the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n , these means w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as Meant and Mean2 r e s p e c t i v e l y , and are i d e n t i f i e d as v a r i a b l e numbers 11 and 12 i n Tables 15-17. «. The other v a r i a b l e s , i n order, w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as Production; ( v a r i a b l e 13 9 13), Q u a l i t y ( v a r i a b l e 14), E f f i c i e n c y ( v a r i a b l e 15), E f f e c t i v e n e s s ( v a r i a b l e 16), a n t i c i p a t i o n ( v a r i a b l e 17) , Response to Change ( v a r i a b l e 18), Speed of adjustment ( v a r i a b l e 19), P r o p o r t i o n a d j u s t i n g ( v a r i a b l e 20), Problem S o l v i n g ( v a r i a b l e 21), C r i s i s Coping ( v a r i a b l e 22), Co-operation ( v a r i a b l e 23) and o v e r a l l Adequacy ( v a r i a b l e 24) , i n Tables 15-17. i Reference t o the Instrument, i n Appendix A w i l l s h o w the guestions used to define each of these variables.,,* I t i s of i n t e r e s t to note that the c o r r e l a t i o n s with s t r u c t u r e and with Congruence which were obtained using O v e r a l l Adequacy and using e i t h e r of the two mean adequacy scores d i f f e r e d from those obtained using any of the i n d i v i d u a l items scores. This made i t advisable to use a l l fourteen scores i n the a n a l y s i s , r a t h e r than one of the three summary scores. The t o p i c w i l l be discussed f u r t h e r i n the f i n a l chaptery ; Perceived Adequacy of Performance was measured only i n De partments. „ The instrument was scored f o r each Department by f i v e d i f f e r e n t respondents, namely the head of that Department, the heads of the other three Departments s t u d i e d , and the College Chief Executive O f f i c e r . I t was therefore p o s s i b l e t o use s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t combinations of scores f o r each Department, on each of the f o u r t e e n measures. The f o l l o w i n g were used i n the c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s : 1. . Perceived Adeguacy of Performance (Mean Honself Rating) , which was derived from a summation of a l l scores other than those obtained from s e l f - r a t i n g s . 140 2. Perceived Adequacy of Performance (Bating by College Chief Executive Officer) 3. / Perceived Adeguacy of Performanee (Self-Bating) . These three d i f f e r e n t r a t i n g s w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as categories. The scores on the twelve items of the Perceived Adeguacy of Performance instrument are given i n Appendix B. Of the possible correlations between Perceived Adeguacy of Performance and other variables, roughly 25% reached a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e at alpha=0,1 or beyond., At the same time, t h i s large number of correlations was d i s t r i b u t e d d i f f e r e n t l y i n different sub-samples. This observation gave d i r e c t i o n to the presentation of the findings. Simply to examine and compare the Perceived Adequacy of Performance scores i s a very tedious process. I t i s also unenlightening without the u t i l i z a t i o n of further s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s . The emphasis of the study lay in the re l a t i o n s h i p among the Perceived Adeguacy of Performance and the other variables. The analyses which were carried out were therefore aimed at revealing these relationships, and not at comparing scores i n di f f e r e n t types of Department. For these reasons no review of the scores obtained by the members of the sample i s given here The following section discusses the: way in< which the correlations were patterned i n the d i f f e r e n t sub-sampies, and i s followed by a selective review and discussion of the associations between p a r t i c u l a r variables i n the Departments, a review of the adeguacy variables and a comparison of categories. 141 In these d i s c u s s i o n s , a r e f e r e n c e to a c o r r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n , at alpha=0.;1. ;, DISTBIBUTIGN OE COBBELATIONS IB THE SUB-SAHPLES Tab l e s 15-17 d i s p l a y f o r each of the above-noted,categories of response, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of c o r r e l a t i o n s among v a r i a b l e s of s t r u c t u r e and P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance i n the sub-samples. ,, The v e r t i c a l axes o f thes e t a b l e s correspond to the P e r c e i v e d Adequacy of Performance v a r i a b l e s , using the r e f e r e n c e numbers noted p r e v i o u s l y . , The h o r i z o n t a l axes r e f e r t o the v a r i a b l e s of s t r u c t u r e , using the same r e f e r e n c e naflbeis as i _ chapter 6., Upper and lower case l e t t e r s i n the c e l l s of the Tables; denote p o s i t i v e and negative c o r r e l a t i o n s r e s p e c t i v e l y i n the sub-samples designated by each l e t t e r . A review o f T a b l e s 15-17, enables some general statements t o be madev^ab^ut/,;, the. c o r r e l a t i o n s among the v a r i a b l e s . 1. There are many c o r r e l a t i o n s among the v a r i a b l e s and a l l v a r i a b l e s c o r r e l a t e d with at l e a s t one other v a r i a b l e . 2. , The ways i n which the c o r r e l a t i o n s occur d i s c r i m i n a t e between types of Department, and p a r t i c u l a r l y between'Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments.„ 3. I n many cases when a c o r r e l a t i o n occurs i n each of two Departments, i n any of the three c a t e g o r i e s of response, the two 142 T A B L E 15 (MEAN N O N - S E L F E A T I N G S ) T H E D I S T R I B U T I O N O F C O R R E L A T I O N S AMONG T H E V A R I A B L E S OF S T R U C T U R E AND OF P E R C E I V E D ADEQUACY O F PERFORMANCE I N T H E S U B - S A M P L E S 11 1 12 % 13 J 14 3 15 1 16 3 17 J 1 8 J 19 3 20 J • • 2&ri'f-2-^S";:_3 •• 24 i — - i — — i - — i — - i _ | — — | 1 1 | | 9 c ] | l c | 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 I S ] | N | I s ] 2 I 1 3 c 3 | 1 1 'u-L- J I J S i I s ] - - - - - - ~ " I s J . J r '. : | ; • n 3 3 1 • •' • ] '•'"•*•• j--'?c••' sn ) sn i sn 1 sn 1 n I s | | ] n 2 i - n . . - i ] ';' | sn 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J c J | J J J 1 | | J N I I I 1 1 1 s 3 • \f ; v ?;•... i.f;; ... 5 r i i 1 1 1 1 1 j L | . j' : Vic/]"•••• i i J | s ] ] ] n ] 1 6 I 3 1 I I ] | | 1 1 . . . . . j : ; - ; . •••••••;:-'J:;'.'VC- •• sn | sn D sn J sn 1 n 1 s J j ] n | ] n-/i„V';.';:: 1 1 sn 7 J 1 C | I C I ] | | 1 1 1 1 " ~ 1'" s 1 s ] J 3 1 i s ] ] 3 s ] . s J s 3 ! 8 1 : J L ] L J L ] 1 L J c ] ] 1 L ] JL 1 1 1 1 | S ] i s ] _ - - ~ 1 s | :.; | n J sn) : 9 1 1 1 1 1 Nj J N | S N ! ] N 1 N J N | S N 3 - . - - _ - _ - - -N | N 3 . , / N ii;: i : . s , 3 N 10 I i 1 1 I N 1 N | N | I N | N 3 N | | 1 1 • N ] ] 1 N NOTE: U P P E R C A S E DENOTES A P O S I T I V E C O R R E L A T I O N . L O S E R C A S E DENOTES A N E G A T I V E C O R R E L A T I O N . L= L I BR A R I E S , C = C O U N S E L I N G DEPARTMENTS, S = S O C I A L S C I E N C E DEPARTMENTS, N = N A T O R A L . S C I E N C E DEPARTMENTS. . V A R I A B L E NOS. A F U N C T I O N A L S P E C I A L I Z A T I O N ( B ^ / A I ) , 2=FUNCTIONAL S P E C I A L I Z A T I O N ( B A I ) , 3 =CONCENTRATION O F A U T H O R I T Y , 4=AUTONOMY, 5 = D I S C R E T I O N , 6=IN-UNIT D E C I S I O N L E V E L , 7=FOEiMALLIZATI,0N OF R O L E D E F I N I T I O N ( 1 ) , 8=FO.RMALIZATION OF R O L E D E F I N I T I O N ^2)V 5 9 AND 1 0 = D I V E R S I F I C A T I O N OF WORKFLOW (1) AND (2) . ^ V A R I A B L E S ' :11^24 ARE T H O S E O F P E R C E I V E D ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE. . RHO-.5640 ALPHA=0.1 N=10 FOR EACH SUB-SAMPLE TABLE 16 143 (COLLEGE PRINCIPAL RATINGS) DISTRIBUTION OF CORRELATIONS AMONG . VARIABLES OF STRUCTURE AND PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE IN SUB-GROUPS OF THE SAMPLE 11 I 12 |13 | 14 1 15 1 16 | 17 j | 18 { 19 | 20 ) 21 J 22 | 23 24 1 ^ — 1 — — I I 3— - I — — - , — — 1 i 1 I 1 I I c I t c i I I J 1 s 1 s ] ! S NJ N i l SN 3 I 1 1 N 2 1 ' I I I I I c j i c | j J J L 1 1 I SN 1 I S | ! Sn I | S j N I N 3 1 1 1 1 L 3 i I i I I 1 3 n 1 h 3 s ] S f i J n J sn | 1 n 1 n i n { • s ; 4 i'.V':- J 1 1 I I I I i ~; ] i 3 c I J J 1 1 N J I sN | s } J s 3 N Is 5 1 J L J L I L C 5 i L | L J L ] L | L J L J L C J C } L n 1 ; n i s I 3 3 s I n | I 3 n | n & s 6 1 1 1 1 L t i 1 1 I I I | n I n J s ] sn J n 1 sn 1 1 J n-.., i 3. n ] s . ( h ; 3 , s 7 1 J 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 5 3 1 J 1 J 1 1 i l j . i N i SN 1 % 1 I 1 | sn ] i sn j 8 L 5 J L ] L 1 L 1 I ) 1 L 1 L | L ] J 3 J L i i | N J i s J J i | sn | j s 3 9 ! 1 j 1 1 I i 1 1 3 3 3 N = J N J 1 I i 1 | SN ] N ! SN 3 N 3 I N JS 10 ' i i J J ] i J 1 1 i J SN 1 s | 1 N S ] a N ] 1 I 3 N 3 i 1 N NOTE: UPPERCASE DENOTES A POSITIVE CORRELATION. LOHER CASE DENOTES A NEGATIVE CORRELATION. L=LI BR ABIES, C= COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS, S=SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS, N=NATURAL iSCIENCE DEPARTMENTS. VARIABLE NOS. ARE THE SAME AS IN TABLE 15.. RHO=.5640 ALPHA=0.1 N=10 FOR EACH SUB-SAMPLE T A B L E 17 144 (SELF RATI NG S) DISTRIBUTION OF CORRELATIONS AMONG THE VARIABLES OF STRUCTURE AND OF PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE IN THE SUB-SAMPLES 11 I 12 1 13 H 14 I 15 1 16 | 17 1 18 | 19 j 20 J 21;, 1 22 3 23 24 I 1 J — — j — - - - - - — r i } L C j L C 1 | C j c i c 1 c 1 c i L C 3 3 a L C J I L C 1 I 1 1 1 1 2 C c J C | c i c j C 1 c j C i i • - T ' " i N 1 J N 1 N t N 1 N 1 N 1 1 . 1 i N j 1 N 3 | \ j j 3 » c I • 3 L | 3 i N I J S 1 , i i.;: :.!;_ 3 n 4 3 | j 1 3 1C J 1 3 C 3 J 1 5 L L 1 C I ] ] j J 3 3 L J L ! J sn i ' i v^ rK'S;;;!:';;:.: 6 i j 1 c i J Q j 1 s i i ;•' .-, s . . . } n 7 i c i j C i i i 3 J J L cj N .. N 1 N | N | sN 1 sN | 1 | N 3 1 N 8 L C L C 1 L | L C 1 C L C J c 1 L C 3 L C 3 '• : 3 ' • : ' ! : " " f ' . ' t"'3 L ' 3 L C N 1 N N | -N J -N 9 ] S 1 n J n | s 1 s 1 ;:.;;3>;;,,r-:j;:-:A; 10 i i 1 i i j | _ I i 1 n ] I S' 3 s 'i/;;.;:,:;i:%;:^ C.-'-.,-IS NOTE- UPPERCASE DENOTES POSITIVE CORRELATIONS, LOHER CASiE DINGTES NEGATIVE CORRELATIONS. L=LIBRARIES, C=CQUNSELING DEPARTMENTS, S=SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS, N=NATURAL/SCliNCE ' DEPABTMENTS. .VARIABLES NOS. i(ARE THE SAME AS IN TABLE 15. • ' RHO=.5640 ALPHA=0.1 N=10 FOR EACH SUB-SAMPLE 145 are either both Teaching or are both Non-Teaching Departments. In fewer cases, a correlation in one or both :, Teaching Departments i s accompanied by a co r r e l a t i o n i n one or both Non-Teaching Departments. This condition, however, i s made more complex by the fact that i n one p a r t i c u l a r response category (Rating by College Chief Executive Officer) , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of pairings changes. 4., A c o r r e l a t i o n i n a Non-Teaching Department i s most freguently not accompanied by a co r r e l a t i o n i n the other Non-Teaching Department. There are more frequent examples of corr e l a t i o n s occurring i n both Teaching Departments. 5. There are examples of both positive and negative c o r r e l a t i o n s . 6. There are differences i n patterns of c o r r e l a t i o n according to the three types of rating which were referred to on pages 139-140., Three kinds of pattern support the above statements. They are the occurrence of correlations between i n d i v i d u a l pairs of variables; the occurrence of c o r r e l a t i o n s i n groups of variables; and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of posi t i v e and negative c o r r e l a t i o n s . The following discussion i s in three parts. The f i r s t considers differences between the Departments., The second 146 deals with differences between the Teaching and the Non-Teaching Departments i n general, and the t h i r d examines some of the differences between response categories, within these three general d i v i s i o n s , the order of discussion generally follows..the order of presentation: of the variables i n the preceeding ch apters. The discussion also attempts to take account of the fact that,, since the variables of adeguacy are perceptions, they may be caused by the str u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the organizations, or each may be caused by some other f a c t o r , but in most instances, the Perceived Adeguacy of Performance variables could not themselves be considered as. causative. 14 7 TABLE 1 8 THE DISTRIBUTION OF CORRELATIONS AMONG THE VARIABLES OF STRUCTURE AND OF PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE IN THE SUB-SAMPLES |BY CATEGORIES) 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 16 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 LCSNLCSN LCSN LCSNLCSN LCSN LCSNLCSN LCSNLCSN LCSNLCSN LCSNLCSN M c S l c N 1 S 1 P S S SN c N c SN N I LC LC C c C C C LC L C . LC 2 ; _ _ — i . — ,— -~ — — — . _ — , — — — — — ' - • — - • — — — M s c s s •:--"n'-"'-' P SN s c c N Sn S L N N I C N C N N C N C N C N C C N C N H M sn sn sn sn n s n • n •. c sn P n n s snL n sn n n n I '''.is"/ I N s C L ' n. • — . — . _ — — — — — — — - — —————————T*—— - :——— M N C s C P N sN s s. .' C N s I I 1C 1 C N M s n L P L : nL n L s LC L L s L n -L L L nLC n Cs L I L .'. L: C sn S L ":' L M sn sn sn sn n s n n ' c sn P n n s snL n sn n a n I n s C L n M S S c C s 1 1 s s s p 1 1 1 N SN 1 1 1 1 :sn •'1..= 1 sn '•':- 1 , I N N C N N SN C 1 SN NLc g _______ — ——-r;——- - - * — - . — — — • — — ' : — M L L L L L S c s L s L ' : R •,'":' snL P L L L L N S L L L sn . .S- ' I LC E C 1 L : N LC N C LC N C LC L C c L LC M N "'• N SN N N N SN N N N N N N P N N SN N SN N \ N s : I n n s S M ' N 1' N N N N N N " '•' N P SN S N N N N N I • n s s " S — — — — — — — — — — - — — — - » — — — -NUMBERS ON THE VERTICAL AXES REFER TO THE STRUCTURAL VARIABLES. THOSE ON THE HORIZONTAL AXES REFER TO THE PERFORMANCE VARIABLES. LLIBRARIES; C=COUNSELING; S=SOCIAL SCIENCES; N= NATURAL SCiENCES M= HE AN NOT SELF CATEGORY; P= COLLEGE PRINCIPAL CATEGORY: - ; I=SELI CATEGORY. 148 COMPARISONS AMONG THE DEPARTMENTS Salient Structural Chafacter i s t i c s As was the case, when s t r u c t u r a l variables alone were reviewed, the present examination of th e i r c o r r e l a t i o n s with Perceived Adequacy variables revealed differences between the types of Department, with respect to nearly e v e r y v a r i a b l e . Table 18 shows i n more condensed form the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the correlations which were shown separately for the three categories i n Table 15-17. In Table 18, the horizontal axes refer to the Perceived Adequacy variables and each has four sub-d i v i s i o n s corresponding to the four Department types. The v e r t i c a l axes refer to the variables of structure, and each i s sub-divided i n t o three parts, which correspond to the three categories of response. The Table makes clear the r e l a t i v e importance of d i f f e r e n t s t r u c t u r a l variables both o v e r a l l , and i n s the, various Departments. In only ten instances was there a c o r r e l a t i o n f o r a particular Department i n each category of response, and these occurred with d i f f e r e n t variables, for each Department type. In two of these cases, ( i n Natural Science Departments), the d i r e c t i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n was d i f f e r e n t i n Self-Rating from the other two categories. , Examination of the i n d i v i d u a l s t r u c t u r a l ; variables demonstrates complex differences between the Departments. 14 9 F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n , f o r example had more c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Natural Science Departments and Counseling Departments than i n L i b r a r i e s or S o c i a l Science Departments. F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Hole D e f i n i t i o n , on the other hand had many c o r r e l a t i o n s i n a l l Departments, though not i n a l l categories.,. In respect to D i s c r e t i o n , a very marked d i f f e r e n c e i s observable i n Hating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , between Counseling Departments and S o c i a l Science Departments on the one hand, and L i b r a r i e s and Natural Science Departments on the other; and a l s o between Counseling Departments and S o c i a l Science Departments., The f i r s t r e f e r s to the comparatively fewer c o r r e l a t i o n s i n both Counseling Departments and S o c i a l Science Departments, and the greater number i n each of L i b r a r i e s and N a t u r a l Science Departments. The second i s observed inasmuch as the c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Counseling Departments are p o s i t i v e , but those i n S o c i a l Science Departments are negative. In S e l f - E a t i n g , D i s c r e t i o n loses the s a l i e n c e apparent i n Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , but the same p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e s p l i t was observed. A s s o c i a t i o n s between D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Sorkflpw and Perceived Adeguacy of Performance a l s o show marked d i f f e r e n c e s between the two types of Department i n which the v a r i a b l e was measured. In l i g h t of the Kelsey r e s u l t s , which found l i t t l e a s s o c i a t i o n between D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of iorkf<low and the Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e , one of the most important f i n d i n g s of the present study i s that these c o r r e l a t i o n s d i d appear, t h a t 150 t h e r e do appear to be connections between the Adminiiatrajtive S t r u c t u r e and the Workflow S t r u c t u r e , I t a l s o •help:s / :'c ;onfiro the worth of studying Workflow S t r u c t u r e together .»i-th.-^ er-ceived adeguacy of Performance, There were fewer negative c o r r e l a t i o n s with ^ D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n -of Workflow than was the case w i t h other s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s . T h i s f i n d i n g goes f u r t h e r to suggest that the concept of the Workflow S t r u c t u r e i s not only v a l i d , but i s c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from other kinds of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . In a d d i t i o n , the d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s i n the two d i f f e r e n t types of Department help t o answer the question which was posed p r e v i o u s l y i n t h i s study, whether there can be more than one k i n d of technology, and of Workflow St r u c t u r e i n a C o l l e g e and suggests that there can. This c o n c l u s i o n i s supported by the d i f f i c u l t y which was encountered i n i d e n t i f y i n g a set of items f o r the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow instrument, which would be common t o a l l three groups s t u d i e d . . Since t h i s was not achieved, i t was to-be expected t h a t d i s p a r a t e patterns of c o r r e l a t i o n s might be found. That they were suggests f u r t h e r work should b u i l d on the d i f f e r e n c e s between Departments, and not attempt to use i d e n t i c a l instruments to measure D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow i n d i f f e r e n t types of Department. These comments have been intended to o u t l i n e some of the ways i n which the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s show d i f f e r e n c e s between Department types. The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s examine each of the 1-5,1 four Department types i n more d e t a i l . L i b r a r i e s . Two variables were p a r t i c u l a r l y s a l i e n t i n t h i s group of Departments. They were Formalization of Bole De f i n i t i o n and Discretion. , There were c o n f l i c t i n g c o r r e l a t i o n s with Formalization of Bole D e f i n i t i o n l and 2 in L i b r a r i e s . Most of the c o r r e l a t i o n s were at moderately strong l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e . . However, the d i r e c t i o n of the correlation varied between the two measures of Formalization of Bole D e f i n i t i o n . These discrepancies were as follows. (Formalization of Bole D e f i n i t i o n l r e s u l t s followed by Formalization of Bole Definitipn2 i n each case., Level of significance i n brackets) The change of sign i s consistent throughput these c o n f l i c t s . Formalization of Bole Definition2 i s the more r e l i a b l e measure, but the consistency of t h i s difference strongly suggests that the two are measuring d i f f e r e n t aspects of Formalization of Bole Def i n i t i o n i n L i b r a r i e s . , Discretion i s interesting in view of the fact that i n the analysis of the c o r r e l a t i o n s among structural variables i n L i b r a r i e s , Discretion was the only variable which was correlated with a variable not either measuring a variant of the s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ( l i k e Functional Specialization!, and 2, or drawn from the same data, ( l i k e Concentration of Authority, Autonomy, Table 19 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FORHALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION AND PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE IN LIBRARIES {RATING BY COLLEGE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER) F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n 1 For rnai i z at ion of Role D e f i n i t i o n 2 with Mean 12 w i t h Mean 11 with Production with Response to Change w i t h P r o p o r t i o n A d j u s t i n g with O v e r a l l Adeguacy .57 |.05) 55{.05) .98 09) 53{.06) .73 (.01) .69 (.01) .61 (.0 4) .60 (.04) .68 {,02) .52 (. 07) .47 (.09), .55 (.05); 153 I n - U n i t Level of Decision-Making, etc) . Furthermore, L i b r a r i e s sere the only Departmental group i n which D i s c r e t i o n c o r r e l a t e d with a non Concentration o f A u t h o r i t y - d e r i v e d variable.:. I n the present a n a l y s i s . D i s c r e t i o n was c o r r e l a t e d with twelve Perceived Adeguacy v a r i a b l e s i n Rating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r , compared with four i n S e l f - R a t i n g , and only one i n Mean Non-Self Rating., C o r r e l a t i o n s with D i s c r e t i o n i n Rating by Coll e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r may i n d i c a t e i n s t a n c e s where the perception can c r e a t e a s t r u c t u r a l e f f e c t , and i t i s p o s s i b l e that as Chief Executive O f f i c e r s perceive L i b r a r i e s t o be more e f f e c t i v e , they are w i l l i n g t o permit more D i s c r e t i o n . Except f o r D i s c r e t i o n , the Concentration of A u t h o r i t y -r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s were not of great i n t e r e s t i n L i b r a r i e s . One anomaly occured i n respect of In-Onit Level of Decision-Making* where throughout a l l three c a t e g o r i e s of response. L i b r a r i e s d i f f e r e d from the other three groups i n having no negative c o r r e l a t i o n s . There was a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between Concentration of Au t h o r i t y and E f f i c i e n c y i n L i b r a r i e s , which suggests t h a t c h i e f Executive O f f i c e r s view L i b r a r i e s as more e f f i c i e n t as the average l e v e l of d e c i s i o n making i s c l o s e r t o the Department head, and helps t o confirm the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which w i l l be presented i n the below i n the d i s c u s s i o n of d i f f e r e n c e s among ca t e g o r i e s of response. 154 Counseling Departments., This Department type had points of s i m i l a r i t y and d i f f e r e n c e t o L i b r a r i e s . In n e i t h e r was F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n of great s a l i e n c e i n the Mean Non-Self Bating and Bating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r c a t e g o r i e s . However, i n S e l f - B a t i n g , there were eighteen c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Counseling Departments, compared with f i v e i n L i b r a r i e s . This suggests t h a t f o r heads of Counseling Departments, s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i s an important c o r r e l a t e of performance, whereas i t i s of l e s s s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r e x t e r n a l observers. As had been the case i n L i b r a r i e s , F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n had many c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the S e l f - B a t i n g category, but i n c o n t r a s t to L i b r a r i e s , t h e r e were none at a l l in... Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , which lends support to the conclusion that there are considerable d i f f e r e n c e s i n the say Chief Executive O f f i c e r s evaluate and perceive d i f f e r e n t types of Department. , In Counseling Departments there were many c o r r e l a t i o n s with F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n ! i n Hean Non-Self B a t i n g and S e l f - B a t i n g . There was one discrepancy, where F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole Definition2 c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y with C r i s i s Coping, whereas F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole Definition2 c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y . Again i n c o n t r a s t t o L i b r a r i e s , the emphasis on D i s c r e t i o n i n Bating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r was much l e s s pronounced, but Autonomy was s l i g h t l y more s a l i e n t i n Hean Non-S e l f Bating and Bating by College C h i e f Executive O f f i c e r f o r Counseling Departments. 155 There were only two c o r r e l a t i o n s with O v e r a l l Adeguacy, the fewest of any Department, and o n l y s i x with the two means, which was a l s o fewer than i n other Departments. Host c o r r e l a t i o n s were with p a r t i c u l a r adequacy items, which suggests t h a t even more than i n other Departments, assessment of perfprfflance i n Counseling Departments seemed t o be s p e c i f i c r a t h e r /than g e n e r a l i z e d , i n r e l a t i o n to s t r u c t u r e . S o c i a l Science Departments.> There was a considerable d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of c o r r e l a t i o n s in S e l f - R a t i n g compared with the other two c a t e g o r i e s . In t h i s category, S o c i a l Science Departments had by f a r the fewest s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s of any kind between s t r a c t u r a l ; v a r i a b l e s and Perceived Adequacy of Performance (Self-Rating) , only eleven compared with twenty-five i n L i b r a r i e s , the next lowest. An example of t h i s discrepancy i s found i n respect to F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n . , Here there were no c o r r e l a t i o n s a t a l l i n S e l f - R a t i n g , although there were between two and f o u r i n each of the other c a t e g o r i e s f o r both v a r i a n t s of F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n . A s i m i l a r p i c t u r e can be seen i n regard t o F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n , There were fewer c o r r e l a t i o n s with F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role Defin i t i o n 2 i n e i t h e r S o c i a l Science Departments or N a t u r a l Science Departments, than with F o r m a l i z a t i o n o f Role D e f i n i t i o n l . v In each case there was a preponderance of negative c o r r e l a t i o n s and mainly with the same v a r i a b l e s i n each group. .. However, again there were fewer i n S e l f - R a t i n g f o r 156 S o c i a l Science Departments. In • t h i s respect S o c i a l Science Departments were q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from N a t u r a l Science Departments, where there was a t o t a l of t h i r t e e n c o r r e l a t i o n s with the two F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n measures. In regard to Autonomy, S o c i a l Science Departments formed the only group i n which there were no c o r r e l a t i o n s i n S e l f -B ating. . On the other hand, i n Mean Non-Self Bating and Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , i t was the only one which had negative c o r r e l a t i o n s , and i t had only negative c o r r e l a t i o n s . . , There was a l s o a c o r r e l a t i o n , with O v e r a l l Adequacy i n t h i s group, the only case of a c o r r e l a t i o n . between Autonomy and O v e r a l l Adeguacy i n any group i n a l l f o u r c a t e g o r i e s . S o c i a l Science Departments d i f f e r e d from both of the Non-Teaching Departments i n respect to Concentration of A u t h o r i t y and I n - o n i t Level of Decision-Making., These v a r i a b l e s were c o r r e l a t e d with a number of Perceived Adequacy v a r i a b l e s , each of the two having fewer i n S e l f - B a t i n g than i n Mean Non-Self Ba t i n g or Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r . The r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the Perceived Adequacy v a r i a b l e s and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow were of s p e c i a l ; : i n t e r e s t . There were fewer i n S o c i a l Science Departments than i n Natural Science Departments., They i n c l u d e d c o r r e l a t i o n s with O v e r a l l Adequacy, both means. Production and three Perceived Adequacy v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d t o change, (Response t o Change, Speed of Adjustment and P r o p o r t i o n Adjusting)... Since the concept of 157 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow has to do with changing response t o d i f f e r e n t "raw m a t e r i a l s " these c o r r e l a t i o n s seem . i n t u i t i v e l y reasonable. Natural Science Departments. The v a r i a b l e s F u n c t i o n a l Specialization2, Concentration of a u t h o r i t y . I n - U n i t Level of Decision-Making, F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Hole D e f i n i t i o n and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow seemed of greatest s i g n i f i c a n c e . In respect of F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n ^ , there was a considerable change between S e l f - E a t i n g , (where there were nine c o r r e l a t i o n s ) , and Mean Non-Self Hating and E a t i n g by. College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , (where there were one and f i v e r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . a r e v e r s a l from one category t o another was noted f o r Concentration of a u t h o r i t y . , There were only two c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h i s v a r i a b l e i n S e l f - B a t i n g but e i g h t i n each of the other two c a t e g o r i e s . S i m i l a r r e v e r s a l s were found i n respect of F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n . ' a l l c o r r e l a t i o n s were p o s i t i v e , but there were more with F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n l than 2. The two Concentration of a u t h o r i t y - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s , other than In-Unit L e v e l of Decision-Making, were not as s a l i e n t as Concentration of a u t h o r i t y i t s e l f . Both autonomy and D i s c r e t i o n were more f r e q u e n t l y c o r r e l a t e d i n Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , a f u r t h e r two examples of i n s t a n c e s where a perception may p o s s i b l y have a causal r e l a t i o n t o s t r u c t u r e . , In-Unit Level of Decision-Making had numerous 15 8 c o r r e l a t i o n s , except i n S e l f - B a t i n g . The negative c o r r e l a t i o n between In-Onit Level of Decision-flaking and E f f i c i e n c y i n Na t u r a l Science Departments i s i n t e r e s t i n g s i n c e i t reverses the f i n d i n g i n L i b r a r i e s , and again suggests that Chief Executive O f f i c e r s evaluate d i f f e r e n t Departments i n q u i t e d i f f e r e n t ways. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow seemed t o be more s a l i e n t i n Natural Science Departments than i n S o c i a l Science Departments. Both had p o s i t i v e and negative c o r r e l a t i o n s although t h e r e was a preponderance of negative ones., There were c o n s i d e r a b l y more c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Mean Non-Self Bating i n Natural Science Departments. Only two s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s occurred i n S o c i a l Science Departments, whereas i n N a t u r a l Science Departments Q u a l i t y was the only Perceived Adequacy v a r i a b l e with which there was no c o r r e l a t i o n , and e i g h t were with both D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow 1 and 2. Again i n Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r there were more c o r r e l a t i o n s i n N a t u r a l Science Departments, than i n S o c i a l Science Departments. Nearly a l l c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n , of Workflow were p o s i t i v e i n Nat u r a l Science Departments, i n c l u d i n g those with the means. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow 1 and 2 were complementary to each other, t o some degree i n t h e i r c o r r e l a t i o n s , each c o r r e l a t i n g with d i f f e r e n t Perceived Adequacy of Performance v a r i a b l e s . I n S e l f - B a t i n g the number of c o r r e l a t i o n s was n e a r l y the same i n each group, but they were with d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s . y I n 159 N a t u r a l Science Departments there were negative c o r r e l a t i o n s between D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflowl and E f f e c t i v e n e s s and Response t o Change, and between D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflows and Anticipation..,.- The a s s o c i a t i o n between D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow and Perceived Adeguacy v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d t o change, which was noted i n S o c i a l Science Departments was repeated, but i n a d d i t i o n there were c o r r e l a t i o n s with a l l other Perceived Adeguacy v a r i a b l e s i n Natural Science Departments. The Adequacy Va r i a b l e s The number of c o r r e l a t i o n s with v a r i a b l e s of Perceived Adequacy of Performance ranqed from f i f t e e n f o r Anticipation,.-, to twenty-seven each f o r Q u a l i t y and P r o p o r t i o n Adjusting., They were most widely c o r r e l a t e d i n N a t u r a l Science pepartments, where a t l e a s t one Perceived Adeguacy v a r i a b l e was c o r r e l a t e d with a v a r i a b l e of s t r u c t u r e i n s a i l three c a t e g o r i e s , 4 B every case except two. l i b r a r i e s had a s i m i l a r l y wide d i s t r i b u t i o n , t here being only three exceptions.. S o c i a l Science pepartments and Counseling Departments had numerous exce p t i o n s . / Co-operation presents an unexpected picture.,. I t did not have many c o r r e l a t i o n s i n any category f o r any Department. „ In S e l f - R a t i n g , there were s l i g h t l y more i n L i b r a r i e s than i n the other Departments, but i n Hean Non-Self Rating and Rating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r there were fewer i n L i b r a r i e s . Co-operation i n a multi-department College can probably best be accomplished through a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of how to work through the 160 organizational structure. Since L i b r a r i e s may be presumed to have more extensive contact throughout the College than do the Teaching Departments, one might have expected the nature of structure to be important i n assessing Departmental effectiveness of Co-operation. The low importance placed upon i t in self-evaluation i s also surprising. fl comparison of correlations with Overall adeguacy, and those with i n d i v i d u a l Perceived adeguacy variables suggests that assessments of performance are more l i k e l y t o be made of s p e c i f i c aspects of performance, f o r correlations with the summary variable were sparse. In Counseling Departments* f o r example, there were only two, and both of these were i n Self-Eating, There was only one c o r r e l a t i o n of autonomy with Overall adeguacy, an example of a s p e c i f i c s t r u c t u r a l variable which/appears to be more c l o s e l y related to assessment of s p e c i f i c kinds of performance The number of correlations with Overall adeguacy and the two means was lower than might have been expected.. In a l l three cases, there were more in Natural Science Departments than i n Counseling Departments and S o c i a l Science Departments., In almost every case these summary measures of performance were correlated i n the same di r e c t i o n as the more s p e c i f i c measures, / There were, however, some cases where the d i r e c t i o n of a cor r e l a t i o n between a s p e c i f i c pair of variables,; •'/';wa;s .;,in:-.a d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n , i n d i f f e r e n t categories of respon&e./ One of these was the co r r e l a t i o n between For m a l i z a t i o n t o f f i o l e 161 D e f i n i t i o n l and C r i s i s Coping i n L i b r a r i e s . , In-.*,v-aatin;.g--by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r i t was negative, while i n S e l f -Rating i t was p o s i t i v e . The two other i n s t a n c e s were both wit;h D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of -Workflow, i n Natural Science Departments. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow! c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y with. Response to Change i n Mean Non-Self Rating and Rating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r , but n e g a t i v e l y i n Self-Rating.-, The same r e v e r s a l was observed between D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow2 and A n t i c i p a t i o n . These three i n s t a n c e s represent cases of e v a l u a t i o n , where opposite a s s o c i a t i o n s with i d e n t i c a l s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s emerge f o r i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l observers. Comparisons Between Teaching And Non-Teaching Departments The previous s e c t i o n i d e n t i f i e d numerous d i f f e r e n c e s between each of the f o u r types of Department. In a d d i t i o n t o d i f f e r e n c e s between the four types of Department i n d i v i d u a l l y , i t was a l s o p o s s i b l e t o see ways in * , which, t h e Teaching Departments as a group were d i f f e r e n t from the NonTTeaching Departments as a group. One example i s found i n respect of F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n . , In the Rating by College C h i e f Executive O f f i c e r category, t h e r e was a considerable d i f f e r e n c e . In L i b r a r i e s there was only one c o r r e l a t i o n . I n Counseling Departments, there were only two negative c o r r e l a t i o n s . I t appeared that the.degree of F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n had l i t t l e to do with the ways Chief 162 Executive Of f i c e r s viewed these Departments. () In the Teaching Departments, however, there were a number of c o r r e l a t i o n s , d i s t r i b u t e d d i f f e r e n t l y in each. In S o c i a l Science Departments, there were eight, and i n Natural Science Departments there were nine. One c o n f l i c t which occurred i n Natural Science Departments, between Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n 1 and Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n i s interesting i n t h i s category. Functional Specialization 1 correlated p o s i t i v e l y with; Proportion Adjusting, while Functional Specialization 2 correlated negatively with t h i s variable. At least three factors may have contributed to t h i s apparently paradoxical result. ( 1 ) . Natural Science Departments had the largest number of employees. . (2) . This Perceived Adequacy variable. Proportion .Adjusting, i s the only variable used i n the study which asks s p e c i f i c a l l y about the proportional size of a group of employees.,/ (3) . The difference between the ways i n which scores on Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n l and 2 are calculated has the r e s u l t that the number of a c t i v i t i e s delegated are more emphasized i n Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n , than i n Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n l . The finding suggests that in large Departments, with widespread delegation. Chief Executive O f f i c e r s are apt to perceive fewer employees as adapting guickly to change. Whether t h i s corresponds to any r e a l i t y in Natural Science Departments, other than size, i s an interesting;, question, on which the present data are unable to throw l i g h t . / The nature 163 of the Chief Executive O f f i c e r ' s perception of the Department i s i t s e l f a r e a l i t y , however, f o r the Department, and these r e l a t i o n s h i p s may be of i n t e r e s t t o the heads of N a t u r a l Science Departments or other l a r g e Departments. In g e n e r a l . F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n appeared more s a l i e n t i n the Teaching Departments, and l e s s so i n the S O B-Teaching Departments, i n the Mean Non-Self Rating and Rating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r c a t e g o r i e s . , While the d i f f e r e n c e s found i n F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n were p r i m a r i l y r e l a t e d t o i n d i v i d u a l r Department types, a d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e was found i n respect of Concentration of Authority. Here, the Non-Teaching and Teaching .-Departments were d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t , i n Mean Non-iSelf Rating a j ^ - j f ^ i ^ g g . by Col l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r . I n the Mean Non-^eif Rating category there were no c o r r e l a t i o n s i n L i b r a r i e s and only, one i n Counseling Departments. However, there were s i x i n S o c i a l Science Departments and eight i n Natural Science Departments. In Rating by Coll e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r there was; a s i n g l e c o r r e l a t i o n i n Counseling Departments and -none.invg&-J?-^!*^.,. f o u r and eigh t i n S o c i a l Science Departments and N a t u r a l Science Departments r e s p e c t i v e l y . The p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n L i b r a r i e s was between Concentration of A u t h o r i t y and ^ (/..Efficiency, and may w e l l r e f l e c t the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t Chief Executive O f f i c e r s i n t e r a c t mainly with L i b r a r y heads. .. Their^.perception of the L i b r a r y ' s e f f i c i e n c y i s perhaps primari l y . ,CQnJ^^oBed•••b.j t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . I f t h i s were to be supported, i t would suggest an unduly narrow b a s i s f o r e v a l u a t i o n , which -should give Chief Executive O f f i c e r s cause f o r r e f l e c t i o n . The d i s t i n c t i o n between the Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments, with regard to Concentration of A u t h o r i t y , which had appeared i n the other c a t e g o r i e s was not found i n the S e l f -Rating category. Instead another kind of d i f f e r e n c e between the two was apparent. C o r r e l a t i o n s i n the Non-Teaching Departments were p o s i t i v e , while those i n Teaching Departments were negative. I n g e n e r a l , however Concentration of Authority d i d not seem t o be of primary importance i n S e l f - R a t i n g i n e i t h e r group. There were few c o r r e l a t i o n s with D i s c r e t i o n . The most marked d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups of Departments was found i n Rating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r . In the Teaching Departments the c o r r e l a t i o n s are a l l negative and i n the Non-Teaching Departments they are a l l positive.,„> A p o s s i b l e reason f o r t h i s r e v e r s a l of s i g n i s found i n a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the way i n which the Teaching Departments and the Non-Teaching Departments are r e l a t e d t o the workflow. Teaching Departments deal d i r e c t l y with students, while much, though not a i l of the work i n Non-Teaching Departments i s more i n d i r e c t l y involved with them.. The d i f f e r e n c e does suggest t h a t considerable care must be taken i n designing formal e v a l u a t i o n mechanisms, i n order t o ensure that they are appropriate to the type of Department to be evaluated, r at her than ap p l y i n g them throughout a c o l l e g e without d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . In the S e l f - R a t i n g 16 5 category. D i s c r e t i o n l o s e s the s a l i e n c e apparent i n Hating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , but the same p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e s p l i t was observed. In ge n e r a l , i t may be s a i d that D i s c r e t i o n d i s c r i m i n a t e d between the Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments i n a l l c a t e g o r i e s . In respect of In-Onit L e v e l of Decision-Baking the Non-Teaching Departments had few c o r r e l a t i o n s , and the Teaching Departments had s e v e r a l , i n Hean Non-Self Bating and Hating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , echoing the f i n d i n g s with respect to D i s c r e t i o n . ^ In Hean Non-Self B a t i n g the Departments f e l l i n t o two groups. L i b r a r i e s alone had no c o r r e l a t i o n s . The other three groups a l l had negative c o r r e l a t i o n s , but there were considerably more i n the Teaching Departments than i n Counseling Departments. The Teaching/Non-Teaching d i f f e r e n c e was noted again i n Bating by College C h i e f Executive O f f i c e r , where s e v e r a l negative c o r r e l a t i o n s were found i n the two Non-Teaching Departments. There was again a d i s t i n c t i o n between the Teaching and the Non-Teaching Departments i n S e l f ^ B a t i n g , the l a t t e r having p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s , the former ^/negative.;,/ D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow was not measured i n Non-Teaching Departments, and t h e r e f o r e i s not discussed i n t h i s s e c t i o n . , The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n considers the ways;in.which patterns of r e l a t i o n s h i p d i f f e r e d depending on who made the assessment of adeguacy. , 166 COMPARISON AMONG CATEGORIES OF RESPONSE There were d i f f e r e n c e s among the c a t e g o r i e s with respect t o a l l v a r i a b l e s , and a l l Departments., I f the t o t a l s f o r F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n are considered, a number of d i f f e r e n c e s among S e l f - R a t i n g s , Mean Non-Self Ratings and Rating by College C h i e f Executive O f f i c e r s appear. F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n l shows no c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r L i b r a r i e s i n Rating by C o l l e g e C h i e f Executive O f f i c e r , but f i v e i n S e l f -Rating., On the other hand, there were s e v e r a l c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r the other three Departments i n Rating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , but none i n S e l f - R a t i n g , e x a c t l y the opposite.,, From both these, and the c o r r e l a t i o n s with F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n l , i t appears t h a t the degree of F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n had l i t t l e t o do with the ways Chief Executive O f f i c e r s viewed the Non-Teaching Departments, e s p e c i a l l y L i b r a r i e s , but more to do with t h e i r assessment of the Teaching Departments./ In S e l f - R a t i n g , t h e r e were p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s with Speed of Adjustment and C r i s i s Coping, i n L i b r a r i e s . This c o n t r a s t s with the negative c o r r e l a t i o n s found with the same two v a r i a b l e s i n Mean Non-Self Rating, and suggests an area i n which L i b r a r i e s appear to evaluate themselves g u i t e d i f f e r e n t l y from the way outside observers do. Speed of Adjustment and C r i s i s Coping both r e f e r to the way i n which Departments handle change, and the f a c t that the d i f f e r e n c e occurs i n both tends t o support the p r o b a b i l i t y that t h i s f i n d i n g i s v a l i d . . O v e r a l l , however. F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n seemed t o be more important i n t h e 16? S e l f - R a t i n g of Natural Science Departments and Counseling Departments than of the other two. F o r m a l i z a t i o n : of Role D e f i n i t i o n had numerous c o r r e l a t i o n s with Perceived Adeguacy of Performance, i n a l l groups, and there were s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between a l l th r e e categories. There were more c o r r e l a t i o n s with t h i s v a r i a b l e f o r - Counseling Departments i n the S e l f - R a t i n g category, than i n the other two. In f a c t there were no c o r r e l a t i o n s at a l l i n Rating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r . This seems to i n d i c a t e a higher importance f o r F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n , i n Counseling Departments, i n s e l f assessment than f o r College Chief Executive O f f i c e r s and other r a t e r s i n general... On the other hand, i n L i b r a r i e s , F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n ! was c o r r e l a t e d more f r e g u e n t l y i n Rating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r than i n S e l f - R a t i n g , which suggests that i t i s of lower importance i n s e l f e v a l u a t i o n i n t h i s type of Department. ,> In the case of Concentration of A u t h o r i t y , the f i r s t d i f f e r e n c e observed was the f a c t that i n the Hean Non-Self Rating category, a l l c o r r e l a t i o n s were negative, whereas the other two i n c l u d e d both negative and p o s i t i v e v a r i a b l e s . The S e l f - R a t i n g category d i f f e r e d from the other two, i n that the nature of the d i s t i n c t i o n between the Non-Teaching and the Teaching Departments sas d i f f e r e n t . In Hean Non-Self Rating and Rating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r the d i f f e r e n c e had c o n s i s t e d i n the t o t a l number of c o r r e l a t i o n s observed i n each group, but i n S e l f - R a t i n g the d i f f e r e n c e was a p o s i t i v e / 168 negative one. I t a l s o appeared t o be the case t h a t Concentration of A u t h o r i t y was a l e s s s a l i e n t v a r i a b l e i n S e l f -Rating than i n the other two c a t e g o r i e s . , In a l l c a t e g o r i e s there was a d i f f e r e n c e between the Teaching Departments and the Non-Teaching Departments. ., The d i f f e r e n c e i n He an Non-Self Rating and Rating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r was that Concentration of A u t h o r i t y appeared of considerable importance i n e v a l u a t i o n of the Teaching Departments, and hardly at a l l f o r the Hon-Teaching Departments. In S e l f - R a t i n g , however, the v a r i a b l e was not o f great importance f o r any group, but t o the extent that i t was a s s o c i a t e d , the c o r r e l a t i o n was p o s i t i v e in . .the Non-Teaching Departments, and negative i n the others. These d i f f e r e n c e s held true i n l a r g e p a r t , f o r the d e r i v a t i v e v a r i a b l e s of Concentration of A u t h o r i t y . . A n a l y s i s of Autonomy r e s u l t s again i n d i c a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s between the ways i n which Chief Executive O f f i c e r s apparently perceived and evaluated d i f f e r e n t types of department from the way i n which other observers d i d so. In t h i s case there was a marked d i f f e r e n c e between S o c i a l Science Departments and the other Departments, which was not found i n the other two c a t e g o r i e s . / The S e l f - R a t i n g category a l s o showed some changes. The two other c a t e g o r i e s revealed only a s i n g l e p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n L i b r a r i e s , bu i n S e l f - R a t i n g , there were three negative c o r r e l a t i o n s . This r e s u l t might not i n t u i t i v e l y be expected, s i n c e i t suggests t h a t L i b r a r i e s perceive themselves 169 as more e f f e c t i v e i n these ways, as the departmental autonomy decreases. I n the c o r r e l a t i o n s with D i s c r e t i o n , a d i f f e r e n c e was observable between Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r and the other three c a t e g o r i e s , most markedly i n L i b r a r i e s . There were more c o r r e l a t i o n s i n B a t i n g by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r than i n the other t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s , i n each: Department^. The a s s o c i a t i o n s between D i s c r e t i o n ;aacl the Perceived: Adeguacy v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s category present i n t e r e s t i n g guestions. Do Chief Executive O f f i c e r s perceive higher e f f e c t i v e n e s s as a r e s u l t of the higher l e v e l of D i s c r e t i o n granted, i or are both these the r e s u l t of some t h i r d f a c t o r . a l t e r n a t i v e l y , i s more d i s c r e t i o n granted by the Chief Executive O f f i c e r s to Teaching Departments as a r e s u l t of a perception the Chief Executive O f f i c e r s hold? In any event, why should the a s s o c i a t i o n be reversed i n the Non-Teaching Departments? The most s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e with respect to D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow concerned the S e l f - B a t i n g category, which d i f f e r e d from the other two i n two ways. , I n the f i r s t p l a ce, i n S e l f - B a t i n g , there were co n s i d e r a b l y fewer c o r r e l a t i o n s i n N a t u r a l Science Departments, but more i n S o c i a l Science Departments than there were i n the other two c a t e g o r i e s . Secondly, the d i r e c t i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n s was d i f f e r e n t . C o r r e l a t i o n s i n Natural Science Departments, and three of f i v e i n S o c i a l Science Departments were negative, suggesting t h a t s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n i s performed d i f f e r e n t l y from outside e v a l u a t i o n 170 i n respect of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow. A f i n a l d i f f e r e n c e between the c a t e g o r i e s i s demonstrated by the rank t o t a l s , and these are shown i n Table 20. , These ranks r e f e r to the number of s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between any Perceived Adeguacy v a r i a b l e and any s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e {except f o r the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow var i a b l e s ) , f o r each category. L i b r a r i e s varied from t h i r d i n S e l f - B a t i n g and Mean Non-Self Bating t o f i r s t i n Bating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r . / Counseling Departments were f o u r t h i n Mean Non-Self Bating and Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , but f i r s t i n S e l f - B a t i n g . S o c i a l Science Departments were f i r s t i n Mean Non-Self B a t i n g , t h i r d i n Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r and f o u r t h i n S e l f - B a t i n g . / ;. Natural Science Departments were second i n a l l c a t e g o r i e s . The f o l l o w i n g summary s e c t i o n draws together the f i n d i n g s r e l a t i n g t o d i f f e r e n c e s among the Departments, the Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments, the c a t e g o r i e s , and the v a r i a b l e s , which have been o u t l i n e d i n the previous s e c t i o n s . 17 1 Table 20 Banking Of Department Types I n Each Category (number Of S t a t i s t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t :Coxx&lckteponsfr?,--L i b r a r i e s Counseling S o c i a l Science Natural, Science Not s e l f 3 (14) 4 (12) 1 (29) 2 (25) C o l l e g e 1 133) 4 (8) 3 (29) 2 (31) S e l f 3 (25) 1 (36) 4 (6) 2 (28) Note; number o f c o r r e l a t i o n s i s shown -.in (.brackets..,;,: $he,y :&ot_ .not i n c l u d e f i g u r e s for D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow, since t h i s was not measured i n the Non-Teaching Departments. 17 2 SOHH-ABT This chapter was concerned with sab-problem number 3, which asked about the nature of the re l a t i o n s h i p s between variables of structure and of Perceived Adequacy of Performance. The focus of the chapter was not primarily on the d e t a i l of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between i n d i v i d u a l variables and what such i n t e r r e l a t i o n s might mean, although these guestions were not e n t i r e l y ignored,, but the primary emphases lay on the way i n which patterns of i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p varied from one kind of Departmentto another, and how such relationships were found to vary* .depending, on the source of the Perception of Adeguacy of Performance. There were many cor r e l a t i o n s between < str u c t u r a l variables and Perceived Adeguacy variables. , Although t h i s fact, i n i t s e l f , i s not necessarily an i n d i c a t i o n of v a l i d i t y of the measures of Perceived Adequacy of Performance, i t does go some way to supporting the v a l i d i t y which had been demonstrated i n previous studies. Since the s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s which appeared, were with structural measures which had, i n most cases, been v e r i f i e d by tests of v a l i d i t y , i t i s suggested that the number of c o r r e l a t i o n s found, together with the patterns of the i r d i s t r i b u t i o n , and the change between types of Department indicates t h i s area warrants fart h e r study. There were complex differences between the four categories of Perceived Adeguacy of Performance score, between the Department types, and between Teaching Departments and Non-Teaching Departments, which have only been b r i e f l y discussed 17 3 here. The f i n d i n g s seemed t o v a l i d a t e the concept of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow and to suggest the usefulness of f u r t h e r study of t h i s aspect of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y with regard to i t s i n t e r a c t i o n with .Administrative S t r u c t u r e . The d i f f e r e n c e s between the way D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow and the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e v a r i a b l e s c o r r e l a t e d with the Perceived Adeguacy v a r i a b l e s lend f o r c e to t h i s suggestion. I n t e r a c t i o n s amongst the Perceived Adeguacy v a r i a b l e s themselves were not of primary i n t e r e s t i n the , study, and are not discussed here. The f o l l o w i n g chapter deals with the c o r r e l a t i o n s between Congruence and Perceived Adeguacy of Performance./ 171 CHAPTER 8 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERCEIVED ADEQUACY. Of' PERFGEHANCEAND CONGRUENCE IN COLLEGES AND COLLEGE DEPARTSENTS, This chapter i s concerned with sab-problem 4, what relationships i f any, exist between the degree of Congruence between Colleges and selected College Departments and the Perceived Adeguacy of Performance of the Departments? Congruence was a measure of how f a r a Department was from the mean score of Departments on a p a r t i c u l a r variable of structure, in comparison with how far i t s parent College was from the mean for Colleges on that particular variable., For convenience, t h i s measure was actually calculated i n the form of Lack of Congruence., The Congruence measures were of three kinds which are termed Congruence"!, Congruence2 and Congruence3. Congruencel scores were derived from means calculated i n a l l departments together, Congruence2 scores from means calculated i n the Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments as two separate groups, and Congruence3 scores from means calculated i n each type of Department separately. Because the results of the c o r r e l a t i o n analysis i d e n t i f i e d considerable differences between/*he.-.types of Department, the following discussion i s mainly concerned with Department types, and correlations using Congruences variables., ; As a r e s u l t of the fact that the instrument actually 17.5 measured lack of Congruence, the exist e n c e of a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between a Perceived Adequacy of Performance v a r i a b l e and a Congruence v a r i a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t higher Perceived Adeguacy of Performance i s ass o c i a t e d with a greater d i f fere nee between a College and a Department on a p a r t i c u l a r s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e . . I t was noted e a r l i e r t h a t because Perceived Adequacy v a r i a b l e s are measures of perceptions, c o r r e l a t i o n s between them and s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s i n most cases are u n l i k e l y to i n d i c a t e a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n from the Perceived Adequacy v a r i a b l e to t i e s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e . This a l s o holds true f o r c o r r e l a t i o n s with Congruence v a r i a b l e s . Although the present study did not extend to d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the data on i n d i v i d u a l scores and c o r r e l a t i o n s , some reference i s made t o i n s t a n c e s where c o r r e l a t i o n s e x i s t e d between s p e c i f i c Congruence and Perceived Adeguacy of Performance c o r r e l a t i o n s but not between the Perceived Adequacy of Performance v a r i a b l e and the corresponding s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e , and v i c e v e r s a . Further a n a l y s i s of these cases would be u s e f u l , f o r they suggest the exist e n c e o f areas where comparative rather than absolute s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a Department were a s s o c i a t e d with Perceived Adeguacy of Performance. As was explained i n the previous chapter, the c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s used scores on the twelve questions of the instrument, and two mean scores, which were c a l c u l a t e d from a l l twelve items, and from the f i r s t eleven items, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The f o l l o w i n g s e l e c t i v e review and d i s c u s s i o n uses the same 176 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers as i n the previous chapter.,, Meant and Mean2, are i d e n t i f i e d as v a r i a b l e numbers 11 and 12. . The other v a r i a b l e s were Production { v a r i a b l e 13) r Q u a l i t y ( v a r i a b l e ,14)> E f f i c i e n c y ( v a r i a b l e 15) , E f f e c t i v e n e s s ( v a r i a b l e 16), A n t i c i p a t i o n ( v a r i a b l e 17), Response t o Change ( v a r i a b l e 18) , Speed of Adjustment ( v a r i a b l e 19), Proportion A d j u s t i n g ( v a r i a b l e 20)* Problem S o l v i n g ( v a r i a b l e 21) , C r i s i s Coping ( v a r i a b l e 22), Co-operation ( v a r i a b l e 23) and O v e r a l l Adeguacy ( v a r i a b l e 24). The instrument was scored f o r each Department by f i v e d i f f e r e n t respondents. Three d i f f e r e n t combinations of scores f o r each Department, on any given measure, were used i n the c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s : . 1. Perceived Adequacy of Performance (Mean Monself Rating) , which was derived from a summation of a l l . scores; other than those; obtained from s e l f - r a t i n g s , 2. Perceived Adeguacy of Performance (Rating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r ) 3. / Perceived Adequacy of Performance(Self-Racing),, • These three d i f f e r e n t r a t i n g s are r e f e r r e d to as c a t e g o r i e s . , The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n discusses the way ih> which the c o r r e l a t i o n s were patterned i n the d i f f e r e n t sub-samples, followed by a review of the kinds of d i f f e r e n c e between the Departments and between the c a t e g o r i e s of response. ,» The review w i l l f o l l o w the same format as i n the preceeding chapter. In the d i s c u s s i o n , a r e f e r e n c e t o a c o r r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e s a 177 s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n at alpha=0. 1 or beyond. DISTRIBUTION OP COB RELATIONS IN THE SOB-SAMPLES Tables 21-23 display for each of the above-noted categories, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of correlations among the variables of Congruence and Perceived Adeguacy of Performance i n the sub-samples. The statements which were made about the corr e l a t i o n s among the Perceived Adeguacy of Performance st r u c t u r a l ?: variables remain b a s i c a l l y true i n the present context. Statements which apply i n the present context are as follows: 1. There are many corr e l a t i o n s among the variables, and a l l variables correlated with at least one other variable.,;, 2. The ways in which the correlations occur discriminates between types of Department, and p a r t i c u l a r l y between the Teaching and the Non-Teaching Departments., 3. In many cases when a c o r r e l a t i o n occurs -in^,,ea^chpf.tw,o . Departments, i n any of the three categories of response^ the two are either both Teaching or are both Non-rTeaching Departments. 4. A c o r r e l a t i o n i n a Non-Teaching Department i s most freguently not accompanied by a co r r e l a t i o n in the other Non-Teaching Department. 178 5. There are examples of both positive, and negative corr e l a t i o n s . 6., There are differences i n patterns of co r r e l a t i o n according to the three types of ra t i n g which were referred to on pages 137-138. I t was noted i n the previous chapter that three kinds of pattern support the above statements., They are the occurrence of correlations between i n d i v i d u a l pairs of variables; the occurrence of c o r r e l a t i o n s i n groups of variables; and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p o s i t i v e and negative correlations. , The following discussion i s i n three parts.., The f i r s t considers differences between the Departments.,, The second deals with differences between the Teaching and the Non-Teaching Departments i n general^ and the third examines some; of the differences between < response categories. Within these three general d i v i s i o n s , the order of discussion generally follows the order of presentation of the variables i n the preceeding chapters. >• The discussion; also attempts to take account of the f a c t that, since the variables of adequacy are perceptions,, they may be caused by the s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the organizations, or each may be caused by some other factor, but in most instances, the Perceived adequacy of Performance variables could not themselves be considered as causative. Some consideration i s also given to differences which may occur 179 between the presence or absence of a c o r r e l a t i o n between a Perceived adequacy v a r i a b l e and a s p e c i f i c Congruence v a r i a b l e and the presence or absence of a c o r r e l a t i o n with the Perceived Adeguacy v a r i a b l e and the corresponding s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e . COMPARISONS AMONG THE DEPARTMENTS S a l i e n t S t r u c t u r a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s As i n analyses described i n the previous two chapters, examination of c o r r e l a t i o n s between v a r i a b l e s of Congruence and Perceived Adequacy of Performance revealed d i f f e r e n c e s between Departments, and c a t e g o r i e s . Table 24 shows i n condensed form, d i s t r i b u t i o n of c o r r e l a t i o n s shown; se p a r a t e l y f o r the three c a t e g o r i e s i n Tables 21-23. Table 24 f o l l o w s the format o f Table 18. H o r i z o n t a l axes r e f e r t o Perceived Adeguacy v a r i a b l e s , the four s u b - d i v i s i o n s corresponding; to four Department types./ V e r t i c a l axes r e f e r t o v a r i a b l e s of s t r u c t u r e , each sub-divided i n three p a r t s , corresponding t o three response c a t e g o r i e s . . 180 The following discussion w i l l i n general follow the same general pattern as the previous chapter, and w i l l i n part demonstrate the s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences observed in the two situations. Table 24 demonstrates r e l a t i v e importance of d i f f e r e n t Congruence variables, o v e r a l l , and i n various Departments and categories. For example, i n sixteen cases there was a corr e l a t i o n between s p e c i f i c pairs of variables, for s p e c i f i c Departments, i n each of the three categories. In thirteen of these cases, a sign reversal occurred i n one category, s, These sign reversals are p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g i n the analysis of Congruence v a r i a b l e s , because they indicate a difference of assessment between observers, of the importance of s i m i l a r i t y of structure i n a Department, to the structure of the College., 18.1 TABLE 21 (HEAN NON-SELF EATINGS) DISTRIBUTION OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE VARIABLES OF CONGRUENCE AND OF PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE IN THE SUB-SAMPLES 11 1 12 1 c 13 3 ,. 14 J 15 3 ) s n 16 c 17 J 18 j I I I n J 3 i 3 3 c j j c N 3 sN | s 3 s 1 1 I j 3,,/.;:;:;;:|^ s;. 3 s 4 3 ! J s 3 s ] i 1 J S 3 3 3 1 1 c 3 i c | s 1 s f'" J ^ L / J 3'.  "• i • 3 5 J . I 3 1 1 1 N 1 s J 3 sN c 3 1 N J , J _ . 1 c i I i 3 > N 3 s 6 I 3 1 1 1 J sN 3 1 s < 1 1 1 s J 3 1 s 7 J J n 3 sn | 1 I ! s I ] 3 1 1 I i n C j LC | n | sn 1 . ' n j;;:,: :n-.1;: . i 8 1 ! n j n ! C 3 | 3 n J 1 n | i i 1 a S n sn 3 n 3 n j • " " " ' i ' • "; i j; 'i J sn , 1 n 9 3 3 1 n 1 1 1 1 Sn I 1 1 1 I 3 sn ] sn 1 n J n i;,lr,;;,»; i 10 1 3 1 1 1 i 1 1 i i i i i 1 1 1 i i i 1.9. J 20 2 1. c sn 22 | 23 24 3 c NOTE: UPPERCASE DENOTES A POSITIVE CORRELATION. LOWER CASE/DENOTES A NEGATIVE CORRELATION. „ CL= COLL E G ES , L=LIBB ARIES, ; C=C 0 UNiSE LI NG DEPARTMENTS, S= SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS, N-NATUSAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS. .VARIABLE NOS. /1= FUNCTIONAL ,SPECIALIZATION (Bi-7AI):, 2=FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION(BAI) , 3=CONCENTRATION OF AUTHORITY, 4= AUTONOMY, 5-DISCBETION, 6=IN-DNIT DECISION LEVEL,j7=F^BflAL;IZATION OF BOLE DEFINITION (1)., 8=FORMALIZATION OF BOLE DEFINITIO'N'l(2),', ' 9 AND i0=DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW (1) AND (2) VABIA^BLES ,11-24 ABE THOSE OF PEBCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PEBFOBHANCE, BHO=.5640 ALPHA=0. 1 N=10 FOB EACH SUB-SAMPLE 18 2 TABLE 22 {RATINGS BY COLLEGE PRINCIPALS) ; DISTRIBUTION OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIABLES OF CONGRUENCE AND PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE IN SOB—GROUPS OF THE SAMPLE 1 1 1 12 ! 13 | 14 15 J 16 r 17 r 18 3 19 1 20 j 21 1 22 23 24 1 I I ! ! c ! c I j i i Lc 3 1 1 c 3 § i c i 2 J | ! s ! ', S \ 3 1 i 1 1 3 i ; • j 1 i i • n 3 I s ] \ N J sN ! sN ] N i I 1 3 i i n 3 u. s i s 4 | \ ! ! ; n 1 l c J 1 c ) S J s ! 3 5 I 'i I N | s ! ! 1 1 1 \ i s I i 6 | ! 1 1 SN ! i i 1 N 3 1 1 3 J 1 ! 1 1 1 1 i ; i s 7 L I n J L n L 3 L J n ] L 3 L 4 1 L 3 n I L n .} L 3 sn j LC 1 sn J j L 1 n 8 C } n | c n j C J S J s n ] 1 3 i S | 11 i n 3 i • c 3 1 L n 1 c 9 I n J n ! ! ! ! 1 1 J n 1 V J : n 1 n 10 J I ! 1 8 1 N i 3 1 { i J 3 1 1 NOTE: UPPERCASE DENOTES A POSITIVE CORRELATION.• ,LQ HER ! CASE DENOTES A NEGATIVE CORRELATION• CL=COLLEGES0 L=LIBRARIES, ;CkColNSEJtIN(3 DEPARTMENTS, S=SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS, • N =NATUR_L:'.- SSI'MNC_' DEPABTMENTS. VARIABLE NUMBERS ABE THE SAME AS IN TABLE 21. RHO=.5640 ALPHA=0. 1 N= 10 FOB EACH SUB-SAMPLE 183 TABLE 23 (SELF-RATINGS) DISTRIBUTION OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE VARIABLES OF CONGRUENCE AND OF PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE IN THE SUB-SAMPLES 11 I 12 | 13 1 14 I 1.5 3 16 j 1 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 3 21 3 22 | 23 24 1- 3-1 :•• ; | 1 1 i 1 1 c c | 1 1 1 3 r'' i s 1 N 1 N 3 s : n 1 S 3 s ] 2 | 'v.!: | i C 1 C 3 c j , , 1 1 • c N 1. N • I 3 1 N ] S ! N | N 3 N 3 N 3 S % N 1 S 3 1 ] L I 1 C | J 1 1 L 3 3 N j N | sN i 1 s | N } N J 1 I 4 C | C j LC j 3 C J c 3 c 3 i c 3 i 3 c "'Si",N 1 » n i Sn 1 N 3 S ] 3 s 3 s 5Lc | Lc | Lc i Lc i c 1 L C a | J c 1 1 1 3 Sn J s i J i 6 I 3 j ] j 1 1 3 3 c j N I 1 SN t sN I s 3 S | 1 1 7 ' • :%.. , i | L | . j 1 3 C | L 1 s 1 J SN j s 3 s J i N ) 1 N ] 81C i I j i 1 j 1 i 1 ! 1 3 1 1 1 i 1 J J 1 •" N 1 ; N | a N 1 s I N i ] S _______ ___ _ ] N 1 9 3 T "i " 1 " I 1 s N 3 s a ] s 10 | • I 1 •i j i i 1 3 I.:'-: i 1 N 1 s 1 1 sN 3 3 NOTE. UPPERCASE DENOTES POSITIVE CORRELATIONS, LOWER CASE DENOTES NEGATIVE CORRELATIONS. CL=COLLEGES, L=LIBRABIES. C=COUNSELING DEPABTMENTS, S=SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS, N=NATORAL SCIENCE DEPABTMENTS. .VARIABLES .NUMBERS ABE THE SAME AS IN TABLE 21. RHO=.5640 ALPHA=0.1 N=10 FOB EACH SOB-SAMPLE 18 4 TABLE 24 THE DISTRIBUTION OF CORRELATIONS AMONG THE VARIABLES OF CONGRUENCE AND OF PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE IN THE SUB-SAMPLES (BY CATEGORIES) . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 _ LCSN LCSN LCSN LCSN LCSN LCSN LCSNLCSN LCSNLCSN;LCSNLCSN LCSNLCSN 1 M c c c C S C S c csn c . c P c c Lc c c I 1 s N N s C C n S S M S n n " ' ' : s P S S 1 1 . 1 , n I N N c C N CS N N N .. '•. s N CS J— • M N CsN s Cs ;>S''-' s P ": S N sN SN N 1 n s I U— N N L sN CS N N i ' L ' . s ** M • ;: S S S C CS • P n l c cS .s' I c _ CS c LC n Sn C c C N es i - ' 1 ; S C n J M s N s N C N c :':: ;::'?:;N:- S P N s s S I LC Lc Lc Lc cSn s Lc c o — M SN s 1 s l S p 1 SN 1 1 N 1 1 1 l l s i N SN s s 1 s c H - n sn s n C nLCsn n n P L ; i f L n L :. L n L L L ; n L ; nL sn LC snL nL L n I '.; s r s s L sNL S s N C L N H n n C n i n n n sn n n . sn n P •' c n C n CS n S n n C L n C I 1C N 1 N 1 1 1 N S N 1 I S 1 1 . Nl H n Sn sn sn n n '' n : p I n sN 10 •- — • : ; ;~ M P I N N n sN NUMBERS ON THE VERTICAL AXES REFER TO THE STRUCTURAL VARIABLES./ THOSE ON THE HORIZOnTAL AXES REFER TO .THE' J?ERFOSllAIi.Cli,lyi^^-iB'tE^*. L= LIBRARIES ; C=COUNSELING; S=SOCIAL SCIENCES; N=N ATUftA;!/'^ Is^ I'EtfGa-si. M=MEAN NOT SELF CATEGORY; P=COLLEGE PRINCIPAL CATEGORY; ; I=SELF CATEGORY. UPPER/LOWER CASE DENOTE POSITIVE/NEGATIVE., 185 To the three kinds of d i f f e r e n c e s of pattern which were r e f e r r e d to i n the previous chapter, namely, those between the kinds of Department, those between the Teaching and the Non-Teaching Departments, and those between c a t e g o r i e s , the present chapter adds a f o u r t h . This concerns cases where t h e r e i s a c o r r e l a t i o n between a Perceived adeguacy v a r i a b l e and s p e c i f i c Congruence v a r i a b l e , but not with the corresponding s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e . These cases are shown i n Table 25. Such occurrences can serve to suggest aspects of s t r u c t u r e where the comparative degree of a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s r e l a t e d to assessments of performance. The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n f o l l o w s the same order of presentation as i n the previous chapter.; Comparison of the comments of the two chapters may be found h e l p f u l i n c o n s i d e r i n g the nature of the two, kinds o f v a r i a b l e , and the d i f f e r e n t ways i n which they c o r r e l a t e with other v a r i a b l e s . Some comments on these matters are found i n t h i s and the f o l l o w i n g chapter. 18 6 TABLE 25 THE OCCURRENCE OF CORRELATIONS WITH VARIABLES OF CONGRUENCE WHERE THERE WAS NO CORRELATION WITH VARIABLES OF STRUCTURE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LCSN LCSN LCSN LCSN LCSN LCSN LCSNLCSN LCSNLCSN LCSNLCSN LCSNLCSN H e c c c cs c '^CSjri, r'';'cV c -P C C LC C C •-. I I s N N s n S S ' 2- —-r-^ — — • ~ —-M " S n • n . s P . 1 : 1 :\.;:  l : / " ' S N N , . N S""\- N CS 3- ----- • — — — — M : C s c "L"„S"; P s N s 1 n ... s I N N L S C N N •., L,;/'; 7 S 4- - - — r - — r ' ~ - - : - - - - . - - ^ - - ; i f ^ - - r - - -8 : S S C CS ^ - . g r r - - - « * - . . . P l c CS S I CS C LC D Sn C C C N CS S C n 5 - — r - , — ' • _ - - - r - ^ - r r ^ r : - - - - -M : S N S C N : : ''!''"'";h N S P N s S I c e L Lc c s Lc c 6- — — : - - - - - - - ^ . - . - r - - - - - - - -P 1 1 1 1 .• s i N s s •;!i-^;;"^"c. M n n s n C n C n ^ c . : ' n P n L n L n Csn L L n I s s s L sN s '• " L 8- ; : — : — ~ . — ' M n n C n n n sn n n n P C n C n CS n S n C L C I 1 s N 1 S 1 1 9 ' — . . — _ _ _ _ „ _ — . _ M S P n I s N S 1 0 — — — P N i N N NUMBERS ON THE VERTICAL AXES REFER TO THE STRUCTURAL VARlkBLES.: THOSE ON THE HORIZONTAL AXES REFER TO THE PERFORMANCE VARIABLES. L=LIBRARIES; C=COUNSELING; S=SOCIAL SCIENCES; N=NATURAL SCIENCES M= HEAN NOT SELF CATEGORY; P= COLLEGE PRINCIPAL CATEGORY; I-SELF CATEGORY. UPPER/LOWER CASE DENOTE POSITIVE/NEGATIVE. J 187 L i b r a r i e s . There were d i f f e r e n c e s between the r e s u l t s i n the three c a t e g o r i e s f o r t h i s group.. In Mean Non-Self Sating there were only f o u r c o r r e l a t i o n s , but twenty-eight and twenty-three i n Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r and S e l f -Bating r e s p e c t i v e l y . In the analyses of c o r r e l a t i o n s with s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s D i s c r e t i o n and F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Bole D e f i n i t i o n had emerged as s a l i e n t v a r i a b l e s . This was again the case with the corresponding Congruence v a r i a b l e s , but wit h d i f f e r e n c e s from category t o category. In a d d i t i o n Congruence of In-Unit Level of Decision-Making became important. Congruence of D i s c r e t i o n was not c o r r e l a t e d i n the Mean Non-Self Bating or Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r c a t e g o r i e s but had f i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i n S e l f - B a t i n g . , The r e s u l t i n Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r was very d i f f e r e n t from the s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s , where there had been twelve c o r r e l a t i o n s . , . A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s i n S e l f - B a t i n g were p o s i t i v e , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t d i f f e r e n c e from the College was associated with b e t t e r performance., Congruence of In-Onit L e v e l of Decision-Making was the only v a r i a b l e i n L i b r a r i e s , which had a c o r r e l a t i o n with a s p e c i f i c Perceived Adeguacy v a r i a b l e i n a l l three c a t e g o r i e s . / I t had disp l a y e d few c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the previous a n a l y s i s , and t h i s remained the case i n Mean Non-Self Bating and Self-Bating.,, In Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , however, where there had been only one c o r r e l a t i o n , there were now e i g h t . , These 188 were a l l negative, suggesting t h a t i n the opinion of the Chief Executive O f f i c e r s , L i b r a r i e s appeared to perform b e t t e r , i f the average l e v e l of d e c i s i o n making i n the Department was s i m i l a r to that i n the C o l l e g e . , Congruence of F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n remained s a l i e n t only i n Rating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r , and i n S e l f - R a t i n g f o r Congruence of F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n 2 . There was an i n t e r e s t i n g discrepancy here, f o r the c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Rating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r were p o s i t i v e , and those i n S e l f - R a t i n g were negative. From these r e s u l t s i t appears t h a t Chief Executive O f f i c e r s and L i b r a r y heads have opposite; views on whether s i m i l a r i t y to the Coll e g e i n regard to t h i s v a r i a b l e of s t r u c t u r e i s a s s o c i a t e d with better performance. Counseling Departments. „ A marked change from the previous a n a l y s i s was noted i n regard t o Congruence of F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n . I t had now l i t t l e s a l i e n c e i n the S e l f - E a t i n g category, but Congruence of F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n l had nine negative c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Mean Non-Self Rating.,, In the a n a l y s i s with the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s i t was suggested t h a t s p e c i a l i z a t i o n was perceived by heads of Counseling Departments t o be an important c o r r e l a t e of performance, but was l e s s l i k e l y so to be perceived by outside r a t e r s . , The present f i n d i n g suggest that f o r the heads the comparative degree o f s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i s not of the same importance, but; t h a t i t assumes greater relevance f o r those outside the Department. I n t h i s respect Counseling Departments were g u i t e d i f f e r e n t from 189 L i b r a r i e s , where t h i s assessment of the relevance of comparative degree of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , by outside r a t e r s , was not observed., There had been few c o r r e l a t i o n s with Autonomy and D i s e r e t i o n , i n t h i s group of Departments. , However, Congruence of these v a r i a b l e s assumed importance i n S e l f - E a t i n g . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the e i g h t c o r r e l a t i o n s with _ Congruence of Autonomy were a l l p o s i t i v e , w h i l e the seven with Congruence of D i s c r e t i o n were a l l r negative. „ From these r e s u l t s , ; one might conclude t h a t f o r heads of Counseling Departments* greater s i m i l a r i t y to the Col l e g e i n degree of Discretion,- but greater d i f f e r e n c e from the College, i n degree of Autonomy, i s as s o c i a t e d with more adeguate performance.. The f i n d i n g regarding Congruence o f D i s c r e t i o n was the opposite to that i n L i b r a r i e s , where a l l c o r r e l a t i o n s were p o s i t i v e . , Congruence of Autonomy was the only v a r i a b l e i n Counseling Departments which d i s p l a y e d a c o r r e l a t i o n with a s p e c i f i c Perceived Adeguacy v a r i a b l e i n a l l c a t e g o r i e s . , Response t o Change was n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with Autonomy i n Hean Non-Self Eating and Rating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , but p o s i t i v e l y i n S e l f - R a t i n g . I n c o n t r a s t to e x t e r n a l observers, heads of Counseling Departments appear t o ra t e Departments as r e a c t i n g to change more e f f e c t i v e l y , when, possessing comparatively more autonomy than the Col l e g e as a whole.,, T h i s i s perhaps not an i n e x p l i c a b l e f e e l i n g , but the discrepancy d i d not appear i n other Departments. 190 S o c i a l S c i e n c e Pegartgents. In these Departments, as i n N a t u r a l Science Departments, t h e r e were many more c o r r e l a t i o n s , than i n the Non-Teaching Departments, which suggests t h a t comparison with C o l l e g e s t r u c t u r e g e n e r a l l y assumes more re l e v a n c e t o performance than i s the case i n the Non-Teaching Departments. There were c o r r e l a t i o n s with a l l Congruence v a r i a b l e s i n a l l c a t e g o r i e s , except f o r D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow i n Rating by C o l l e g e C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r . , / There were a l s o more c o r r e l a t i o n s with O v e r a l l Adeguacy than i n other Departments. There were two cases where a s p e c i f i c p a i r of v a r i a b l e s was c o r r e l a t e d i n a l l c a t e g o r i e s . , I n one of these. Congruence o f Con c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y with O v e r a l l Adeguacy, the d i r e c t i o n was n e g a t i v e i n Mean Non-Self R a t i n g and Rating by C o l l e g e Chief E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r , but p o s i t i v e i n S e l f - R a t i n g . , Congruence of C o n c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y a l s o d i s p l a y e d t h i s s i g n r e v e r s a l with E f f e c t i v e n e s s , although these two were not c o r r e l a t e d i n Rating by C o l l e g e C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r . Opposite c o n c l u s i o n s appear to e x i s t i n e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l o b s ervers concerning the a s s o c i a t i o n with b e t t e r performance, of C o n c e n t r a t i o n of A u t h o r i t y i n S o c i a l Science Departments, when compared with the parent C o l l e g e . As i n the a n a l y s i s d e s c r i b e d i n the previous c h a p t e r , t h e r e were fewer c o r r e l a t i o n s with Congruence o f F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role Def inition2 than > of F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role Def i n i t i o n l . Congruence on the s e v a r i a b l e s was of g r e a t e s t s a l i e n c e i n S e l f -191 B a ting, where there were s i x c o r r e l a t i o n s , and t h i s suggests the greater emphasis placed on comparison with the C o l l e g e by the heads of these Departments, The r e s u l t s with regard to Congruence of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow, gave a d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e from that i n Natural Science Departments,, S o c i a l Science Departments had many fewer c o r r e l a t i o n s , though with mostly the same Perceived Adeguacy v a r i a b l e s as i n N a t u r a l Science Departments. This was the only area of s t r u c t u r e where t h e r e were no c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Bating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r . , Since there were twelve c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Bating by C o l l e g e C h i e f Executive O f f i c e r f o r the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e i t s e l f , i t seems to suggest t h a t Chief Executive O f f i c e r s are l e s s i n f l l u e n c e d by comparisons with the College here, than by the a c t u a l D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow of S o c i a l Science Departments., Natural Science Departments. There were a number of d i f f e r e n c e s between t h i s group and each of the other Department types. N a t u r a l Science Departments had s i x cases where a c o r r e l a t i o n between a s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e was found i n a l l three c a t e g o r i e s . F i v e of these displayed a discrepancy i n s i g n . In another f o u r cases there was a discrepancy between two c a t e g o r i e s . There were a l s o numerous i n s t a n c e s where a c o r r e l a t i o n was found i n the two Teaching Departments and not i n the NOn-Teaching Departments, yet where the sign •< in Natural Science Departments was d i f f e r e n t from that i n S o c i a l Science Departments. 192 Congruence of Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n was s a l i e n t in the Self-Rating category, with eleven correlations, compared with a t o t a l of two f o r the other categories. This resembles the findings of the s t r u c t u r a l analysis, and suggests that both the absolute and the comparative degree of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n are important correlates of performance, in these Departments., Concentration of authority appeared of egual importance, o v e r a l l , i n both the structure and the Congruence analyses. There was a f a i r l y high l e v e l i n each i n Natural Science Departments. The positive c o r r e l a t i o n i n the f i r s t , with the negative c o r r e l a t i o n i n the second indicates that a high l e v e l and s i m i l a r i t y to the College i s associated with greater Perceived Adeguacy of Performance. This raises the question of what the Perceived Adequacy of Performance of a Natural Science Department would be, which had high Concentration of Authority, but was located in a College which had low Concentration of Authority. Congruence of In-Unit Level of Decision-Making:was; not of great salience, but Congruence of Autonomy and Congruence of Discretion displayed some carious discrepancies. , Congruence of Autonomy had no correlations in Mean Non-Self Rating and only one i n Rating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r . However, there were four i n Self-Rating, and three were p o s i t i v e , one negative. This contrasts with S o c i a l Science Departments, where there were four positive c o r r e l a t i o n s . . In Congruence of Discretion, Mean Non-Self Rating, the reverse occurred. Here 19 3 there were four p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i n N a t u r a l Science Departments, but three negative c o r r e l a t i o n s i n S o c i a l Science Departments. While these f i n d i n g s do not e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e s , they do point t o the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t S o c i a l Science Departments and Natural Science Departments stand i n a d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n to t h e i r C olleges i n regard: to t h i s aspeqt of s t r u c t u r e . , Congruence of Fo r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n was of great s a l i e n c e i n Mean Non-Self Rating and Rating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive o f f i c e r , and t o a l e s s e r degree i n S e l f - R a t i n g , f o r Nat u r a l Science Departments. . E x t e r n a l ..observers -itt;^par-t-icaJMfcr seem t o place importance on the comparative degree of t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , however, the c o r r e L a t i o n s are negative i n Mean Non-Self Rating and Rating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r , but p o s i t i v e i n Self-Rating.,, Congruence of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow seemed o f greater s a l i e n c e i n the Natural Science Departments than i n S o c i a l Science Departments., In Mean Non-Self Rating there was considerable d i f f e r e n c e between them. Natural Science Departments had e i g h t negative c o r r e l a t i o n s , but i n S o c i a l Science Departments, there were only two negative c o r r e l a t i o n s and one p o s i t i v e . I n Rating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , there were f i v e negative and one p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n N a t u r a l Science Departments, and none i n S o c i a l Science Departments. However, i n S e l f - R a t i n g there were four c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Natural Science Departments and f i v e i n S o c i a l 194 Science Departments. The most i n t e r e s t i n g f e a t u r e of the Congruence of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow i n N a t u r a l Science Departments was the p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i n S e l f - B a t i n g and the negative c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the other c a t e g o r i e s , together with the greater emphasis placed on i t i n the f i r s t two. One would be l e d tO;conclude t h a t s i m i l a r i t y to the College i n t h i s respect i s associated by e x t e r n a l observers with b e t t e r performance, but t h a t a d i f f e r e n c e from the College i s so a s s o c i a t e d by the Department heads. The adequacy V a r i a b l e s Each of the Perceived adeguacy v a r i a b l e s seemed to be s a l i e n t with respect to the Congruence v a r i a b l e s . The highest number of c o r r e l a t i o n s was with Production, where there were twenty-seven. , The fewest were the fourteen with C r i s i s Coping. Nor d i d any seem to be p r i m a r i l y n e g a t i v e l y or p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d , except f o r a n t i c i p a t i o n , where there was a preponderance of negative. There were more instances i n the present a n a l y s i s than i n the s t r u c t u r a l one where a Perceived adeguacy v a r i a b l e was c o r r e l a t e d with a s p e c i f i c Congruence v a r i a b l e i n d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . . This seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t there i s some discrepancy among e v a l u a t o r s of the e f f e c t of comparisons with C o l l e g e , s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . / The f i n d i n g s were complex i n t h i s respect, and f u r t h e r research would perhaps be a b l e t o throw more l i g h t on t h i s i n t e r e s t i n g 19 5 topic, Comparison Of Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments The difference between the two groups of Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments which was found i n the two previous analyses was repeated i n somewhat weaker fashion, i n the analysis of Congruence variables, where the differences between the i n d i v i d u a l types of Department were more obvious. The following discussion notes some of the differences which were observed between the two groups. In respect to the measures of Congruence of Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n , i t was apparent that the two ; Non-Teaching Departments tended to have correlations with Congruence, of Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n l , while c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the Teaching Departments were more l i k e l y to be with Congruence of Functional Specializa tion2. Nearly a l l correlations i n Non-Teaching Departments were negative, however, whilst those i n Teaching Departments were mostly p o s i t i v e . . This seems to indicate that s i m i l a r i t y to the College, i n regard to s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , i s more associated with higher performance i n the Teaching Departments. The very few co r r e l a t i o n s i n L i b r a r i e s was a finding comparable to that i n the structure/Perceived adeguacy of Performance analysis. However, in regard to Counseling Departments, the r e s u l t s were the opposite to the findings i n structure/Perceived adeguacy of Performance, where there had been many corr e l a t i o n s i n Self-Bating, but few i n the other categories. 196 Congruence of Formalization of Hole Defi n i t i o n appeared somewhat more s a l i e n t i n the Teaching Departments, except f o r Rating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r i n L i b r a r i e s , and to a lesser degree i n Counseling Departments. A difference appeared also i n the Mean Non-Self Rating category, i n the correlations of Congruence of Formalization of Role D e f i n i t i o n ! with Speed of Adjustment and Proportion Adjusting. Here, the cor r e l a t i o n s i n the Non-Teaching Departments were p o s i t i v e , and those in the Teaching Departments were negative.. Although there were numerous instances where a cor r e l a t i o n was observed i n both a Teaching and a Non-Teaching Department, there was also a tendency f o r the two groups to demonstrate correlations between d i f f e r e n t pairs of variables., Review of the correlations with Congruence of Concentration of Authority seemed to indicate that, i n general, ratings by Chief Executive O f f i c e r s indicated Congruence i n Concentration of Authority to be more sa l i e n t in Teaching Departments than i n Non-Teaching Departments. Such ratings seemed to give i t opposite importance i n S o c i a l Science Departments to Natural Science Departments, and i t seemed to be of more importance than Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n Teaching Departments, but less so i n the Non-Teaching Departments.. A difference between the two groups i n respect of Congruence of Autonomy was found i n a tendency f o r correlations to occur between dif f e r e n t pairs of variable i n members of each group. The same was true of Congruence of Discretion, 1.9.7 p a r t i c u l a r l y in the Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r category, where there were no c o r r e l a t i o n s at a l l ; i n •the Non-Teaching Departments, Congruence of In-Unit Level of Decision-Making also demonstrated some differences between; the two groups. In Self-Bating the variable had more c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the Non-Teaching Departments than i n the Teaching Departments. The sit u a t i o n was reversed in Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r . / Reviewing the the results i n a l l three categories reveals another basic difference between the two groups which i s not associated with any s p e c i f i c variable.. This i s the pronounced tendency f o r correlations in L i b r a r i e s and Counseling Departments, or i n Social Science Departments and Natural Science Departments to occur either singly or with the other member of the group, Much les s freguently i s a correlation i n a Teaching Department or a Non-Teaching Department accompanied by a c o r r e l a t i o n i n a member of the other group,, COMPARISON OF DIFFEBENCES AMONG CATEGORIES OF EESPONSE Differences among categories were numerous. , Two marked ones appear i n regard to Congruence of Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n the Self-Bating category. In three Department types there were differences from results i n the the other two categories. L i b r a r i e s , for example, had few correlations i n any category, but in Self-Bating the s o l i t a r y one was negative with 198 Production, whereas the previous correlations had been p o s i t i v e . . This suggests that to some degree outside observers respond to L i b r a r i e s as more adeguate, i f d i f f e r e n t from the College, i n respect to Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n , but that the L i b r a r y head perceives i f as more adequate, when more sim i l a r to the parent organization. a reversal i n the other d i r e c t i o n was found i n ; Counseling Departments. There were considerably fewer negative correlations and more positive. In Social Science Departments, there were two negative correlations with Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n l and Production and Effectiveness. The l a s t correlated p o s i t i v e l y with Functional Specialization2, however. ., It i s interesting to note that t h i s variable had correlated p o s i t i v e l y i n Mean Non-Self , Bating, become negative i n Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , and now has turned into a c o n f l i c t between the two variant forms of the measure. , There was a change i n Natural Science Departments, In Self-Bating i t had many positive correlations* »ith two negative. These two negative correlations, were both with Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n l , between E f f i c i e n c y and Speed of adjustment. These represented sign reversals from the other categories. The two correlations with the means were the only correlations with Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n a l l categories. In contrast, the only co r r e l a t i o n with O v e r a l l adequacy was i n Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , where i t was 199 negative.. This seems to r e i n f o r c e both the d i f f e r e n t way of e v a l u a t i n g which C h i e f Executive O f f i c e r s and Department heads appear to d i s p l a y i n many respects i n the f i n d i n g s of the study, and a l s o the suggestion of a fundamental d i f f e r e n c e between O v e r a l l Adeguacy and summation of p a r t i a l e v a l u a t i o n s . . The r e s u l t s i n Congruence of F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Hole D e f i n i t i o n were complex, and the v a r i a b l e appeared somewhat more s a l i e n t i n a l l c a t e g o r i e s except f o r B a t i n g by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r i n L i b r a r i e s , and t o a l e s s e r degree i n Counseling Departments. ,. S o c i a l Science Departments d i f f e r e d from t h i s , i n that Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r r e s u l t s were l e s s s a l i e n t than the other c a t e g o r i e s . , I n t h i s i n stance there was an i n t e r e s t i n g sign r e v e r s a l . , There were now only four c o r r e l a t i o n s , and two p o s i t i v e . The L i b r a r y group a l s o d i s p l a y e d changes. Hhereas i n the f i r s t category there was only one c o r r e l a t i o n , i n Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r there was a c o r r e l a t i o n with almost every Perceived Adequacy v a r i a b l e , suggesting t h a t t h i s v a r i a b l e was of considerable importance i n connection with the e v a l u a t i o n of L i b r a r i e s by Chief Executive O f f i c e r s . There was a l s o a r e v e r s a l i n S e l f - B a t i n g , i n Natural Science Departments, where a l l c o r r e l a t i o n s were now p o s i t i v e . The r e v e r s a l between Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r and S e l f - B a t i n g again shows how d i f f e r e n t l y v a r i o u s observers can evaluate a given Department i n reference to the same s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , and suggests Department heads should 200 be cautious i n r e l y i n g on s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n to be sure t h e i r assumptions are shared by others. O v e r a l l , i n Congruence of F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n , the main d i f f e r e n c e s were between the S e l f - E a t i n g and Rating by C o l l e g e C h i e f Executive O f f i c e r c a t e g o r i e s . In L i b r a r i e s the v a r i a b l e seemed more s a l i e n t i n the a n a l y s i s of c o r r e l a t i o n s with s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s than with v a r i a b l e s of Congruence, f o r Hean Non-Self Rating and Rating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r , but not i n S e l f - R a t i n g . / In Counseling Departments, i t was more s a l i e n t the s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s i n the T o t a l fleanRating and S e l f - R a t i n g c a t e g o r i e s . I n respect to Congruence of Concentration of a u t h o r i t y n i t was observed that only i n S e l f - R a t i n g d i d L i b r a r i e s have any p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s , suggesting a d i f f e r e n t view of themselves, i n r e l a t i o n to the C o l l e g e s , than was held by outside observers. I n Counseling Departments there; was only one p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n . This c o r r e l a t i o n had been found i n Hean Hon-Self R a t i n g , but not i n Rating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r . S o c i a l Science Departments had one negative c o r r e l a t i o n i n S e l f - R a t i n g , which repeated f i n d i n g s i n Hean Non-Self R a t i n g , but not i n Rating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r . The two p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i n t h i s category compare with only, one p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n the other two c a t e g o r i e s taken together. a s m a l l d i s t i n c t i o n was noted i n regard t o Congruence of autonomy, where i n Natural Science Departments and Counseling 2 0 1 Departments the number of c o r r e l a t i o n s was g r e a t e r i n . S e l f -R a t i n g than i n the other two c a t e g o r i e s . . In C ounseling Departments the change was marked. In the other c a t e g o r i e s , t h i s Department had had few, mainly n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s . In Self--Rating there were now many, a l l p o s i t i v e . , T h i s change had not been observed i n the s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s . There was a c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e i n the r e s u l t s of congruence of D i s c r e t i o n i n S e l f - R a t i n g , f o r L i b r a r i e s and C ounseling Departments, from those o f the f i r s t two c a t e g o r i e s . C o u n s e l i n g Departments had had no c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Rating by C o l l e g e C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r , and only two, p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Hean Hon-rSelf R a t i n g . L i b r a r i e s had had no c o r r e l a t i o n s i n e i t h e r c a t egory. I n S e l f - R a t i n g , however, there were seven negative c o r r e l a t i o n s i n C o u n s e l i n g Departments, and there were f i v e p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i n L i b r a r i e s . . . T h i s suggests t h a t t h e two Departments do compare themselves t o t h e i r parent C o l l e g e s , c o n s c i o u s l y or u n c o n s c i o u s l y , i n r e gard to D i s c r e t i o n enjoyed, but t h a t they do so i n d i s s i m i l a r ways. In the case of L i b r a r i e s the S e l f - R a t i n g c a t e g o r y had s e v e r a l c o r r e l a t i o n s i n both the s t r u c t u r a l and the Congruence a n a l y s e s . However, f o r t h i s group. R a t i n g by C o l l e g e C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r had more c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s , than i n t h e Congruence.. In C o u n s e l i n g Departments, t h i s v a r i a b l e was not g e n e r a l l y s a l i e n t i n e i t h e r a n a l y s i s , but the S e l f - R a t i n g c a t e g o r y had numerous c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the 20 2 Congruence a n a l y s i s , but not i n the s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s . Congruence of I n - U n i t L e v e l of Decision-Making was s a l i e n t o n l y i n Ba t i n g by C o l l e g e C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r f o r L i b r a r i e s , where there were numerous ne g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s . ...••.•There-was,, i n f a c t , a marked d i f f e r e n c e i n the r e s u l t s f o r L i b r a r i e s , compared with the other Departments. L i b r a r i e s had e i g h t negative c o r r e l a t i o n s , but there were none i n Counseling Departments, and onl y two each i n S o c i a l S c i e n c e Departments and N a t u r a l S c i e n c e Departments. I n the l a t t e r two types of Department, the d i r e c t i o n o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s were i n o p p o s i t i o n to each other, which seems t o suggest t h a t C h i e f E x e c u t i v e 0 f f i c e r s . v i e w these Departments d i f f e r e n t l y from each other, but not to the same degree as e i t h e r of them from L i b r a r i e s or C o u n s e l i n g Departments., Congruence of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow, was of g r e a t e r s a l i e n c e i n the f i r s t two c a t e g o r i e s , i n the N a t u r a l s c i e n c e Departments, where t h e r e were more s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with Perceived Adequacy v a r i a b l e s , than i n S o c i a l , Science Departments. T h i s s i t u a t i o n was reversed i n the S e l f - R a t i n g category. In t h a t category, the v a r i a b l e was more s a l i e n t i n S o c i a l S c i ence Departments, having one p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n and f o u r n e g a t i v e . , In N a t u r a l S c i e n c e Departments t h e r e were three p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s , a double change, from n e g a t i v e t o p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s , and from many t o few c o r r e l a t i o n s . i n summary, there were s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups on Congruence of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Borkflow. . The 20 3 re s u l t s displayed both consistencies and changes across the categories, and i n Natural Science Departments there 'was a change from many to few correlations i n both i n Self-Rating., SUMMARY This chapter was concerned with sub-problem number 4, concerning r e l a t i o n s h i p s between variables of Congruence and of Perceived adeguacy of Performance. These were discussed i n several groupings.,. Correlations amongst the variables of Perceived adeguacy of Performance themselves, and of Congruence themselves were not discussed, although the data are there f o r the interested researcher. Support was given to the assumption that Congruence could be measured and would correlate with measures of Perceived adeguacy of Performance./ as was the case with r e s u l t s discussed in connection with the f i r s t three sub-problems, there were differences between groups, some of which appeared to be consistent., There were both correspondences and i n t e r e s t i n g differences between the structure/Perceived Adeguacy of Performance analysis and the Congruence/Perceived Adeguacy of Performance analysis findings. Hhen Mean Non-Self Ratings were considered there was a difference between the Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments, Teaching Departments having more correlations on the whole. There were also more i n Counseling Departments than i n L i b r a r i e s , which suggests that perceptions of adeguacy of these Departments i s made with less reference back to the Colleges 20 4 : than i s the case with respect to other Departments. There was a mixture of p o s i t i v e and negative c o r r e l a t i o n s i n t h i s category, and S o c i a l Science Departments had numerous c o r r e l a t i o n s with O v e r a l l Adeguacy. The p a t t e r n i n Rating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r was s i m i l a r , but there was an increase i n the number of c o r r e l a t i o n s i n L i b r a r i e s , now more than i n Counseling Departments, thus suggesting that Chief Executive O f f i c e r s form an exception t o the general r u l e suggested above.., In t h i s category, the numerous c o r r e l a t i o n s with O v e r a l l ; Adeguacy, i n S o c i a l Science Departments were not observed. In S e l f - B a t i n g , there was the same number of c o r r e l a t i o n s i n each group, but S o c i a l Science s t i l l had a number with O v e r a l l Adeguacy. In L i b r a r i e s there were more c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Rating by C o l l e g e Chief Executive O f f i c e r than i n S e l f - R a t i n g , which suggests that comparisons of the L i b r a r y " s s t r u c t u r e with that of the College i s more l i k e l y t o be a f a c t o r i n assessment of performance by the Chief Executive O f f i c e r than i t i s i n s e l f -e v a l u a t i o n . However, the Congruence v a r i a b l e F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n displayed the opposite r e s u l t . : In^Counseling; Departments there were more c o r r e l a t i o n s i n S e l f - R a t i n g than i n Rating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r , so t h a t opposite c o n c l u s i o n s t o those r e l a t i n g t o L i b r a r i e s were suggested. In S o c i a l Science Departments and N a t u r a l Science Departments there were many c o r r e l a t i o n s i n each category. T h i s suggests both that these two Departments are s i m i l a r i n 20 5 t h i s respect, that Teaching groups are again somewhat d i s s i m i l a r from Non-Teaching groups, and that the opposite tendencies between assessments by p r i n c i p a l s and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n which was found i n other instances does not appear to be the case here. The f i n a l chapter w i l l draw together the, main findings which have been discussed, w i l l draw general conclusions, and suggest some implications for future research,, both methodological and th e o r e t i c a l , as well as considerations for the p r a c t i t i o n e r . 206 CHAPTER 9 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS SUMMARY This was an ex p l o r a t o r y study, concerned with r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s and t h e i r s u b - units, and the way i n which those sub-units were perceived to be performing, by observers w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . The study was c a r r i e d out i n Colleges and some of t h e i r Departments i n B r i t i s h Columbia. I t attempted t o extend an e x i s t i n g conceptual framework i n two ways. One way c o n s t i t u t e d an extension to College Departments. , The other extension was created by the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of v a r i a b l e s of Perceived Adeguacy of Performance and Congruence on s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s i n t o the framework. The b a s i c conceptual framework was de r i v e d from o r g a n i z a t i o n theory, i n p a r t i c u l a r that l i n e of i n g u i r y f i r s t developed by the Aston researchers, and l a t e r used by numerous others, i n c l u d i n g Kelsey, whose m o d i f i c a t i o n permitted i t s use i n e ducational o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and added an expanded v e r s i o n of the v a r i a b l e which had been.termed "technology" by the Aston group. This c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n viewed Colleges and t h e i r 20 7 Departments as "people-processing" o r g a n i z a t i o n s , serving a community, and working with raw m a t e r i a l s (students) who become the output to markets of employers and other i n s t i t u t i o n s of education. , The view of Col l e g e s as o r g a n i z a t i o n s was: held t o imply that they possess s t r u c t u r a l elements i n a way which i s s i m i l a r to that of other o r g a n i z a t i o n s . , The model; which was constructed i n c l u d e d four kinds of v a r i a b l e element. These were termed c o n t e x t u a l , s t r u c t u r a l , performance and congruence v a r i a b l e s . Only one c o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e was used. This was termed Type, and was not part of the c o r r e l a t i o n < a n a l y s i s , but simply permitted i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of sub-samples. The s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s were measured i n both the Colleges and the Departments., Performance v a r i a b l e s were measured i n the Departments only, and the v a r i a b l e s of Congruence were constructed by comparing Departmental scores on s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s with the scores of the parent College on those s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s . The development of t h i s model of o r g a n i z a t i o n c o n s t r a i n t s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s formed the f i r s t part of the study. Succeeding stages were concerned with the adaptation of instruments to measure the v a r i a b l e s , and with methods of c o n s t r u c t i n g a measure f o r Congruence, with the use : of these instruments i n the Colleges and Departments of the sample, and with the a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t i n g data., The purpose of t h i s a n a l y s i s was to r e f i n e the instruments as a means t o assess t h e i r e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y , and then t o u t i l i s e scores on the 208 r e f i n e d instruments t o make comparisons between members of the sample. Following previous researchers, the short form version (Inkson e t a l . , 1970a) of the instruments developed by the Aston group, to measure dimensions of an or g a n i z a t i o n ' s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e , was adapted f o r use i n C o l l e g e s . An instrument developed by Kelsey {1973) to measure technology i n scho o l s , was adapted f o r use i n Col l e g e s . An instrument f i r s t developed by fiott (1972), was adapted to measure Perceived Adequacy o f Performance. Scores on». Congruence were constructed as the d i f f e r e n c e between the mean scores of a College and Department r e s p e c t i v e l y , on each of the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s . , The adapted instruments were t e s t e d i n a p i l o t study, which was c a r r i e d out i n a Coll e g e of the Province, which d i d not form part of the sample, but which was s i m i l a r to the C o l l e g e s of the sample. The instruments were then used i n ten Col l e g e s and a t o t a l of f o r t y Departments (four i n each C o l l e g e ) , i n B.C.„ The data from these C o l l e g e s and Departments were used i n the refinement o f the instruments by t e s t s o f i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y . , These included item a n a l y s i s , a form of s p l i t -h a l f a n a l y s i s , and f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i n the case of the Perceived Adequacy of Performance instrument., The Perceived Adeguacy of Performance v a r i a b l e s were not demonstrated t o d i s p l a y any underlying f a c t o r s which would be the same i n each of the sub-samples of the sample, and the i n d i v i d u a l item scores on t h i s instrument, together with mean scores on the whole instrument, 209 were used i n subsequent c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s . , The t e s t s which were c a r r i e d out on the instruments measuring s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s l e d t o the m o d i f i c a t i o n of the instruments, so t h a t each i n c l u d e d only items which approximated a s c a l e , and which could be considered to form homogeneous s e t s . The process reduced the number of items i n each instrument.., I n the case of the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow instrument, d i f f e r e n t s e t s of items were i s o l a t e d f o r the d i f f e r e n t sub-samples, y An a n a l y s i s of the data, using only the items r e t a i n e d i n the r e f i n e d instruments, showed t h a t the instruments d i s c r i m i n a t e d between the members of the sample, and a l s o , i n some res p e c t s , between the sub-samples of the whole sample. As a consequence, the focus of subsequent c o n s i d e r a t i o n was placed upon d i f f e r e n c e s between the types of sub-sample, r a t h e r than between the i n d i v i d u a l members of the sample themselves.. The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n i s concerned with the c o n c l u s i o n s which were drawn from the a n a l y s i s of the data. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The conclusions and i m p l i c a t i o n s which may be drawn from t h i s study are subject t o the l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by the kinds of analyses used i n the study. These l i m i t a t i o n s are addressed more f u l l y below (conclusion number 15) • The major c o n c l u s i o n s may be summarized i n three areas: t h e o r e t i c a l , methodological 210 and p r a c t i c a l . These are tre a t e d separately i n the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n . T h e o r e t i c a l Conclasions find I m p l i c a t i o n s 1. The Aston framework, and the p a r t i c u l a r o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of i t which was f i r s t used by Kelsey, with respect to the v a r i a b l e s of F u n c t i o n a l S p e c i a l i z a t i o n , F o r m a l i z a t i o n of Role D e f i n i t i o n * Concentration of Authority and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow.: can be used i n Co l l e g e s and t h e i r Departments. Although the Aston framework had p r e v i o u s l y been; used i n Coll e g e s by Newberry (1971), the m o d i f i c a t i o n s introduced by Kelsey had been used only i n schools. Departments;had not p r e v i o u s l y been measured on the v a r i a b l e s of t h i s framework, and i t was not c l e a r , when the study was undertaken, whether the Kelsey m o d i f i c a t i o n s could s u c c e s s f u l l y be used i n t h i s type o f educa t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n * or whether the Departments would be too sma l l t o d i s p l a y , or a t l e a s t t o permit measurement of the v a r i a b l e s . , I t proved p o s s i b l e t o measure the v a r i a b l e s i n each of the Co l l e g e s and Departments of the study, and they d i s c r i m i n a t e d between the members of the sample, as w e l l as between the types of Department s t u d i e d , and, i n some r e s p e c t s , between the Departments as a group and the C o l l e g e s . / 2 1 1 2 , The use of the Aston framework i n c o n j u n c t i o n with v a r i a b l e s of Perceived Adequacy of Performance i s of value i n s t u d i e s of College and Department o r g a n i z a t i o n . I t can r e v e a l what r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t between v a r i a b l e s of Perceived Adequacy of Performance and of s t r u c t u r e . , Examination of the ways i n which c o r r e l a t i o n s with d i f f e r e n t Perceived Adequacy v a r i a b l e s occur or do not occur together, can throw l i g h t on the r e l a t i v e independence or interdependence of these aspects of performance. 3. The p a r t i c u l a r concept of Congruence which,, was used i n the study i s of value f o r comparison of i n d i v i d u a l Departments with t h e i r C o l l e g e s , to d i s t i n g u i s h between types of Department, and t o throw l i g h t on i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s between s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s of Departments and t h e i r Perceived Adequacy of Performance., •i These two conclusions are r e l a t e d and are t r e a t e d together. The i n c o r p o r a t i o n of v a r i a b l e s of Perceived Adeguacy of Performance and Congruence i n the Aston framework and t h e i r measurement i n Colleges and Departments was an i n n o v a t i o n i n the present study. One reason f o r the design of the study i n t h i s way was the p o s s i b i l i t y , advanced i n chapter 1, that such measures, i f they could be given even p a r t i a l v a l i d a t i o n * would c o n s t i t u t e a step toward the development of measures of a c t u a l 2 1 2 performance., Subsequent c o n s t r u c t i o n of a model i n c o r p o r a t i n g measures of s t r u c t u r e , measures of Perceived adequacy o f Performance and conventional measures of performance might permit the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of patterns of these three kinds o f v a r i a b l e s f o r the assessment of a c t u a l adequacy of performance, which would be more r e l i a b l e than assessment based on any one of three independently. ,. The Aston framework inc o r p o r a t e s v a r i a b l e s which describe what i s supposed, and permitted t o happen, but not n e c e s s a r i l y what does happen., Of the po s s i b l e c o r r e l a t i o n s between v a r i a b l e s of Perceived Adequacy of Performance and those of Congruence or of s t r u c t u r e , approximately t w e n t y - f i v e percent reached a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e at 0.1 or beyond. These numerous, and i n many instances, strong c o r r e l a t i o n s between the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s {or the Congruence v a r i a b l e s d e r i v e d from them) , and the v a r i a b l e s of Perceived Adeguacy of Performance, which describe a c t u a l p e r c e p t i o n , r a t h e r than what i s permitted or expected to be the case, suggest at l e a s t three i m p l i c a t i o n s . F i r s t , they r e i n f o r c e the i n t r i n s i c u t i l i t y of ,the Aston framework, which i s now seen to be capable of i n c o r p o r a t i n g a new ki n d of v a r i a b l e . , Second, they suggest that the "supposed" or "permitted" aspects of s t r u c t u r e are e i t h e r more i n f l u e n t i a l on r e a l i t y , or more c l o s e t o i t than might c y n i c a l l y be supposed. T h i r d , they demonstrate that these s u p p o s i t i o n s and expectations probably a f f e c t a t t i t u d e s . , As noted above, the d i r e c t i o n of causation i n many in s t a n c e s where a c o r r e l a t i o n was 2 1 3 found, can not be from a perception to a s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , but must be to the perception, e i t h e r from a third f a c t o r , or from the s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i t s e l f . Shat i s being said i s t h i s : the f a c t that the Perceived Adeguacy of Performance variables were measures of perception rather than of actual adeguacy allows a statement of the d i r e c t i o n of causality to be made in some cases.. Associations between Congruence on the variable Formalization of Bole De f i n i t i o n and Perceived Adeguacy of Performance, according to Mean Bon-Self Bating provides a case i n point. In t h i s case, a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the variables can only be construed to mean that the Congruence on Formalization of Bole D e f i n i t i o n stood i n a causal r e l a t i o n to the perception. I f the Mean Non-Self Bating category i s considered, i t i s clear that a correlation between an outside observer's perception of a Department's Anticipation, for example, i s not a cause of the number and d i s t r i b u t i o n of r o l e - d e f i n i n g documents within the Department., Both may be the r e s u l t of another fac t o r , but i t seems much more probable that the degree of Formalization of Role D e f i n i t i o n stands in a causal r e l a t i o n to the perception, conceivably mediated through a r e a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the Department, i n terms of Anticipation. However, although t h i s causal d i r e c t i o n holds goody\f or^.many instances of correlations with variables of Congruence or of structure, i t cannot always be assumed. Variables of Discretion and In-Dnit Level of Decision-Making are l i k e l y 214 exceptions.. For example, a negative c o r r e l a t i o n between In-Unit Level of Decision-Making and Perceived Adeguacy of Performance i n Self-Rating might aris e when a Department head, holding a perception that the Department was performing adequately, might thereby be encouraged to permit lower In—Unit Level of Decision-Making. The separate variables of Perceived Adeguacy of Performance displayed considerable differences i n the may i n »kich/each; sas related to Congruence and st r u c t u r a l variables, and there were also i d e n t i f i a b l e clusters of Perceived Adequacy of Performance variables i n some cases. At the same time, there were r e l a t i v e l y fewer correlations with the ov e r a l l Perceived Adeguacy of Performance measure and with the mean Perceived Adeguacy of Performance scores. These r e s u l t s suggest that assessments of Department performance are made less on a general basis, than on an evaluation of s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Departments, and not always the same ones i n d i f f e r e n t types of Department. In t h i s connection, there were absences of co r r e l a t i o n s between variables of Perceived Adequacy of Performance and structure or Conqruence which, while they have not been made the subject of detailed analysis in t h i s study, nonetheless seem worth further research.. Follow-up studies which would investiqate correlations between the s t r u c t u r a l variables of t h i s study, and conventional measures of performance, and also between variables of Perceived Adequacy of Performance and 215 conventional measures of performance i n Departments seem warranted, f. There are differences i n the ways Colleges,and t h e i r Departments are structured 5. There are Dimensions of Workflow i n Departments which may vary between Departments and from t h e i r parent College, These two conclusions are r e l a t e d and are treated, together. , One of the questions of the study was whether Departments in a College could be expected to display s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which would be d i f f e r e n t i n any important sense from t h a t : of the parent College. This question was p a r t i c u l a r l y c r i t i c a l i n view of the fact that the conceptual framework c a l l e d for the use of variables of Congruence between College and Department which would have no u t i l i t y i f the Department structure were i d e n t i c a l or very s i m i l a r to that of the College. At the same time i t was not clear whether there could be more than one technology i n a s i n g l e educational i n s t i t u t i o n . These questions were discussed at some length i n connection ^ with the conceptual framework i n chapter 3. In that chapter the position was taken that while, for Perrow, "the kind of technology determines the type of organization which w i l l be set up to operate i t , and, i n turn, the raw materials determine the kind of technology w i l l be used" 216 (Perrow 1967:195) , the "perception" of the "raw m a t e r i a l " might a l s o determine the type of o r g a n i z a t i o n , and the technology. I t would t h e r e f o r e f o l l o w that i n a C o l l e g e , v a r i a t i o n s between d i f f e r e n t departmental perceptions of the nature of the students taught, might lead to d i f f e r e n t Rinds of technology. The data c o l l e c t e d i n d i c a t e that the measures of s t r u c t u r e were able t o d i s c r i m i n a t e between the Colleges and the Departments, and a l s o between the types of Department.,/ Some of the d i f f i c u l t y which was encountered i n r e f i n i n g the instruments so as t o i s o l a t e a s i n g l e set of items c o n s t i t u t i n g a s c a l e t o measure D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow, which would be a p p l i c a b l e i n C olleges and each type of Department a l i k e , may be held t o r e s u l t from the inherent d i f f e r e n c e s between C o l l e g e s and between the types of Department which do e x i s t s . The d i f f e r e n c e s were i n f a c t most pronounced i n the area of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow, where i t was necessary to use somewhat d i f f e r e n t instrumentation i n the d i f f e r e n t Departments and the Colleges. 6. Use of a model which i n c l u d e s i n t e r a c t i o n between v a r i a b l e s of Structure and v a r i a b l e s of Perceived adeguacy of Performance and Congruence i n the study of Departments should take i n t o account the p a r t i c u l a r type of Department under c o n s i d e r a t i o n , s i n c e there are d i f f e r e n c e s i n the way the v a r i a b l e s are i n t e r -r e l a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t types of Department.,, 217 I n i t i a l a n a l y s i s of r e s u l t s i n the study was c a r r i e d out f o r a l l Departments together, and i t was subsequently found t h a t , while t h i s procedure d i d r e v e a l some c o r r e l a t i o n s , i t d i d not d i s p l a y others which only appeared when smaller sub-samples were t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y . I n general i t was found that Teaching Departments were d i f f e r e n t from Non-Teaching Departments, and th a t each of the four types of Department d i s p l a y e d unigue c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c o r r e l a t i o n s between v a r i a b l e s . - In some respects the Teaching Group, and p a r t i c u l a r l y N a t u r a l Science Departments tended t o resemble the Colleges more c l o s e l y than d i d the Non-Teaching Group. An example of d i f f e r e n c e between the Teaching and the Non-Teaching groups occurred i n respect of Congruence on In-U n i t Level of Decision-Making. This v a r i a b l e was c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y with nearly a l l Perceived Adeguacy of Performance v a r i a b l e s as r a t e d by College Chief . E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r s , i n the Non-Teaching Group taken together, but t h i s was not the case i n the Teaching Group taken together. I n the present study, a n a l y s i s was not taken beyond t h i s p o i n t , but these p r e l i m i n a r y f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t i n Non-Teaching Departments, College p r i n c i p a l s are i n c l i n e d to form, an opinion of adequacy r e l a t e d to whether the l e v e l of decisionmaking_ i n a Department i s higher or lower than i n the c o l l e g e i t s e l f ! 7. The Perceived Adeguacy of Performance of Departments v a r i e s depending on the respondent. Scores on these v a r i a b l e s were c a l c u l a t e d as s e l f - r a t i n g s . 218 as t o t a l non-self ratings, and as College Chief Executive Officer ratings. , Each of these different scores was then used in the c o r r e l a t i o n analysis, and d i f f e r e n t patterns of correlation were found. They included differences of d i r e c t i o n of c o r r e l a t i o n and of associated variables. I t was not always clea r why such variations occurred. an example i s found i n an analysis c a r r i e d out i n the sub-sample consisting of a l l -Departments together. There were many more c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Total Mean Bating than i n Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r . This may indicate either that s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s play a smaller part i n evaluations made by pr i n c i p a l s , or perhaps that the p r i n c i p a l s are s u f f i c i e n t l y remote from Department operations, that they do not have accurate perceptions of adeguacy. In a l l Departments, the s e l f - r a t i n g s of Perceived adeguacy of Performance were mainly correlated p o s i t i v e l y with Congruence. ; Because the p a r t i c u l a r measure used was an in d i c a t i o n of lack of Congruence, t h i s indicates that differences between the Department and the College were more l i k e l y to be associated with higher s e l f -perceived adeguacy., The fewest c o r r e l a t i o n s with Congruence, generally, were those i n Perceived adeguacy of Performance (Bating by College Chief Executive O f f i c e r ) . , 8. , Perceptions of adeguacy of performance are related both, to structure and to Congruence of structure, and sometimes i n d i f f e r e n t ways. 219 In the perceptions of College p r i n c i p a l s . Congruence seemed sometimes to play a greater role than structure. One example was In-Onit Level of Decision-Haking i n L i b r a r i e s , where eight variables of Congruence were correlated with Perceived Adeguacy variables. In contrast, the s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s revealed only one such correlations This topic was only b r i e f l y examined i n the study, but seems to warrant further investigation*., 9. Formalization of Bole D e f i n i t i o n i s an area of structure i n which College influence i s more strongly operative. The f i n a l set of items which was used in the refined instrument included College scores on some items. although i n general. Departments seemed to be r e l a t i v e l y independent of Colleges i n t h e i r s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i n t h i s area, the reverse appeared to be true. The study supported Kelsey's conclusion that the system r o l e was strong with regard to Formalization of Role D e f i n i t i o n , at l e a s t i n educational organizations. Formalization of Role D e f i n i t i o n measured the number and d i s t r i b u t i o n of documents, i n contrast to the other variables, which measured more abstract things, such as who could make a p a r t i c u l a r decision, or how many delegates there were f o r a s p e c i f i c task. Considering t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n raises the p o s s i b i l i t y that the emphasis of College influence i s on the paperwork and less on the job i t s e l f , a p o s s i b i l i t y which ought to be of concern to educational administrators. 220 10. , The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e i s r e l a t e d t o the Workflow S t r u c t u r e i n C o l l e g e s and Departments Kelsey found l i t t l e or no r e l a t i o n s h i p between these two types of s t r u c t u r e (Kelsey, 1973: 26, 58) . I t was suggested above that one reason f o r that f i n d i n g may have been that the r o l e of the system was strong enough t o mask such r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n i n d i v i d u a l s c h o o l s . I t was predicted that i n Col l e g e s the Workflow S t r u c t u r e would be found t o be r e l a t e d to the Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e Structure at the College l e v e l but l e s s s t r o n g l y or not at a l l at the Department l e v e l . , To some degree the f i n d i n g s of the present study, which was designed i n part t o t e s t t h i s suggestion, support the c o n t e n t i o n . , In f a c t there were found t o be r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e and the Workflow S t r u c t u r e at both l e v e l s . / However there were fewer i n the S o c i a l Science Departments, than i n the Col l e g e s . N a t u r a l Science Departments had about the same as the Colleges. The Natural Science Departments had been found to resemble the C o l l e g e s more c l o s e l y than d i d other Departments i n other ways a l s o , and the greater s i m i l a r i t y here was co n s i s t e n t with that general p a t t e r n . Further research which prepared instruments more s p e c i f i c a l l y matched t o the s p e c i f i c technologies of given types of Department than was the case i n the present study, may help to demonstrate t h i s more c l e a r l y and to i d e n t i f y the points o f r e l a t i o n s h i p i n greater d e t a i l . 221 Methodoloqica1 Conclusions And Implications 11. Studies of organization structure i n Colleges should take in t o account that there may be differences between the way i n which the o v e r a l l College and the i n d i v i d u a l Departments are structured., The findings of the present study repeatedly demonstrated differences both between Teaching and Non-Teaching groups, and between the four types of Department studied. The lack of an assumption to t h i s e f f e c t , and i t s incorporation into the conceptual framework was responsible for the attempt which was made in the study to prepare i d e n t i c a l instruments f o r use i n each Department., In retrospect i t can be seen, that t h i s probably led to the elimination of items i n the refined instruments which would have measured aspects of the variables found only i n one or some of the types of Departments, , This may have rendered the instruments le s s e f f e c t i v e than they otherwise would have been. The following conclusion,derives from t h i s statement. 12. Because the organization structure i n Colleges varies between the College and d i f f e r e n t types of Department, studies which attempt to measure these structures should use instruments which are designed f o r p a r t i c u l a r organizational units of the College, 222 rather than a single instrument designed for use i n a l l areas of the College. In the present study, a single instrument was used to measure each variable, and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the items to be used in the refined instrument was carried out by. repeating tests of i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y in each of the sub-samples.. These t e s t s resulted i n the elimination of many of the items of the unrefined instrument, and the i s o l a t i o n of f a i r l y short l i s t s of items i n the refined instrument.,. Since the c o r r e l a t i o n analyses repeatedly demonstrated differences between Departments, i t seems probable that the procedure effected the elimination of some items which measured aspects of the various str u c t u r a l concepts studied, which were unigue to, or more strongly present i n some Departments. If th i s was the case, then the refined instruments, even though validated, can have been at best p a r t i a l l y accurate i n r e f l e c t i n g the r e a l s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the members of the sub-samples. In subsequent studies using the unrefined instrument, i t would be better to s e l e c t items for the refined instrument, separately for each Department type, and to accept a set of items for a s p e c i f i c type of Department on the basis of tests of v a l i d i t y carried out i n that departmental grouping alone. 13. Data col l e c t e d f o r measurement of Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n * in the p a r t i c u l a r operatipnalization devised by Kelsey, may be used i n several ways so as 223 to measure different aspects of Functional S p e c i a l i z a t i o n in co r r e l a t i o n with other variables. Two alte r n a t i v e Functional Specia l i z a t i o n scores were used i n the study, calculated as B 2/AI and B.A.I. These two forms of the variable correlated somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y with other variables and i n i t i a l analysis suggests that these differences can be explained l o g i c a l l y , as a r e s u l t of the di f f e r e n t emphasis they place on the nature and extent of delegation i n the organization. Sometimes the two were correlated with the same variable but with reversed sign., One of the implications i s that each i s meaningful i n a d i f f e r e n t way. Kelsey preferred B 2/AI to B.A.I i n the r e f i n e d model of h i s study, but present r e s u l t s suggest that future studies should consider using both, andperhaps reconceptualizing s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . In the Kelsey study i t was also concluded that Functional Spe c i a l i z a t i o n appeared to be of less importance in schools than i n other types of organization. The number of co r r e l a t i o n s , t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n and strength i n a l l sub-samples, i n the present study did not support t h i s conclusion. 14. The process of v a l i d a t i o n of the instruments of the present study, by the tests which were used, i s more expeditiously performed by the use of Hoyt/Anova followed by item-analysis, than the reverse. . The present study used item analysis to i d e n t i f y a set of 224 items which met the specified c r i t e r i a f o r acceptance, and then v e r i f i e d the s c a l a b i l i t y of the set, by using Hoyt/Anova. The se l e c t i o n of the i n t i a l sets was an a r b i t r a r y process, and the number of i t e r a t i o n s of the item analysis which was required to f i n d a set which met the c r i t e r i a ran into the hundreds, and took several weeks. , In some cases, the set was not confirmed, and! the process had to be repeated. Using Hoyt/Anova f i r s t , however, permits the a c q u i s i t i o n of related information about the i n i t i a l l y a r b i t r a r y sets which allows f o r a, quicker i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of sets which are more l i k e l y to be confirmed. 15. Further research might build on the r e s u l t s of the present exploratory study by attempting more detailed s t a t i s t i c a l analyses to determine more exactly the extent to which the relationships found i n t h i s study may have been affected by factors other than the variables studied.. Because the present study took as i t s focus a broad consideration of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of relationships among variables, i t paid less attention to detailed analysis of scores and re l a t i o n s h i p s between i n d i v i d u a l pairs of variables than might have been done., It should be recognized that, suggestive as the present re s u l t s are, they may include v a r i a t i o n which res u l t s from measurement error, p e c u l i a r i t i e s of the sample, and le s s than f o l l y confirmed v a l i d i t y . , Hhile reasonable precautions against such errors have been described i n t h i s 22 5 study, further research, seeking to bu i l d on the r e s u l t s of the present exploration might well give a more rigorous examination of any of these potential sources of error. Implications For The P r a c t i t i o n e r 16. Types of structure which are suit a b l e for one Department may not be s u i t a b l e for another. The r e s u l t s of the study suggest that d i f f e r e n t ; observers, consciously or unconsciously, associate d i f f e r e n t s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with Perceived Adequacy of Performance in a given Department, and that an observer may associate d i f f e r e n t s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with Perceived Adeguacy of Performance i n d i f f e r e n t Departments. If t h i s i s true, a probable c o r o l l a r y i s that d i f f e r e n t types of str u c t u r a l organization i n d i f f e r e n t types of Department w i l l be associated with, or at least be perceived as associated with, better performance. , From t h i s i t follows that those who may be responsible for the p a r t i c u l a r patterns of organization within a given. College would be well advised not to attempt to formulate a s t r u c t u r a l pattern which w i l l be applied i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y . Teaching and Non-Teaching Departments displayed d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of structure and Congruence as did the ind i v i d u a l Departments at a more detailed leve 1. Educators i n B r i t i s h Columbia l i v e i n a time, and a 226 Province in which a tendency toward increasing egalitarianism i s apparent i n educational i n s t i t u t i o n s , ,.• I t s e f f e c t i s to obscure the differences between d i f f e r e n t segments, for purposes of College governance, of curriculum development, of salary and conditions bargaining, and other matters. I t seems probable to t h i s observer, that such homogeneity i s l i k e l y to extend to i n t e r n a l organization as well. I f the conclusion stated here i s v a l i d , however, one must conclude that the eventual res u l t of such indiscriminate elimination of appropriate differences w i l l be a decreased effectiveness of performance, 17, Assessment of performance i n Colleges should take into account the type of Department under review. Observation and comments received during the course of data c o l l e c t i o n led to an inference that there i s no extensive formal process of assessment of performance i n the Colleges studied, but that there i s an increasing interest i n some guar ter s, i n the development of some such process, , The findings of the study suggest that i f such procedures are developed, they would be more l i k e l y to r e s u l t in v a l i d assessments, i f they were structured i n such a way as to take into account the differences between Departments i n the Colleges, A method of assessing the performance of a College Library may be unsuited to assessment of a Department of Natural Science.. However, there is reason to i n f e r , a l s o , that a method suitable f o r a Natural Science Department i s not 227 n e c e s s a r i l y well-adapted t o a S o c i a l Science Department, and t h i s may be l e s s i n t u i t i v e l y obvious. 18. , College Chief Executive O f f i c e r s should be aware th a t there are i n f l u e n c e s tending t o make them assess d i f f e r e n t Departments i n d i f f e r e n t ways. Whether or not there are formal processes of e v a l u a t i o n , i t i s true t h a t i n f o r m a l processes go on. Indeed, the f a c t t h a t i t was p o s s i b l e t o measure Perceived Adeguacy of Performance i n the present study g i v e s evidence of t h i s . The impact of such i n f o r m a l e v a l u a t i o n i s very strong when i t i s done by those i n p o s i t i o n s of power, i n the Colleges the Chief Executive O f f i c e r s . These a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e s need t o be aWare t h a t t h e i r i n f o r m a l assessments of performance are sometimes formed of d i f f e r e n t Departments i n •* d i f f e r e n t ways, and perhaps on in a p p r o p r i a t e bases. 1 9 . In e v a l u a t i o n of t h e i r own Departments, Department heads should be aware not only t h a t ; others may be e v a l u a t i n g them d i f f e r e n t l y , but a l s o of the p o s s i b l e bases of those other e v a l u a t i o n s . , The f i n d i n g s of the present study perhaps go some way t o g i v i n g members of the types of Departments which were s t u d i e d , and p a r t i c u l a r l y the Department heads, a knowledge of the d i f f e r e n t i a l : nature of performance assessment, and some i n s i g h t 228 i n t o the factors a f f e c t i n g judgements of the performance of t h e i r Departments,, Shile t h i s may not always be s u f f i c i e n t to enables r e a l enhancement of performance, at least there i s the consideration that to be forewarned i s to be forearmed. 229 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bakke, E. N. 1950 Bonds of o r g a n i z a t i o n . New York: H i l e y . 1959 "Concept of the s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . ^ In M.Haire (ed, ) Modern o r g a n i z a t i o n theory: 16-75. New York:; H i l e y . C h i l d , John 1972 "Organization s t r u c t u r e s and s t r a t e g i e s of c o n t r o l : a r e p l i c a t i o n of the Aston study. 1? A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y . / 17: 163- 177. . 1973 " P r e d i c t i n g and understanding o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s ^ A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 18:168-185. Coleman, Peter 197 2 " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n education: i t s measurement and enhancement." Interchange, 3: 42-52. E t z i o n i , Amitai 1964 Modern o r g a n i z a t i o n s . , Englewood C l i f f s , ; New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l * Gerth, H. . H. 1952 "The Nazi party: i t s l e a d e r s h i p and composition." In R. K. Merton, B. Hockey and H. C. S e l v i n (eds.) , Reader i n bureaucracy: 410-418. New York: Free P r e s s . , Gouldner, A l v i n 8. 1954 Patterns of i n d u s t r i a l bureaucracy. Glencoe: Free Press. , H a l l , Richard H. , 1961 An e m p i r i c a l study of b u r e a u c r a t i c dimensions and t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o other o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . , Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y . 1972 Organizations: s t r u c t u r e and process. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Ha r man, 1976 Harry H. Modern f a c t o r a n a l y s i s 3d ed. Press. Chicago U n i v e r s i t y 230 Hassen, Matthew Robert 1976 I n t r a o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between work technology, s t r u c t u r e and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f ectxvehe's^ i n a community c o l l e g e . , Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . . U n i v e r s i t y of a l b e r t a . Heron, Robert Peter 1972 Growth stages i n the development of c o l l e g e s t r u c t u r e s . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of a l b e r t a Hickson, David J . , D. S. Pugh and Diana C. Pheysey 1969 "Operations technology and o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e : an e m p i r i c a l r e a p p r a i s a l . " a d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Quarterly, 14:378-397. Hickson* David J . , C. R. H i n i n g s , C.,,J..,HcMillan and •J^ j/£*;-:|Sch w i t t e r 1971 The c u l t u r e f r e e context of organisation, ^ s j^ibt^e:,;a i t r i - n a t i o n a l comparison. . (mimeo) U n i v e r s i t y of a l b e r t a : O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour Research U n i t . . H i l l s , R. J . 1977 Personal communication. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Hinings, C. R., and G l o r i a L. Lee 1971 "Dimensions of o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e and t h e i r context: a r e p l i c a t i o n . , ^ S ociology, 5:83-93.,, Hoyt, C.L. 1941 "Test r e l i a b i l i t y estimated by a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . " Psychometrika, 6:153-160. Inkson, J. H. K. , D. S. Pugh and D. J . Hickson 1970a "Organization context and s t r u c t u r e : an abbreviated r e p l i c a t i o n . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 15: 318-329. ,. 1970b "A comparison of o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e and managerial r o l e s : Ohio, USA and the Midlands, England." Journal of Management Studies, 7:347-363. Kelsey, John Graham T. 1973 C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and instrumentation f o r the comparative study of secondary school s t r u c t u r e and operation. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n * U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . K o l e s a r , Henry 1967 An e m p i r i c a l study of c l i e n t a l i e n a t i o n i n the b u r e a u c r a t i c organization.*! Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . ,, 231 Levy, P h i l i p and David Pugh 1969 S c a l i n g and m u l t i v a r i a t e analyses i n the study o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . Sociology, 3: 193-213. L i k e r t Bensis 1967 The human o r g a n i z a t i o n . Toronto: McGraw-Hill. Mackay, D. A. 1969 An e m p i r i c a l study o f b u r e a u c r a t i c dimensions and t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of school o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . Mahoney, T. A. . 1967 "Managerial perceptions of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . •» Management Science, 14:76-91. Mahoney, T. A. And H. H e i t z e l 1969 "Managerial models of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Qu a r t e r l y , 14:357-365. M a r s h a l l , Michael Anthony 1978 Dimensions and determinants of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e . / Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Mott, P a u l E» 1972 The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f e f f e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . New York: Harper and Bow. Newberry, John F. „ 1971 A comparative a n a l y s i s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s of s e l e c t e d post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s . . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . , Perrow, Charles 1967 "A framework f o r the comparative a n a l y s i s of organizations. 1; American S o c i o l o g i c a l fieview, 32:194-208. 1970 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s : a s o c i o l o g i c a l view../ Belmo C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth. 232 Pheysey, 0. C., R. . L. Payne and D. S. Pugh 1971 "Influence of s t r u c t u r e a t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and group l e v e l s . ? A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 16:61-73. Presthus, R. V., 1961. "Seberian welfare bureaucracy i n t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i e t y . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 6:1-24. Pugh, D. S. 1966. / "Modern o r g a n i z a t i o n theory: a p s y c h o l o g i c a l and s o c i o l o g i c a l study.«• P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n * 66:235-251. , Pugh, D. S. , D. , J. , Hiekson, C. R. Hin i n g s , K . H. HacDonaId, C. Turner and T. Lupton 1963. "A conceptual scheme f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Qu a r t e r l y , 8:289-315. Pugh, 0. S., D. J . /Hickson, C. R. Hinings and C. Turner 1968 "Dimensions of o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e . 1 ! A d m i n i s t r a t i Science Q u a r t e r l y , 13:65-105. 1969 "the Context of o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e s . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Qu a r t e r l y , 14:91-114. / 1969b "An e m p i r i c a l taxonomy of s t r u c t u r e s of work o r g a n i z a t i o n s . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 14: 115-126. Rosenthal, Robert and Lenore Jacobson 1968 Pygmalion i n the classroom* teacher e x p e c t a t i o n and p u p i l s * i n t e l l e c t u a l development. Hew York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t . Sachs G. .A. , 1964 Heasurement and e v a l u a t i o n i n education, psychology, and guidance New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston., Sackney, Lawrence E. 1976 A comparative a n a l y s i s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s of behavior i n s e l e c t e d secondary schools. Onpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n * O n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . Seashore, S. ; E . And E . Yuchtman 1967 " F a c t o r i a l a n a l y s i s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l performance.',' A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 12:377-395., 233 Thompson, James D. , and F. L. Bates 1957, "technology, organization and administration." Administrative Science Quarterly, 2:325-342. T r i s t , E. .L. , et a l . 1963., Organizational choice. London: Tavistock. Weber, H. , 1947 the theory of s o c i a l and economic organization, (trans, A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons). . He* York: Free Press. Woodward, Joan 1958 Management and technology. Problems of progress i n industry s e r i e s , no. 3. London, HHSO 1965., I n d u s t r i a l organization: theory and practice. London: Oxford University Press. . APPENDIX A THE INSTRUMENTS 235 DEPABTHENT SCHEDULE NAME OP DEPABTMENT NAME OF COLLEGE BESPONDENT POSITION ADDITIONAL SODBCES FOB INFOBMATION ON: AV EQUIPMENT DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT BOOMS AND SPACE ALLOCATION SIZES OF TEACHING GROUPS TIME-TABLE PEBSONNEL NUMBEBS OTHER NO, OF OPEBATING SITES PEBSONNEL INFOBMATION NO, OF STUDENTS (FTE* S) TAKING COURSES IN THE DEPABTHENT (EXCLUDING C.E. ) TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS TAKING CODBSES IN THE DEPABTHENT (EXCLUDING C.E.) NO, . OF FACULTY FULL-TIME PABT-TIME NO. OF STAFF FULL-TIME PA BT—TIME NO., .OF ADMIN 1STRATORS FULL-TIME PART-TIME NO. ;OF CAB ETA KING STAFF FULL-TIME PART-TIME TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS) NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY: POSITIONS IN COLLEGES ABE VARIOUSLY DESCRIBED. THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE CONCEBNED WITH THE PRINCIPAL; THAT LEVEL IMMEDIATELY BELOW '. fOFTEN TEEMED DEAN, VICE OB ASSISTANT PBINCIPAL, BURSAR) ; HEADS OF DEPABTMENTS CONSISTING OF MORE THAN A SINGLE DISCIPLINE, (OFTEN CALLED DIBECTOB OB CHAIBH AN); ANY LEVEL INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN THESE HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND TEACHING STAFF; AND FINALLY, TEACHING AND OTHER STAFF THEMSELVES. TERMS USED IN THE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE INTEBPBETED AS APPBOPRIATE FOB A GIVEN COLLEGE. . 2 36 CONCENTRATION OF AUTHORITY THE FOLLOWING SERIES OF QUESTIONS IS CONCERNED WITH THE LEVELS AT WHICH FORMAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY BESTS. „ THE QUESTION "WHO DECIDES SUCH AND S U C H . . . ? " OFTEN IS NOT EASY TO ANSWER IN CLEAR-CUT TERMS.. TO TRY TO GET AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE SITUATION IN THE DEPARTMENT, I AM PROPOSING THAT FOR ANY GIVEN DECISION, A PERSON MAY HAVE ONE OF THREE DIFFERENT KINDS OF AUTHORITY: 1. HE MAY RECOMMEND AND HOPE FOR A FAVOURABLE DECISION. 2., HE HAY RECOMMEND AND BE CERTAIN, (WITH RARE EXCEPTIONS), OF A FAVOURABLE DECISION (D (RC) ) . 3. HE MAY DECIDE. THAT I S , AS A RESULT OF HIS DECISION, ACTION MAY START IMMEDIATELY. OTHERS MAY HAVE TO BE INFORMED OF THE DECISION, BUT THE DECISION WILL NOT BE AFFECTED. (D)... , A LIST OF DECISIONS IS PRESENTED BELOW. , FOR EACH, WHO MAKES THAT DECISION? IS THE MAKING OF THE DECISION IN THE CATEGORY D (EC) OR (D) ABOVE? IN THE CASE OF D(RC) ANSWERS, WHO HAS AUTHORITY FOB D? PLEASE ANSWER IN TEBMS OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES; OB THE CLOSEST EQUIVALENT POSITION IN YOUB DEPABTHENT: 0 INST BOCTOB/S T A F F MEMBEB 1 INTEBMEDIATE POSITION (E.G. HEAD OF DISCIPLINE) 2 DIRECTOB/CHAIHM AN 3 INTEBMEDIATE POSITION (E.G. DEAN/VICE-PfilNCIPAL/BUBS AB) I* EBINCIPAL 5 COLLEGE COUNCIL 6 PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 7 GOVERNMENT DEPABTHENT 237 WHO DECIDES: 1. THE HOHBE'B OF ASSISTANT/DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEADS, OB EQUIVALENT, IN THE DEPABTHENT 2. , THE NUMBEB OF INTERMEDIARY POSITIONS BETWEEN ASSISTANT DEPABTHENT HEADS AND INSTRUCTORS, 2 IN THE DEPABTHENT 3. THE NUMBEB OF INSTBUCTOBS IN THE DEPABTMENT U. , THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ASSISTANT DEPABTMENT/ DIVISION HEAD, OB EQUIVALENT 5., THE APPOINTMENT OF ANY POSITION INTEBMEDIABY BETWEEN AN ASSISTANT HEAD AND THE INSTBUCTOBS 6., THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INSTBUCTOB 7. v THE CONFIRMATION OF NON—TEACHING STAFF IN THEIfi POSITION (I.E. AFTEB PROBATIONABY PEBIOD). f 8. THE PBOHOTION OF NON-TEACHING STAFF 9. THE AMOUNT OF EMOLUMENT OF ASSISTANT DEPABTMENT/DIVISION HEADS 10. TO APPOINT AN INSTBUCTOB TO OB BEMOVE FBOM AN EMOLUMENT-BEASING POSITION 11. HOW TO SPEND SURPLUS CAPITAL FUNDS TOWABD THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAB 12.. HOW TO SPEND SDBPLUS OPEBATING FUNDS TOWABD THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAB 13. THE TYPE OB BRAND OF NEW EQUIPMENT 14. THE INTBODUCTION OF A NEW COURSE, OR SEBVICE 15. THE INTRODUCTION OF A NEW PROGRAM (BY REALLOCATION OF EXISTING FUNDING NOT BY MEANS OF NEW FUNDING REQUIRING MINISTBY APPROVAL) 16. , THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ATTENDANCE OR SERVICE AREA 17 WHICH EMPLOYMENT OR FURTHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES SHALL BE PRESENTED TO STUDENTS 18. WHAT ITEMS OB PROCESSES SHALL BE COSTED 19. WHAT ASPECTS OF THE DEPARTMENT'S OPERATION SHALL BE EVALUATED 20., TO DISMISS AN ASSISTANT DEPABTHENT/ DIVISION HEAD 21. TO DEMOTE AN ASSISTANT DEPABTHENT/ DIVISION HEAD 22. TO DISMISS AN INSTRUCTOR 23. THE METHODS OF TRAINING OR HELP FOR NEW EMPLOYEES 24. ENTRANCE OS SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR NEW STUDENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF s THE ACADEMIC YEAR 238 25. WHAT AND HOB MANY STAFF WELFARE FACILITIES ABE PBOVIDED 26. THE COST TO STUDENTS OF BOOKS AND SUNDBIES, OB SERVICE-RELATED FEES 27. TO ALTEB THE BESPONSIBILITIES OB ABEA OF WOBK OF TEACHING STAFF 28. AND OF NON-TEACHING STAFF (EXCLUDING CABETAKEBS) 29. AND OF CABETAKEBS 30. TO CBEATE A NEW DISCIPLINE OB EQUIVALENT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT 31. TO CBEATE A NEW NON-TEACHING STAFF POSITION 32. , TO CBEATE A N EW TEACHING POSITION 239 FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION THE BE ABE LISTED BELOW A NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY OB MAY NOT BE PERFORMED IN THE DEPARTMENT. , FOB EACH ONE, PLEASE INDICATE FOUR THINGS: A) WHETHER IT IS PERFORMED IN THE DEPARTMENT B) WHETHER IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED TO A PERSON, OR PERSONS, OB GROUP. , C) WHO THAT PEBSON OB GROUP IS. (THIS ANSHEB MAY BE THE NAME OF A PERSON (E. G. . MB. X) OB AN OFFICE {E.G. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT), OR A COMMITTEE (E. G. , COMMITTEE Y)) D) HHETHER THE PEBSON OB GROUP DELEGATED PEBFOBHS THAT ACTIVITY FULL-TIME. , (I.E. .PERFORMS NO OTHER ACTIVITY IN THE DEPARTMENT) ACTIVITY I. , ABBANGING APPEALS, FUND-RAISING FUNCTIONS, PUBLICITY, ETC. , 2..... ABRANGING CEREMONIES FOB PARENTS OR STUDENTS 3.,, ADMINISTERING OR ACTING AS DEPARTMENT LIAISON OFFICER FOB AN ALUMNI OR FORMER PUPILS1 ASSOCIATION 4. PRODUCING A DEPARTMENTAL MAGAZINE 5., PRODUCING A DEPARTMENTAL YEARBOOK 6., PRODUCING A DEPARTMENTAL NEWSPAPER 7. CO-ORDINATING THE PRESENTATION OF CAREER ADVICE TO STUDENTS 8 . , LIAISON WITH EMPLOYERS OR INSTITUTIONS OF FURTHER EDUCATION 9. , LIAISON WITH CANADA MANPOWER 10. , RECEIVING 08 DEALING WITH PARENT OB COMMUNITY COMPLAINTS II. CO-ORDINATING DEPARTMENTAL BUS REQUIREMENTS 12. CO-ORDINATING TRANSPORTATION FOR FIELD TRIPS OB OUTSIDE VISITS 13., OPERATING A DEPARTMENTAL DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR INTERNAL MAIL, EQUIPMENT OR SUPPLIES 14. HIRING TEACHING STAFF 15. HIRING NON-TEACHING STAFF 16. ALLOCATING STAFF TO BROAD AREAS OF HORK 17. „ CO-ORDINATION OF IN-SERVICE TRAINING OB STAFF DISCUSSION GROUPS PER-FOR-MED? DELE-' FULL-GATED TIME Y/N TO 8H0M Y/N 240 ' 18. CO-OBDINATION OF STAFF WELFARE, SOCIAL OR SPORTS ACTIVITIES 19. OPERATING CANTEEN, CAFETERIA OR STAFF LOONGE FACILITIES 20. , OPERATING A SUGGESTION SCHEME 21. OPERATING THE SALE OF BOOKS OR STATIONERY 22., OPERATING HEDICAL FACILITIES 23. BUYING MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT 24. / STOCK CONTROL 25. SELECTION OR PRE-TESTING OF STUDENTS 26. OPERATING CARETAKING SERVICES 27. ENSURING MAINTENANCE OF AV EQUIPMENT 28. ENSURING MAINTENANCE OF LABORATORY EQUIPMENT 29. ENSURING MAINTENANCE OF GENERAL DEPARTMENTAL EQUIPMENT 30. PERFORMING BUSINESS OR ACCOUNTING TASKS 31. TIMETABLING AND CURRICULUM OR OPERATIONS CO-ORDINATION AND SCHEDULING 32. DRAWING UP AND/OB CO-ORDINATING OVEBALL DISCIPLINE PROCEDURES FOR EMPLOYEES 33. CO-ORDINATING STUDENT ADVANCEMENT FROM ONE LEVEL TO ANOTHER 34. , PBEPABING EXAMINATION SCHEDULES 35. MAKING ABBANGEMENTS FOB SEATING AND SPACE ALLOCATIONS FOR EXAMINATIONS 36., DEVISING OB ASSESSING NEW WAYS OF TIME-TABLING EXISTING COUBSES OB PROGRAMMES , OR SCHEDULING EXISTING OPERATIONS 37. DESIGNING WAYS OF INCORPORATING NEW COURSES, PROGBAMMES OB SERVICE AREAS, OB CO—OBDINATING SUGGESTIONS IN THIS AREA 38. OPERATING RECORD KEEPING OR FILING SYSTEMS FOR STUDENT—RELATED BECORDS 39. , OPERATING RECORD KEEPING OB FILING SYSTEMS FOB OFFICE OB ADMINISTBATIVE PURPOSES 40. HANDLING LEGAL OB INSURANCE AFFAIRS 41., RESEARCHING OR ASSESSING THE NEEDS OF EMPLOYEES, THE COMMUNITY, INSTITUTIONS OF FURTHER EDUCATION, OB CLIENT GBOUPS AND THEIR LIKELY EFFECT ON DEPARTMENTAL POLICY OB OPERATION 241 FORMALIZATION OF SOLE DEFINITION THIS SECTION IS CONCERNED WITH DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE USED IN THE DEPARTMENT/DIVISION. IF POSSIBLE, I BOULD LIKE TO BORROW COPIES OF ANY WHICH MAY BE AVIALABLE. •1../ DOES THE DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HAVE ANY GENERAL INFORMATION BOOKLETS ABOUT SOME OB ALL DEPARTMENT OFFERINGS OB SERVICES. YES NO WHAT ARE THEY? DO THEY APPLY TO THIS DEPARTMENT/DEVISION ONLY? OR TO SOME OR ALL OTHERS IN THE COLLEGE ALSO? TO WHOM ARE THEY DISTRIBUTED? THIS DEPT..ONLY? WHICH OTHER DISTRIBUTED Y/N DEPTS. .ALSO? TO: NAME OF DOCUMENT 2. / DOES THE DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HAVE AN ORGANIZATION CHART? YES —NO IF SO, IS IT DISTRIBUTED TO: A LEVEL ABOVE THE DEPARTMENT ONLY (E.G. PRINCIPAL, OR DEANS) DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD ONLY HEAD PLUS ANY INTERMEDIARY POSITIONS BETWEEN HEAD AND STAFF THE ABOVE PLUS STAFF ALL STAFF PLUS STUDENTS 2 4 2 3, A R E W R I T T E N T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E , J O B D E S C R I P T I O N S O R O P E R A T I N G I N S T R U C T I O N S P R O V I D E D F O R A N Y O F T H E S T A F F C A T E G O R I E S B E L O W ? I F SO A R E T H E Y A P P L I C A B L E T O T H I S D E P A B T H E N T / D I V I S I O N O N L Y , OR T O S O M E O R A L L O T H E R S I N T H E C O L L E G E ? T H I S D E P T O T H E R D E P T S O N L Y - A L S O , D E P A R T M E N T / D I V I S I O N H E A D P O S I T I O N S I N T E R M E D I A R Y B E T W E E N H E A D A N D S T A F F T E A C H I N G / F A C U L T Y S U P E R V I S I N G S T A F F P O S I T I O N S ( N O N - T E A C H I N G ) T E A C H I N G S T A F F N O N - T E A C H I N G S T A F F 4, / I S T H E R E A C O M P O S I T E M A N U A L O F P R O C E D U R E S ? F O R T H I S D E P A R T M E N T O N L Y F O B S O M E O R A L L O T H E R S A L S O 5. A B E T H E P O L I C I E S O F T H I S D E P A B T H E N T A V A I L A B L E I N W ' B I T T E N F O R M ? F O B T H I S D E P A B T M E N T O N L Y F O B S O M E O B A L L O T H E B S A L S O 6. O T H E B T H A N T H E C O L L E G E T I M E T A B L E , I S T H E B E A L S O A W B I T T E N S C H E D U L E O F V A B I O U S D E P A B T M E N T A L . A C T I V I T I E S O V E B T H E Y E A R ? F O B T H I S D E P A B T M E N T O N L Y F O B S O M E O B A L L O T H E B S A L S O 7. D O E S T H E D E P A B T M E N T / D I V I S I O N H A V E A N Y O F T H E F O L L O W I N G ? W B I T T E N D E P A B T M E N T A L R U L E S F O B E M P L O Y E E S Y E S NO W B I T T E N D E P A B T M E N T A L R U L E S F O B S T S D E N S Y E S NO W B I T T E N I N S T R U C T I O N S F O R S T A N D I N G C O M M I T T E E S Y E S NO W R I T T E N A G E N D A F O B S T A F F M E E T I N G S Y E S NO W B I T T E N M I N U T E S O F S T A F F M E E T I N G S Y E S NO R E G U L A R W B I T T E N R E P O R T S F R O M S T A N D I N G C O M M I T T E E S O B O T H E B G B O U P S A W B I T T E N P R O G R A M M E F O B I N - D E P A R T M E N T R E S E A R C H R E G U L A R OR S E M I - R E G U L A R W B I T T E N A D M I N I S T R A T I V E B U L L E T I N S 243 DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS IS CONCERNED WITH THE WAY THE DEPARTMENT OPERATES ITS WORKFLOW - WHAT IS TAOGHT AND HOW THE EDUCATION OF STUDENTS IS EQUIPPED, ARRANGED AND EVALUATED. , THE NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES IDENTIFY IDENTIFY THE ITEMS WHICH WERE RETAINED FOR USE IN THE INTERNAL ; ANALYSIS. 1., CONCERNING INITIAL REGISTRATION IN A PROGRAMME AREA OF STUDENTS, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES THE DEPARTMENT'S POLICY? (N.B. POSSIBLY MORE THAN ONE MAY APPLY) FREE STUDENT CHOICE DEPARTMENTAL DIRECTION BASED ON SOM EINDICATION OF ABILITY, AND STUDENT CHOICE DEPARTMENTAL DIRECTION BASED ON SOME MEASURE OF ABILITY 2. WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN ONE SECTION FOR A GIVEN COURSE, HOW DO STUDENTS BECOME ENROLLED IN A GIVEN SECTION? RANDOMLY BY A MIXTURE OF RANDOM ALLOCATION AND STUDENT CHOICE BY STUDENT CHOICE MODERATED BY TIMETABLE CONSTRAINTS BY STUDENT ABILITY MODERATED BY TIMETABLE CONSTRAINTS BY STUDENT ABILITY 3. BHAT ARE THE REGULAR HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT DURING SEMESTER? 4. , BHAT IS POLICY GOVERNING VARIATIONS FROM THE SCHEDULED TIMETABLE, FOR A GIVEN CLASS? CLASSES MAY NOT BE HELD OTHER THAN AT SCHEDULED TIMES CLASS TIMES MAY BE CHANGED OCCASIONALLY IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES CLASSES HAY BE HELD WHENEVER CONVENIENT FOR THE INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENTS, REGARDLESS OF THE SCHEDULED TIME 5.,,, HOW FREQUENTLY DOES IT HAPPEN THAT A STUDENT HAS TO REVISE HIS SELECTION OF COURSES BECAUSE WHAT HE ORIGINALLY WANTED TO DO IS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE EXISTING TIMETABLE? FREQUENTLY QUITE OFTEN NOT VERY OFTEN VERY SELDOM NEVER 6. WHEN MAY A STUDENT CHANGE FROM ONE SECTION TO ANOTHER? NEVER ONLY AT THE END OF THE SEMESTER, OR YEAR BEFORE A SPECIFIED DATE AT ANY TIME, IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AT ANY TIME 2 4 4 7 . W H E N say a S T U D E N T Dfiop a C O U R S E , W I T H O U T I T . A P P E A R I N G O N T R A N S C R I P T N E V E R O N L Y aT T H E Y E A H E N D O N L Y aT T H E E N D O F T H E S E M E S T E R B E F O B E a S P E C I F I E D DAT E A T A N Y T I M E , I N S P E C I A L C I R C U M S T A N C E S AT A N Y T I M E 8 , HOW O F T E N DO C A S E S O F P R O G R A M M E C H A N G E O N T H E P A R T O F S T U D E N T S O C C U B ? N E V E R B A B E L Y F R O M T I M E TO T I M E O F T E N V E B Y O F T E N 9 . , HOW O F T E N DO C A S E S O F " D B O P / A D D " ( C H A N G I N G F R O M O N E C O U B S E T O A N O T H E B I N T H E S A M E D E P A B T M E N T ) O C C U B ? N E V E B B A B E L Y F R O M T I M E T O T I M E O F T E N V E B Y O F T E N 1 0 . , HOW O F T E N A B E T H E B E C A S E S O F S T U D E N T S D R O P P I N G A C O U R S E W I T H O U T AT T H E S A M E T I M E A D D I N G A N O T H E R I N T H E D E P A B T M E N T ? N E V E B B A B E L Y F B O H T I M E TO T I M E O F T E N V E B Y O F T E N 1 1 . I N S O M E C L A S S E S ( S P O N S O B E D B Y M A N P O W E R , F O B E X A M P L E ) A T T E N D A N M A Y B E O F C O N S I D E R A B L E S I G N I F I C A N C E . I N O T H E R S I T MAY B E L E S S S O . , WHAT I S T H E D E P A R T M E N T A L P O L I C Y R E G A R D I N G . A T T E N D A N C E ? T H E B E I S A S T A T E D P O L I C Y F O R A L L S I T U A T I O N S T H E R E I S A S T A T E D P O L I C Y O N L Y F O R S I T U A T I O N S W H E B E A T T E N D A N C E I S M A N D A T E D BY E X T E B N A L C O N D I T I O N S T H E B E I S NO P O L I C Y , B U T T H E B E A B E C O N S E Q U E N C E S T H E B E I S N O P O L I C Y . I N F O B M A L C O G N I Z A N C E O N L Y I S T A K E N O F A B S E N C E 1 2 . . W H E T H E B O B NOT T H E B E I S A S T A T E D P O L I C Y O N A B S E N C E , I T M A Y OR MAY N O T B E C O N S I D E R E D T H A T A S T U D E N T S H O U L D , I N G E N E R A L , A T T E N D M O S T O B A L L C L A S S E S I N A C O U R S E , I N O R D E R TO P A S S . I F S U C H G E N E R A L L I M I T S A R E E X C E E D E D B Y A S T U D E N T , WHAT I S D E P A R T M E N T A L P B O C E D U B E ? A S T A N D A B D S Y S T E M O P E B A T E S , W H I C H S E T S O U T L I M I T S A N D C O N S E Q U E N C E S A S E T O F P B O C E D U B E S I S U S E D , B U T E A C H C A S E I S J U D G E D O N I T S H E B I T S •- — T H E B E I S N O S T A N D A B D S E T O F P B O C E D U B E S , A N D E A C H C A S E I S D E A L T W I T H B Y A A N A P P B O P B I A T E P E B S O N O B G B O U P I N A N A P P R O P R I A T E WAY 245 13. WHAT IS THE DEPARTMENT'S POLICY OR PRACTICE ABOUT THE MOVEMENT OF PERSONNEL, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRAINING CIRCUMSTANCES? STAFF MOVE TO STUDENTS STUDENTS MOVE TO STAFF STUDENTS MOVE TO AREAS AND STAFF MOVE TO STUDENTS WITHIN AREAS THERE ARE DIFFERENT PRACTICES ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCES 14. IN A COLLEGE, STUDENTS MAY ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE, LEARNING, EDUCATION IN WAYS OTHER THAN CLASSROOM INTERACTION. WHAT IS DEPABTMENT POLICY REGARDING THE PROVISION OF OTHER ORGANIZED EVENTS FOR STUDENTS, SUCH AS CONCERTS, POETRY READING, DANCE EXHIBITIONS, (EXCLUDING FIELD TRIPS, ETC., MADE IN CONNECTION WITH A SPECIFIC COURSE) SUCH EVENTS ABE FORMALLY SCHEDULED ON A FAIRLY FREQUENT AND REGULAR BASIS SUCH EVENTS OCCUR ONLY INFREQUENTLY SUCH EVENTS ALMOST NEVER OCCUR 15. IN CASE A STUDENT APPEALS AGAINST A GRADE OB MARK IN A COURSE OH EXAMINATION, HOW IS HIS APPEAL HANDLED, BEFORE COLLEGE RULES ARE APPLIED/ A FORMAL APPEALS PROCEDURE EXISTS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, ilTH LAID DOWN PROVISIONS FOR MOST CIRCUMSTANCES A FORMAL PROCEDURE EXISTS, BUT MOST CASES ARE DEALT WITH WITHOUT DEFINITE GUIDELINES AN INFORMAL PROCEDURE EXISTS AND IS GENERALLY FOLLOWED THERE ARE NO PROCEDURES, AND EACH CASE IS RESOLVED BY THE STUDENT AND HIS INSTRUCTOR, WITH SUCH CONSULTATION AS THEY MAY FIND NECESSARY— 16. WHAT IS THE DEPABTMENT PRACTICE IN CASES OF PLAGIARISM? PLAGIARISM, WHEN DISCOVERED, IS AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOWED BY SPECIFIED SACTION, E.G. LCSS OF ALL OB A PEBCENT AGE OF A HARK PLAGIARISM IS DISCOURAGED, BUT SANCTIONS ARE NOT AUTOMATIC, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE OFTEN APPLIED THEBE IS NO DEPARTMENTAL STANCE ON PLAGIARISM, AND INSTRUCTORS DEAL WITH IT AS THEY SEE FIT 17. WHAT DIPLOMA/CERTIFICATE PROGRAMMES ARE OFFERED BY THE DEPARTMENT? (E.G. GENERAL STUDIES, BUSINESS, NURSING, VOCATIONAL PROGRAMMES, BUT EXCLUDING A.B.E. AND BASIC LITERACY TYPE PROGRAMMES) 18. ARE THERE ANY COURSES WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR FULL-TIME STUDENTS TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OR DIPLOMA, WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT? MORE THAN TWO TWO ONE NONE 2 46 19. , DOES ANY OF THE FOLLOBTNG OCCOB IN THE DEPABTMENT? THEBE IS A DEPART MENTAL ASSOCIATION OF STUDENTS, WITH ELECTED OFFICERS, CONCEBNED WITH STUDENT WELFARE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES STUDENTS ABE ELECTED TO DEPABTMENTAL COMMITTEES, OT HER THAN AS BEQUIBED BY LEGISLATION— STUDENTS ABE BEPBESENTED ON DEPABTMENT POLICY MAKING BODIES; STUDENTS ABE APPOINTED TO DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES, OTHEB THAN AS BEQUIBED BY LEGISLATION-—-(BESPONSE MAY BE:: NO; SOMETIMES; ALWAYS) 20. IS THE DEPABTMENTAL TIMETABLE STRUCTURED IN SUCH A HAY AS TO LEAVE ONE OB MORE TIME PERIODS FREE FOB ALL STUDENTS TO TAKE PABT IN ACTIVITIES SUCH AS MEETINGS, SOCIAL ACTIVITIES, ETC. ? YES NO 21., DOES THE DEPABTMENT OPEBATE A HOUSE OB SIMILAR {E. G. XAMPUS-BASED) SYSTEM? IF SO, FOB WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES ? NO HOUSE OB SIMILAR SYSTEM IS USED— A HOUSE OR SIMILAR SYSTEM IS USED FOR ATHLETICS AND SI MI LAB ACTIVITIES ONLY- ' A HOUSE OB SIMILAR SYSTEM IS USED FOR THE ABOVE AND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PUBPOSES ALSO • A HOUSE OB SIMILAR SYSTEM IS USED FOR THE ABOVE, AND ALSO FOB IMPLEMENTATION OF FACULTY ADVICE OB COUNSELING-22. , DOES A STUDENT IN THE DEPABTMENT HAVE A FACULTY ADVISOR NAMED FOR ASSISTANCE IN HIS LIFE IN THE DEPARTMENT? IF SO, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES THAT PERSON*S FUNCTION? THERE IS NO SUCH POSITION-THE ADVISOR EXISTS AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE (E.G. .EXPLANATION OF CURRICULUM-RELATED MATTERS) — IN ADDITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS, THERE IS THE INTENTION THAT THE ADVISOB MAY SOMETIMES ACT AS A GENEBALLY SYMPATHETIC EAR AND INFOBMAL COUNSELOB 23. IF A PROBLEM CONCERNING A STUDENT CAME TO YOUR ATTENTION, WHICH PEBSON OR DEPABTMENT WOULD YOU MOST LIKELY FIRST CONSULT? COUNSELING DEPARTMENT-CHAIBMAN OB HEAD OF THE MOST APPROPRIATE TEACHING DEPARTMENT— THE RELEVANT INSTRUCTOR, IF ANY FACULTY ADVISOR, IF ANY OTHER— 24., DOES THE DEPARTMENT HAVE ANY POLICY DESIGNED TO PREVENT A STUDENT FROM CARRYING TOO HEAVY A COURSE LOAD? YES NO 2 47 25. HOW IS THE EVALUATION OF STUDENTS CARRIED OUT? INSTRUCTORS MUST COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURES IN ANY WAY THE INSTRUCTOR WISHES 26. IN WHAT FORMAT ARE FINAL MARKS RENDERED? IN ONE STANDARD FORMAT THERE ARE SEVERAL PERMISSIBLE FORMAT IN ANY FORMAT THE INSTRUCTOR LIKES G 27. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWINF BEST DESCRIBES THE DEPARTMENT'S POLICY ON THE ADVANCEMENT OF STUDENTS FROM ONE TO ANOTHER OF SEQUENTIAL COURSES? ADVANCEMENT IS: ALWAYS DEPENDENT ON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF WORK IN THE PRECEDING COURSE ALMOST ALWAYS SO DEPENDENT, BUT WITH RARE EXCEPTIONS USUALLY SO DEPENDENT, BUT WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS-USUALLY SO DEPENDENT, BUT WITH FREQUENT EXCEPTIONS NEVER SO DEPENDENT. ADVANCEMENT IS NORMALLY AUTOMATIC 28. IF THE TRANSCRIPT OF MARKS PREPARED BY COMPUTER PREPARED BY HAND 29. IN ADDITION TO THE TRANSCRIPT, DOES THE DEPARTMENT PROVIDE FOB ANY OTHER METHOD OF FEEDBACK TO THE STUDENT ON HIS PROGRESS (E.G. FORMAL MID-SEMESTER INSTRUCTOR'S EVALUATION OR REPORT; WRITTEN REASONS FOR POOS GRADES IF REQUESTED, ETC.)? YES NO 30. IN THE CASE OF SUCH FEEDBACK, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES ITS SCOPE? THE FEEDBACK SHOWS ACHIEVEMENT ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC SUBJECTS STUDIED— THE FEEDBACK INCLUDES A GENERAL SUMMARY OF PROGRESS THE FEEDBACK INCLUDES A GENERAL SUMMARY OF PROGRESS AND MAY ALSO CARRY OTHER COMMENTS 31. AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT INVENTORY LIST ALL DEPARTMENTAL ITEMS OF AV EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE PORTABLE AND AVAILABLE FOR USE IN A GENERAL PURPOSE CLASSROOM, OR OFF-CAMPU NO. OF KINDS 2 48 32. DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT INVENTORY LIST ALL PIECES OF DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOB INSTRUCTOR USE. INCLUDE THOSE AVAILABLE EITHER FOR DIRECT USE BY INSTRUCTORS OR BY SECRETARIAL PERSONNEL AT THE INSTRUCTOR'S DIRECTION. NO. OF PIECES NO. OF KINDS. 33. TEACHING SPACE INVENTOBY NO. OF TEACHING SPACES OVEBALL NUMBEB OF SPECIALIZED SPACES (PLEASE LIST) AREAS NOT DESIGNATED AS ROOMS, BUT IN WHICH TEACHING MAY OCCASIONALLY TAKE PLACE (EXCLUDE OUTDOOR AREAS WHERE TEACHING MA If OCCASIONALLY TAKE PLACE IN FINE WEATHER) ROOMS CONTAINING FIXED, SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT: * (PLEASE LIST) (*NB COUNT ONLY BOOMS WHICH BECAUSE OF THEIR EQUIPMENT ABE NOT BEALLY SUITABLE FOB GENERAL PURPOSE TEACHING OB THE GENERALIZED FUNCTION OF THE DEPARTMENT - THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN PAE TWO OF THIS QUESTION, ABOVE.)-34. LIST SIZES OF ALL TEACHING GROUPS AT LAST RECORDED PERIOD (SCORE IS STANDARD DEVIATION IN GROUP SIZES) 2 49 35. TIMETABLE INFOBMATION SCHEDULING PERIODS IN USE IN THE DEPABTMENT--LENGTHS OF TEACHING PEBIODS—• • 36. VARIATIONS TO TIMETABLE SPECIALIZED ARRANGEMENTS: SWING SHIFTS YES NO CREDIT COURSES AT WEEK-ENDS YES NO CREDIT COURSES IN EVENINGS YES NO OFF-CAMPUS CREDIT COURSES YES NO AVAILABILITY OF COURSES IN SUMMER YES NO IRREGULARLY SCHEDULED PACKAGES YES NO AVAILABILITY OF "CHALLENGE" YES NO OTHER (PLEASE LIST) 2 5 0 PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE EVERY WORKER PRODUCES SOMETHING IN HER OR HIS WORK., IT MAY BE A "PRODUCT** OR A "SERVICE". BECAUSE IT IS SOMETIMES DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY THE VARIOUS PRODUCTS OR SERVICES, THE FOLLOWING LIST OF EXAMPLES IS SUGGESTED. ,• TYPES MATERIAL REPORTS, STUDIES, SURVEYS FILING FOOD PREPARATION PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT HELP TO STUDENTS INSTRUCTION COUNSELING TESTING, EVALUATION POLICY DEVELOPMENT BUDGETING ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCES BUILDING MAINTENANCE COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGEMENT, MEETINGS PLANNING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE THINK ABOUT THE THINGS PRODUCED IN THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS LISTED. PLEASE BEGIN BY STATING YOUR OWN DEPARTMENT. , OWN DEPARTMENT " — " 1. IN THINKING ABOUT THE THINGS EACH ONE, HOW MUCH WOULD YOU SAY PRODUCTION PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT IS IS VERY LOW FAIRLY LOW RODUCED IN EACH DEPARTMENT, FOR THEY ARE PRODUCING? PRODUCTION PRODUCTION PRODUCTION IS IS IS SATISFACTORY FAIRLY HIGH VERY HIGH 2. OF THE THINGS PRODUCED IN THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, H08 WOULD YOU MEASURE THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCTS OR SERVICES? QUALITY IS QUALITY IS QUALITY IS QUALITY IS QUALITY IS DEPARTMENT VERY LOW FAIRLY LOW SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT 251 3. IN EACH DEPABTMENT, DO PEOPLE SEEM TO GET MAXIMUM OUTPUT FBOM THE RESOUBCES (MONEY, TIME, PEOPLE, EQUIPMENT, ETC.) THEY HAVE AVAILABLE? THAT IS HOW EFFICIENTLY DO THEY DO THEIB WOBK? DO NOT WOBK NOT VEBY SATIS- ABOVE AVERAGE EXTBEMELY EFFICIENTLY EFFICENTLY FACTORILY EFFICIENCY EFFICIENT DEPABTMENT a. „ EFFICIENCY MAY BE DISTINGUISHED FROM EFFECTIVENESS. IN YOUB OPINION, IN EACH DEPABTHENT, HOW EFFECTIVELY DO PEOPLE WOBK? DO NOT WOBK NOT VEBY SATIS- ABOVE AVEBAGE EXTREMELY EFFECTIVELY EFFECTIVELY FACTOBILYEFFECTIVENESS EFFECTIVE DEPABTMENT 5. IN EACH DEPABTMENT, HOW,GOOD A JOB DO PEOPLE DO IN AN TICIP ATIN G PBOBL EMS THAT MAY COME UP IN THE FUTURE, AND EITHER PB EVENTING THEM FBOM OCCUBBING, OB MINIMIZING THEIB EFFECTS WHEN THEY DO OCCUB?. , DEPABTMENT ANTICIPA-TION IS POOB ANTICIPA-TION IS NOT VERY GOOD ANTICIPA-TION IS SATISFAC-TORY ANTICIPA-TION IS GOOD ANTICIPA-TION IS EXCELLENT 6. FROM TIME TO TIME, NEW WAYS ARE FOUND TO DO WORK. ,IN EACH DEPARTMENT, HOW GOOD A JOB WOULD YOU SAY PEOPLE DO IN KEEPING UP WITH THOSE CHANGES WHICH COULD HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT ON HOW THEY DO THEIB JOBS? POOB JOB OF NOT TOO A SATIS- A GOOD. AN EXCELLENT KEEPING UP GOOD A FACTOBY JOB JOB JOB DEPABTMENT JOB 2 5 2 7. W H E N C H A N G E S A B E M A D E T O T H E R O U T I N E S , P R O C E D U R E S O R E Q U I P M E N T I N V O L V E D I N T H E W O R K O P E A C H D E P A R T M E N T , H O B Q U I C K L Y W O U L D Y O U S A Y P E O P L E I N T H E M A C C E P T A N D A D J U S T T O T H O S E C H A N G E S ? S L O W L Y N O T Q U I T E V E R Y A L M O S T V E R Y Q U I C K L Y Q U I C K L Y A T D E P A R T M E N T Q U I C K L Y O N C E 8. I N E A C H D E P A R T M E N T , W H A T R P O P O R T I O N O F T H E P E O P L E W O U L D Y O U S A Y R E A D I L Y A C C E P T A N D A D J U S T T O C H A N G E S W H E N T H E Y A R E M A D E ? C O N S I D E R A B L Y S L I G H T L Y S L I G H T L Y C O N S I D E R A B L Y P R A C T I C A L L Y L E S S T H A N L E S S T H A N M O R E T H A N M O R E T H A N E V E R Y O N E D E P A R T M E N T H A L F H A L F H A L F H A L F 9. / F R O M T I M E T O T I M E , J O B - R E L A T E D P R O B L E M S A R I S E , B H I C H R E Q U I R E S O M E K I N D S O F P R O B L E M — S O L V I N G A C T I V I T Y . I N E A C H D E P A R T M E N T , HOW A D E Q U A T E I S T H E P R O B L E M - S O L V I N G P R O C E S S ? E X T R E M E L Y N O T V E B Y S A T I S - B E T T E B T H A N E X C E L L E N T I N A D E Q U A T E A D E Q U A T E F A C T O R I L Y A V E B A G E D E P A B T M E N T A D E Q U A T E A D E Q U A C Y 10. F R O M T I M E T O T I M E , E M E R G I E N C I E S A R I S E , S U C H A S C R A S H P R O G R A M M E S , W O R K R U N N I N G F A R B E H I N D T I M E , M A J O R E Q U I P M E N T P R O B L E M S , A N D S O O N . B H E N T H E S E E M E R G E N C Y S I T U A T I O N S O C C U R , T H E Y U S U A L L Y M E A N B O R K O V E R L O A D S F O R M A N Y P E O P L E . S O M E B O R K G R O U P S C O P E W I T H S U C H S I T U A T I O N S M O R E B E A D I L Y A N D S U C C E S S F U L L Y T H A N O T H E R S . H O W W O U L D Y O U B A T E T H E P E O P L E I N E A C H D E P A R T M E N T , W H E N I T C O M E S T O C O P I N G W I T H T H E S E K I N D S O F S I T U A T I O N ? T H E Y D O A T H E Y D O N ' T T H E Y D O A T H E Y D O A T H E Y D O A N B A D J O B DO V E R Y S A T I S F A C - G O O D J O B E X C E L L E N T D E P A R T M E N T W E L L T O R Y J O B J O B 253 11. DEPARTMENTS MAY BE MORE OR LESS CO-OPERATIVE, IN THEIR RELATIONS WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS. ON THE WHOLE HOW WOULD YOU RATE EACH DEPARTMENT IN TERMS OF ITS CO-OPERATIVENESS OR "TEAM SPIRIT", AS EAR AS THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS ARE CONCERNED? NOT VERY LESS ABOUT MORE EXTREMELY CO-OPEHATIVECO-OPERATIVE AVERAGE CO-OP- CO-OPERATIVE AT ALL THAN AVERAGE ERATIVE DEPARTMENT THAN AVERAGE 12. IN GENERAL, HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE OVERALL ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE OF EACH DEPARTMENT? DEPARTMENT VERY LOW QUITE LOW AVERAGE QUITE HIGH VERY HIGH 254 COLLEGE SCHEDULE NAME OF COLLEGE — RESPONDENT-—- • POSITION ADDITIONAL SOURCES FOR INFORMATION ON: A7 EQUIPMENT DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT ROOMS AND SPACE ALLOCATION SIZES OF TEACHING GROUPS TIHE—TABLE PERSONNEL NUMBERS O T H E R NO, OF OPERATING SITES PERSONNEL INFORMATION NO. OF STUDENTS (EXCLUDING C.E.) (FTE*S) BODIES NO. OF FACULTY FULL-TIME PART-TIME NO. OF STAFF FULL-TIME PART-TIME NO. OF ADMINISTRATORS FULL-TIME PART-TIME NO, OF CARETAKING STAFF FULL-TIME-— PART-TIME-TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)-— NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY: POSITIONS IN COLLEGES ARE VARIOUSLY DESCRIBED. THE FOILOWING QUESTIONS ARE CONCERNED KITH THE PSINCIPAL; THAT LEVEL IMMEDIATELY BELOW . (OFT EN TERMED DEAN, VICE OR ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, BURSAS); HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS CONSISTING OF MOfiE THAN A SINGLE DISCIPLINE (OFTEN CALLED DIRECTOR, OR CHAIRMAN); ANY LEVEL INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN THESE HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND TEACHING STAFF; AND FINALLY, TEACHING AND OTHER STAFF THEMSELVES. TERMS USED IN THE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS APPROPRIATE FOR A GIVEN COLLEGE. 255 CONCENTRATION OF AUTHORITY THE FOLLOWING SERIES OF QUESTIONS IS CONCERNED WITH THE LEVELS AT WHICH FOR HAL DECISION MAKING AUTHOR ITY RESTS. THE QUESTION "WHO DECIDES SUCH AND SUCH..,?" OFTEN IS NOT EASY TO ANSWER IN CLEAR-CUT TERMS., TO TRY TO GET AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE SITUATION IN THE COLLEGE, I AM PROPOSING THAT FOR ANY GIVEN DECISION A PERSON MAY HAVE ONE OF THREE DIFFERENT KINDS OF AUTHORITY: 1. HE MAY RECOMMEND AND HOPE FOR A FAVOURABLE DECISION. 2., HE MAY RECOMMEND AND BE CERTAIN, (WITH RARE EXCEPTIONS), OF A FAVOURABLE DECICION (D (RC) ) . 3. < HE MAY DECIDE. , THAT IS, AS A RESULT OF HIS DECISION, ACTION MAY START IMMEDIATELY., OTHERS MAY HAVE TO BE INFORMED OF THE DECISION, BUT THE DECISION WILL NOT BE AFFECTED. (D) A LIST OF DECISIONS IS PRESENTED BELOW. FOR EACH ONE, WHO MAKES THAT DECISION? IS THE MAKING OF THE DECISION IN THE CATEGORY D (EC) OR (D) ABOVE? IN THE CASE OF D(RC) ANSWERS, WHO HAS AUTHORITY FOR D. PLEASE ANSWER IN TERMS OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES OR THE CLOSEST EQUIVALENT POSITION IN YOUR COLLEGE, 0 INSTRUCTOR/STAFF MEMBER 1 INTERMEDIATE POSITION (E.G. HEAD OF DISCIPLINE) 2 DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN 3 INTERMEDIATE POSITION (E.G. DE A N/VICE- PHI NCIPAL/BU RS A£) 4 PRINCIPAL 5 COLLEGE COUNCIL 6 PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 7 GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT 256 WHO DECIDES: 1. THE NOHBEE OF ASSISTANT PRINCI PALS/DEANS, OR EQUIVALENT, IN THE COLLEGE. 2. THE NUMBER OF DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEADS (REPORTING TO A DEAN OR EQOIVALENT) IN THE COLLEGE. 3. THE NOHBER OF INSTRUCTORS IN THE COLLEGE. , 4.. THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL/ DEAN OR EQUIVALENT. . 5. . THE APPOINTMENT OF A DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD. , 6. , THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INSTRUCTOR. 7., THE CONFIRMATION OF INSTRUCTORS IN THEIR POSITION (I.E. .AFTER PROBATIONARY PERIOD)., 8., THE PROMOTION OF INSTRUCTORS IN THE COLLEGE 9. THE SALARY OF ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS/DEANS OR EQUIVALENT. 10. THE SALARY OF DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEADS 11. TO APPOINT AN INSTRUCTOR TO OR REMOVE FROM AN EMOLUMENT BEARING POSITION 12., HOW TO SPEND SURPLUS CAPITAL FUNDS TOWARD THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 13. HOW TO SPEND SURPLUS OPERATING FUNDS TOWARD THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 14. . THE TYPE OR BEAND OF NEW EQUIPMENT 15. THE INTRODUCTION OF A NEW COURSE 16. THE INTRODUCTION OF A NEW PROGRAM (BY REALLOCATION OF EXISTING FUNDING NOT BY MEANS OF NEW FUNDING REQUIRING MINISTRY APPROVAL) 17. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ATTENDANCE AREA 18„ WHICH EMPLOYMENT OR FURTHER EDUCATION OPPORTDNITIES SHALL BE PRESENTED TO STUDENTS 19. , WHAT ITEMS OR PROCESSES SHALL BE COSTED 20., WHAT ASPECTS OF THE COLLEGE'S OPERATION SHALL BE EVALUATED 21. TO DISMISS A DEAN/ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, OR EQUIVALENT 22. , TO DEMOTE A DEAN/ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, OR EQUIVALENT 23. TO DISMISS A DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD 24. TO DEMOTE A DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD 257 2 5 . T O D I S M I S S A N I N S T R U C T O R 2 6 . T H E M E T H O D S O F T R A I N I N G OR H E L P F O R N E W I N S T R U C T O R S 2 7 . , E N T R A N C E O B S E L E C T I O N P R O C E D U R E S F O R N E W S T U D E N T S A T T H E B E G I N N I N G O F T H E C O L L E G E Y E A R 2 8 . , W H A T A N D HOW M A N Y S T A F F W E L F A R E F A C I L I T I E S A R E P R O V I D E D 2 9 . T H E C O S T TO S T U D E N T S O F B O O K S A N D S U N D R I E S 3 0 . , T O A L T E B T H E R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S O R A B E A O F W O R K O F A N I N S T B U C T O B 3 1 . .. A N D O F N O N - T E A C H I N G S T A F F ( E X C L U D I N G C A R E T A K E R S ) 3 2 . A N D O F C A B E T A K E B S 3 3 . T O C B E A T E A NEW D E P A B T M E N T / D I V I S I O N 3*. , T O C B E A T E A N E W N O N - T E A C H I N G S T A F F P O S I T I O N 3 5 . T O C R E A T E A N E W T E A C H I N G P O S I T I O N 2 58 FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION THESE ABE LISTED BELOW A NUMBEB OF ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY OB MAY SOT BE PERFORMED IN THE COLLEGE.. , FOB EACH ONE, PLEASE INDICATE: A) WHETHER IT IS PERFORMED IN THE COLLEGE B) WHETHER IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED TO A PEBSON, OR PERSONS, OR GROUP. C) WHO THAT PERSON OR GROUP I S . (THIS ANSWER MAY BE THE NAME OF A PERSON (E.G. /MB.-/X). OR AN OFFICE (E.G. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT), OR A COMMITTEE (E. G. COMMITTEE Y) D) WHETHER THE PERSON OB GROUP DELEGATED PERFORMS THAT ACTIVITY FULL-TIME. (I.E. PEBFOBMS NO OTHER ACTIVITY IN THE COLLEGE) ACTIVITY I. ABBANGING APPEALS, FUND-BAISING FUNCTIONS, PUBLICITY, ETC. 2... ARRANGING CEREMONIES FOR PARENTS OR STUDENTS 3., ADMINISTERING OB ACTING AS COLLEGE LIAISON OFFICER FOR AN ALUMNI OR FORMER PUPILS' ASSOCIATION U. PRODUCING A COLLEGE MAGAZINE 5. ., PRODUCING A COLLEGE YEAR BOOK 69 PRODUCING A COLLEGE NEWSPAPER 7. CO-ORDINATING THE PRESENTATION OF CAREER ADVICE TO STUDENTS 8. LIAISON WITH EMPLOYERS OR INSTITUTIONS OF FURTHER EDUCATION 9. LIAISON WITH CANADA MANPOWER 10. RECEIVING OR DEALING WITH PARENT OR COMMUNITY COMPLAINTS I I . CO-ORDINATING COLLEGE BUS REQUIREMENTS 12. , CO-ORDINATING TRANSPORTATION FOR FIELD TRIPS OR OUTSIDE VISITS 13. OPERATING AN IN-COLLEGE DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR INTERNAL MAIL, EQUIPMENT OR SUPPLIES I t t . v HIRING TEACHING STAFF 15. HIRING NON-TEACHING STAFF 16. ALLOCATING STAFF TO BROAD AREAS OF WORK (E.G. DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS) PER- DELE-FOR- GATED MED? Y/N FULL-TIME TO 8HOM Y/N 259 17. CO-OBDINATION OF IN-SEBVICE TRAINING OR STAFF DISCUSSION GROUPS OTHER THAN DEPARTMENTAL MEETINGS 18. CO-ORDINATION OF STAFF WELFARE, SOCIAL OR SPORTS ACTIVITIES 19. OPERATING CANTEEN OB CAFETERIA FACITLITES 20. , OPERATING A SUGGESTION SCHEME 21. OPERATING THE SALE OF BOOKS OB STATIONERY 22. OPERATING MEDICAL FACILITIES 23. BUYING MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT 24. STOCK CONTBOL 25. SELECTION OR PRE-TESTING OF STUDENTS 26. OPERATING CABETAKING SEBVICES 27. ENSURING MAINTENANCE OF AV EQUIPMENT 28. ENSURING MAINTENANCE OF LABOBATOBY EQUIPMENT 29. , ENSURING MAINTENANCE OF GENEBAL COLLEGE BUILDING EQUIPMENT 30. PEBFOBMING BUSINESS OB ACCOUNTING TASKS 31. TIMETABLING AND CUBBICULUM CO-OBDINATION 32. , DRAWING UP AND/OR CO-OBDINATING OVEBALL DISCIPLINE PBOCEDUBES FOB EMPLOYEES 33. CO-OBDINATING STUDENT ADVANCEMENT FBOM ONE LEVEL TO ANOTHEB 34. PBEPABING EXAMINATION SCHEDULES 35. MAKING ABBANGEMENTS FOB SEATING AND SPACE ALLOCATION FOB EXAMINATIONS 36., DEVISING OR ASSESSING NEW WAYS OF TIME-TABLING EXISTING COUBSES OB PROGBAMMES 37. , DESIGNING WAYS OF INCORPORATING NEW COURSES OB PROGRAMMES, OB CO-OBDINATING SUGGESTIONS IN THIS ABEA 38. OPEBATING BECOBD KEEPING OB FILING SYSTEMS FOB STUDENT BECOBDS 39., OPEBATING BECOBD KEEPING OB FILING SYSTEMS FOB OFFICE OB ADMINISTBATIVE PUBPOSES 40. HANDLING LEGAL OB INSURANCE AFFAIBS 41. BESEABCHING OB ASSESSING THE NEEDS OF EMPLOYEES, THE COMMUNITY, OB INSTITUTIONS OF FUBTHEB EDUCATION, AND THEIB LIKELY EFFECT ON COLLEGE POLICY OB OPEBATION 2 60 FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION THIS SECTION IS CONCERNED WITH SOME DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE USED IN THE COLLEGE., IF POSSIBLE, I MOULD LIKE TO BORROW COPIES OF ANY WHICH MAY BE AVAILABLE. 1. ,. DOES THE COLLEGE HAVE ANY GENERAL INFORMATION BOOKLETS ABOUT ALL OR SOME OF THE COLLEGE OFFERINGS OR SERVICES (E.G PROSPECTUSES CALENDARS, COURSE BROCHURES, ETC.)? YES NO WHAT ARE THEY? NAME OF DOCUMENT TO WHOM ARE THEY DISTRIBUTED? DISTRIBUTION TO 2. DOES THE COLLEGE HAVE AN ORG AN 12 ATION CHART? YES NO IF SO, IS IT DISTRIBUTED TO: PRINCIPAL ONLY-PRINCIPAL PLUS (E.G. DEANS OR THE ABOVE PLUS HEADS-ALL STAFF LEVEL:IMMEDIATELY BELOW EQUIVALENTS}- — DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ALL STAFF AND STUDENTS-3. ARE WRITTEN TERMS OF REFERENCE, JOB DESCRIPTIONS OR OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED FOR ANY OF 'THE STAFF CATEGORIES BELOW? YES NO PRINCIPAL LEVEL IMMEDIATELY BELOW (OFTEN TERMED DEAN, OR VICE OR ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL) SENIOR NON-TEACHING STAFF POSITIONS (E.G. /BURSAR. CONTROLLER, ETC.) HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS (OFTEN TERMED DIRECTOR, CHAIRMAN, ETC.) TEACHING STAFF NON-TEACHING STAFF JANITORS/CARET AKIN G STAFF IS THERE A COMPOSITE MANUAL OF PROCEDURES? ARE THE POLICIES OF THE COLLEGE AVAILABLE IN WRITTEN FORM? OTHER THAN THE TIMETABLE, IS THERE ALSO A WRITTEN SCHEDULE OF VARIOUS ACTIVITIES OVEB THE YEAR? DOES THE COLLEGE HAVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: WRITTEN COLLEGE RULES FOR EMPLOYEES WRITTEN COLLEGE ROLES FOR STUDENTS WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS FOR STANDING COMMITTEES WRITTEN AGENDA FOB ANY COLLEGE-WIDE MEETINGS (I.E. ^ INVOLVING SOME OB ALL OF THE STAFF FROM MOBE THAN ONE DEPABTMENT) WBITTEN MINOTES OF SOCH MEETINGS BEGOLAB WBITTEN BEPOBTS FBOM STANDING COMMITTEES OB OTHEB GBOOPS A WBITTEN PROGBASME FOB IN—COLLEGE RESEARCH BEGOLAB OF SEM I-BEGOLAB WBITTEN ADHINISTBATIVE BULLETINS 2 62 DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS IS CONCERNED WITH THE WAY THE COLLEGE OPERATES ITS WORKFLOW - WHAT IS TAUGHT AND HOW THE EDUCATION OF STUDENTS IS EQUIPPED, ARRANGED AND EVALUATED. NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES IDENTIFY THE ITEMS WHICH WERE RETAINED FOR USE IN THE INTERNAL ANALYSIS. 1.. CONCERNING THE INITIAL REGISTRATION IN A PROGRAMME AREA OF A STUDENT WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES THE COLLEGE'S POLICY. (N. B. v POSSIBLY MORE THAN ONE MAY APPLY) FREE STUDENT CHOICE COLLEGE DIRECTION BASED ON SOME INDICATION OF ABILITY AND STUDENT CHOICE COLLEGE DIRECTION BASED ON SOME MEASURE OF ABILITY 2. WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN ONE SECTION FOR A GIVEN COURSE, HOW STUDENTS BECOME ENROLLED IN A GIVEN SECTION? : RANDOMLY BY A MIXTURE OF RANDOM ALLOCATION AND STUDENT CHOICE BY STUDENT CHOICE MODERATED BY TIMETABLE CONSTRAINTS BY STUDENT. ABILITY, MODERATED BY TIMETABLE CONSTRAINTS BY STUDENT ABILITY 3. WHAT ARE THE REGULAR HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE COLLEGE DURING SEMESTER? 4.. WHAT IS THE POLICY GOVERNING VARIATIONS FROM THE SCHEDULED TIME-TABLE FOR A GIVEN CLASS? CLASSES MAY NOT BE HELD OTHER THAN AT SCHEDULED TIMES CLASS TIMES MAY BE CHANGED OCCASIONALLY IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES CLASSES MAY BE HELD WHENEVER CONVENIENT FOR THE INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENTS, REGARDLESS OF THE SCHEDULED TIME 5. HOW FREQUENTLY DOES IT HAPPEN THAT A STUDENT HAS TO REVISE H SELECTION OF COURSES BECAUSE WHAT HE ORIGINALLY WANTED TO DO NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE EXISTING TIMETABLE? FREQUENTLY QUITE OFTEN NOT VERY OFTEN VERY SELDOM NEVER 2 6 3 6 . WHEN M A Y A S T U D E N T C H A N G E F B O M O N E S E C T I O N T O A N O T H E R ? N E V E B O N L Y A T T H E E N D O F T H E S E M E S T E B , O B Y E A B B E F O R E A S P E C I F I E D D A T E A T A N Y T I M E , I N S P E C I A L C I R C U M S T A N C E S AT A N Y T I M E 7. W H E N MAY A S T U D E N T D R O P A C O U R S E , W I T H O U T I T A P P E A R I N G O N T H E T R A N S C R I P T ? N E V E R O N L Y AT T H E Y E A R E N D O N L Y A T T H E E N D O F T H E S E M E S T E R B E F O R E A S P E C I F I E D D A T E A T A N Y T I M E , I N S P E C I A L C I R C U M S T A N C E S A T A N Y T I M E 8 . HOW O F T E N DO C A S E S O F P R O G R A M M E C H A N G E O N T H E P A R T O F S T U D E N T S O C C U R ? N E V E R R A R E L Y F R O M T I M E TO T I M E O F T E N V E R Y O F T E N 9 . HOW O F T E N DO C A S E S O F " D R O P / A D D " ( C H A N G I N G F B O M O N E C O U B S E T O A N O T H E R ) O C C U B ? N E V E B B A R E L Y F R O M T I M E T O T I M E O F T E N V E R Y O F T E N 1 0 . HOW O F T E N A R E T H E R E C A S E S O F S T U D E N T S D R O P P I N G A C O U R S E , W I T H O U T AT T H E S A M E T I M E A D D I N G A N O T H E R ? N E V E R R A R E L Y F R O M T I M E TO T I M E O F T E N V E R Y O F T E N 1 1 . I N S O M E C L A S S E S ( S P O N S O R E D B Y M A N P O W E R , F O R E X A M P L E ) , A T T E N D A N C E M A Y B E O F C O N S I D E R A B L E S I G N I F I C A N C E . I N O T H E R S I T MAY B E L E S S S O . WHAT I S T H E C O L L E G E P O L I C Y R E G A R D I N G A T T E N D A N C E ? T H E B E I S A S T A T E D P O L I C Y F O B A L L S I T U A T I O N S T H E B E I S A S T A T E D P O L I C Y F O B S I T U A T I O N S W H E B E A T T E N D A N C E I S M A N D A T E D B Y E X T E B N A L C O N D I T I O N S T H E B E I S NO P O L I C Y , B U T T H E B E A B E C O N S E Q U E N C E S T H E R E I S NO P O L I C Y . I N F O B M A L C O G N I Z A N C E O N L Y I S T A K E N O F A B S E N C E 2 64 12. / WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A STATED POLICY ON ABSENCE, IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED THAT A STUDENT SHOULD, IN GENERAL, ATTEND MOST OR ALL CLASSES IN A COURSE, IN ORDER TO PASS. IF SUCH GENERAL LIMITS ARE EXCEEDED BY A STUDENT, WHAT IS COLLEGE PROCEDURE? A STANDARD SYSTEM OPERATES, WHICH SETS OUT LIMITS AND CONSEQUENCES A SET OF PROCEDURES IS USED, BUT EACH CASE IS JUDGED ON ITS MERITS THERE IS NO STANDARD SET OF PROCEDURES, AND EACH CASE IS DEALT WITH BY AN APPOROPRIATE PERSON OR GROUP IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY 13. WHAT IS THE COLLEGE'S POLICY OR PRACTICE ABOUT THE MOVEMENT OF PERSONNEL, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRAINING CIRCUMSTANCES? STAFF MOVE TO SUDENTS STUDENTS MOVE TO STAFF STUDENTS MOVE TO AREAS, AND STAFF MOVE TO STUDENTS WITHIN AREAS THERE ARE DIFFERENT PRACTICES IN DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS 14. , IN A COLLEGE, STUDENTS MAY ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE, LEARNING, EDUCATION IN WAYS OTHEB THAN CLASSROOM INTERACTION. WHAT IS THE COLLEGE POLICY REGARDING THE PROVISION OF OTHER ORGANIZED EVENTS FOB STUDENTS, SUCH AS CONCEBTS, POETBY BEADING, DANCE EXHIBITIONS, ETC. , (EXCLUDING FIELD TBIPS, ETC. , MADE IN CONNECTION WITH A SPECIFIC COUBSE) SUCH EVENTS ABE FOBMALLY SCHEDULED ON A FAIRLY FfiEQUENT AND REGULAR BASIS SUCH EVENTS ARE NOT FORMALLY SCHEDULED BUT OCCUR FAIRLY FBEQUENTLY SUCH EVENTS OCCUR ONLY INFREQUENTLY SUCH EVENTS ALMOST NEVEB OCCUB 15. IN CASE A STUDENT APPEALS AGAINST A GRADE OB MARK IN A COUBSE OB EXAMINATION, HOW IS HIS APPEAL:DEALTH WITH? A FOBMAL APPEALS PBOCEDDBE EXISTS, WITH LAID DOWN PBOVISIONS FOB MOST CIBCUMSTANCES A FOBMAL APPEALS PBOCEDUBE EXISTS, BUT MOST CASES ABE DEALT WITH WITHOUT DEFINITE GUIDELINES AN INFOBMAL PBOCEDUBE EXISTS AND IS GENERALLY FOLLOWED THEBE ABE NO PBOCEDUBES, AND EACH CASE IS BESOLVED BY THE STUDENT AND THE INSTBUCTOB, WITH SUCH CONSULTATION AS THEY MAY FIND NECESSARY 2 65 16. WHAT IS THE COLLEGE PRACTICE IN CASES OF PLAGIARISM? , PLAGIARISM, WHEN DISCOVERED, IS AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOWED BY SPECIFIED SANCTION, E.G./LOSS OF ALL OR A PERCENTAGE OF A MARK PLAGIARISM IS DISCOURAGED, BUT SANCTIONS ARE NOT AUTOMATIC ALTHOUGH THEY ARE OFTEN APPLIED THERE IS NO COLLEGE STANCE ON PLAGIARISM, AND DEPART-MENTS OR INSTRUCTORS DEAL WITH IT AS THEY SEE FIT 17. WHAT DIPLOMA OR CERTIFICATE PROGRAMMES ARE OFFERED BY THE COLLEGE (E. G., GENERAL STUDIES, BUSINESS, NURSING, VOCATIONAL PROGRAMMES, ETC., BUT EXCLUDING ABE AND BASIC LITERACY TYPE PROGRAMMES) 18. ARE THERE ANY COURSES WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR FULL-TIME STUDENTS TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OR DIPLOMA? MORE THAN TWO TWO ONE NONE 19. DOES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING OCCUR IN THE COLLEGE? THERE IS A STUDENTS* UNION OR SIMILAR BODY, WITH ELECTED OFFICERS, CONCERNED WITH STUDENT WELFARE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES STUDENTS ARE ELECTED TO COLLEGE COMMITTEES, OTHERTHAN AS REQUIRED BY LEGISLATION STUDENTS ARE REPRESENTED ON COLLEGE POLICY MAKING BODIES STUDENTS ARE APPOINTED TO COLLEGE COMMITTEES, OTHER THAN AS REQUIRED BY LEGISLATION (RESPONSE MAY BE: NO; SOMETIMES; ALWAYS) . 20. IS THE COLLEGE TIMETABLE STRUCTURED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO LEAVE ONE OR MORE TIME PERIODS FREE FOR ALL STUDENTS TO TAKE PART IN ACTIVITIES SUCH AS MEETINGS, SOCIAL ACTIVITIES, ETC. ? YES NO 266 21. DOES THE COLLEGE OPERATE A HOOSE OR SIMILAR (E. G..,C AflPUS-B AS ED) SYSTEM? I F SO, FOR WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES? NO HOUSE OR SIMILAR SYSTEM IS USED A HOUSE OR SIMILAR SYSTEM I S USED FOR ATHLETICS AND SI HILAR ACTIVITIES ONLY A HOUSE OR SIMILAR SYSTEM IS USED FOR THE ABOVE AND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES ALSO A HOUSE OR SIMILAR SYSTEM I S USED FOR THE ABOVE, AND ALSO FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF FACULTY ADVICE OR COUNSELING 22-. DOES A COLLEGE STUDENT HAVE A FACULTY ADVISOR NAMED FOR ASSISTANCE IN HIS LIFE AT THE COLLEGE? IF SO, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES THAT PERSON'S FUNCTION? THERE IS NO SUCH POSITION THE ADVISOR EXISTS AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE (E.G. EXPLANATION OF CURRICULUM-RELATED MATTERS) IN ADDITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS, THERE IS THE INTENTION THAT THE ADVISOR HAY SOMETIMES ACT AS A GENERALLY SYMPATHETIC EAR AND INFORMAL COUNSELOR 23. I F A PROBLEM CONCERNING A STUDENT CAME TO YOUR ATTENTION, WHICH PERSON OR DEPARTMENT WOULD YOU MOST LIKELY FIRST CONSULT? COUNSELING DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN OF HEAD OF THE MOST APPROPRIATE TEACHING DEPARTMENT THE RELEVANT INSTRUCTOR, IF ANY FACULTY ADVISOR, IF ANY OTHER 24. DOES THE COLLEGE HAVE ANY POLICY DESIGNED TO PREVENT A STUDENT FROM CARRYING TOO HEAVY A COURSE LOAD? YES NO 25. HOW IS THE EVALUATION OF STUDENTS CARRIED OUT? INSTRUCTORS MUST COMPLY WITH COLLEGE SPECIFIED PROCEDURES IN ANY WAY THE INSTRUCTOR WISHES 26. IN WHAT FORMAT ARE FINAL MARKS RENDERED? IN ONE STANDARD FORMAT THERE ARE SEVERAL PERMISSIBLE FORMATS IN ANY FORMAT THE INSTRUCTOR LIKES 2 67 27. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES THE COLLEGE'S POLICY ON THE ADVANCEMENT OF STUDENTS FROM ONE TO ANOTHER OF SEQUENTIAL COURSES? ADVANCEMENT I S : ALWAYS DEPENDENT ON THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF WOBK IN THE PRECEDING COUBSE ALMOST ALWAYS SO DEPENDENT, BUT WITH RARE EXCEPTIONS USUALLY SO DEPENDENT, BUT WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS USUALLY SO DEPENDENT, BUT WITH FBEQUENT EXCEPTIONS NEVEB SO DEPENDENT, ADVANCEMENT IS NORMALLY AUTOMATIC 28. IS THE TBANSCBIPT OF MASKS PREPARED BY COMPUTES PBEPABED BY HAND 29... IN ADDITION TO THE TBANSCBIPT, DOES THE COLLEGE PBOVIDE FOR ANY OTHER METHOD OF FEEDBACK TO THE STUDENT, ON HIS PBOGBESS ( E . G . , FOBMAL MID-SEMESTEB INSTBUCTOB'S EVALUATION, OB BEPOBT; WRITTEN SEASONS FOB POOB GRADES IF BEQUESTED, ETC.)? YES NO 30. IN THE CASE OF SUCH FEEDBACK, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES ITS SCOPE? THE FEEDBACK SHOWS ACHIEVEMENT ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC SUBJECTS STUDIED THE FEEDBACK INCLUDES A GENERAL SUMMARY OF PBOGBESS THE FEEDBACK INCLUDES A GENEBAL SUMMARY OF PBOGBESS AND MAY ALSO CABBY OTHEB COMMENTS 31. AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT INVENTORY LIST ALL COLLEGE ITEMS OF AV EQUIPMENT, WHICH ARE PORTABLE AND AVAILABLE FOB USE IN A GENERAL PURPOSE CLASSROOM OR OFF-CAMPUS. NO. OF PIECES 268 32. DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT INVENTORY LIST ALL PIECES OF DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOB INSTBUCTOB USE., INCLUDE THOSE AVAILABLE EITHER FOR DIRECT USE BY INSTBUCTOBS OB BY SECRETARIAL PERSONNEL AT THE INSTRUCTOR'S DIRECTION. ,• NO. OF PIECES NO. OF KINDS- • 33. TEACHING SPACE INVENTORY NO. OF TEACHING SPACES OVEBALL — — NUMBEB OF GYMNASIA NUMBEB OF AUDITOBIA 8HICH ARE NOT ALSO GYMNASIA NUMBEB OF SWIMMING POOLS NUMBER OF LIBBARIES: A) WHICH INCLUDE WORK SPACE AND IN WHICH TEACHING CAN TAKE PLACE B) WHICH DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH WOBK SPACE FOB TEACHING TO BE CARRIED ON AREAS NOT DESIGNATED AS ROOMS, BUT IN WHICH, NEVERTHELESS TEACHING TAKES PLACE (EXCLUDE OUTDOOR AREAS WHERE TEACHING MAY OCCASIONALLY TAKE PLACE IN FINE WEATHER). ROOMS CONTAINING FIXED, SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT:* NO. /OF SPECIALLY NO. OF SPECIALLY SUBJECT AREA EQUIPPED ROOMS SUBJECT AREA EQUIPPED ROOMS ART MUSIC DRAMA APPLIED ARTS BUSINESS SUBJECTS DOMESTIC SCIENCE INDUSTRIAL/ AGRICULTURAL *NB COUNT ONLY ROOMS WHICH BECAUSE OF THEIR EQUIPMENT ARE NOT REALLY SUITABLE FOR GENERAL PURPOSE TEACHING OR THE GENERALIZED FUNCTION OF THE DEPARTMENT.,E.G. A ROOM WITH MAY HALL MAPS AND USED FOR GEOGRAPHY, BUT WITH REGULAR DESKS OR TABLES AS FURNITURE SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED HERE.. , LANGUAGES MATHEMATICS SCIENCE PHYSICAL ED. , SOCIAL SUBJECTS LIBRARY OTHERS 269 3 4 . L I S T S I Z E S OF A L L T E A C H I N G GROUPS AT L A S T RECORDED P E R I O D . , ( S C O R E I S STANDARD D E V I A T I O N I N GROUP S I Z E S ) 3 5 . T I M E T A B L E INFORMATION S C H E D U L I N G P E R I O D S I N USE I N T H E C O L L E G E -L E N G T H S O F T E A C H I N G P E R I O D S 3 6 . V A R I A T I O N S T O T I M E T A B L E S P E C I A L I Z E D ARRANGEMENTS: SWING S H I F T S Y E S NO C R E D I T C O U R S E S AT WEEK-ENDS YES NO C R E D I T COURSES I N EVENINGS Y E S NO O F F - C A M P U S C R E D I T C O U R S E S Y E S NO A V A I L A B I L I T Y OF COURSES IN SUMMER Y E S NO I R R E G U L A R L Y S C H E D U L E D P A C K A G E S YES NO A V A I L A B I L I T Y O F " C H A L L E N G E " Y E S NO OTHER ( P L E A S E L I S T ) - — • — — — APPENDIX B SCORES ON THE BEFINED INSTBDHENTS 271 1, .STRUCTURAL VARIABLES THE FIRST TEH ROBS ARE FOR COLLEGES, FOLLOWED BY TEH EACH FOR LIBRARIES, COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS, SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS AND NATURAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS, THE VARIABLE SCORES ARE FOUND IN COLUMNS AS FOLLOWS VARIABLE NUMBERS 1 FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION {B«/AI) 2 FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATIONS (B.A.I,,) 3 CONCENTRATION OF AUTHORITY tt AUTONOMY 5 DISCRETION 6 IN-UNIT DECISION LEVEL 7 FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION (1) 8 FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION (2) 9 DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW (1) 10 DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW (2) 272 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 COLLEGES 0. 604 567 50 08 2 4.54 08 15 20 22 0. 875 392 4 8 10 2 4.00 06 08 14 17 0.595 210 58 04 7 4. 83 11 12 24 20 0. 810 900 60 05 6 5.00 17 15 15 20 0. 277 450 58 05 5 4. 83 10 12 15 17 0. 642 336 45 07 1 4. , 09 13 16 21 0. 500 432 55 08 3 4.58 13 10 18 18 0.790 648 52 08 3 4.33 08 14 13 19 0. 790 648 57 04 6 5. 18 10 12 20 22 0.810 900 49 05 5 4.45 08 10 13 16 LI BE ARIES 0. 200 005 44 04 4 4.00 09 15 0. 400 160 40 04 6 3.64 08 14 0. 285 028 38 04 3 3 .45 11 12 0.750 036 32 06 1 2.91 14 11 1. 777 036 49 03 2 4.45 07 11 0.326 196 45 04 4 : 4.09 08 13 0.200 005 48 04 1 4.36 11 07 0. 100 010 42 05 3 3. 82 05 08 0. 066 015 49 02 1 . 4.45 08 10 0.250 108 45 05 2 4.09 09 12 COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS 0. 300 090 51 01 2 4.64 11 16 0. 000 000 39 03 3 3.55 08 04 0.200 005 40 02 1 3. 64 09 08 o.ooo 000 43 01 5 3.91 17 05 0. |66 006 55 01 2 5.00 09 02 0.750 036 46 04 2 4.18 07 05 1.388 090 51 01 2 4.64 12 08 0.250 004 43 05 4 3.91 05 08 0. 142 007 42 04 5 3.82 08 05 0. 428 063 44 04 5 4.00 10 11 273 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS o . ooo 000 38 02 3 3 . 4 5 08 04 24 15 0.-25.0 004 41 06 3 3 . 7 3 11 .08 18 16 o . ooo 000 38 05 3 3 . 4 5 10 02 24 19 0 . 3 3 3 024 46 03 3 4 . 1 8 15 06 17 17 0 . ooo 000 50 02 0 4 . 5 5 08 01 19 11 0 . 2 2 2 036 32 07 2 2 . 9 1 07 07 18 19 0 . 0 0 0 000 42 02 2 3. 82 11 02 26 20 0 . 000 000 51 02 6 4 . 6 4 07 01 20 17 0 . 333 003 37 05 0 3 . 3 6 09 05 20 17 0 . 7 1 4 175 35 06 1 3 . 1 8 14 15 23 14 NATURAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS 0 . 5 0 0 016 34 04 2 3 . 0 9 08 09 t 18 17 0 . 066 015 41 05 4 3. 73 10 07 14 16 0 . 2 5 0 004 53 03 2 4 . 8 2 08 01 19 16 0 . 133 060 40 0 3 3 3 . 6 4 16 03 17 18 0 500 016 53 01 3 4 . 8 2 08 01 13 13 o . o o o 000 41 03 6 3 . 73 06 02 18 20 0 . 190 042 52 02 1 4 . 7 3 16 14 13 18 0 . 166 006 46 03 2 4 . 18 06 01 16 15 0 . 166 006 30 06 1 2 . 7 3 09 04 . 18 18 0 . 0 4 0 025 48 03 8 4 . 3 6 12 07 08 10 2 74 CONGRUENCE SCOBES THE FOLLOWING SCOBES SHOULD BE INTEBPBETED AS HAVING FIVE DECIMAL PLACES IN EACH INSTANCE. THE DECIMAL POINT HAS BEEN OMMITTED IN OBDEB TO FIT THE TABLES ON THE PAGE. , FBOM LEFT TO BIGHT, THE TABLES SHOW CONGBUENCE ON FU NCTIONAL SPECIALIZAT ION (B^/kl) , FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION (B. A.I.) , CONCENTSATION OF AUTHORITY AUTONOMY DISCRETION IN-UNIT DECISION-MAKING LEVEL: FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION 1 FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION 2 DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW 1 DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW 2 2 75 LIBRARIES 10754 87063 77650 86547 176776 26378 63 960 21160 118857 211952 42714 183371 298996 93766 87831 287749 10852 101437 190667 107102 127666 161944 48 198 3 24 18 1 4693 187487 341213 240425 201220 316872 23415 13.9054 477144 8443 13364 32177 91443 42719 80178 7635 6655 288085 194340 38134 225442 162353 8109 2 8665 45821 28284 53701 86547 55221 89603 15762 80237 131594 115143 1296 4321 66999 44398 96397 215408 138277 107955 32992 74632 201220 48713 40 0 89 4 7688 112986 83984 1158 26 149558 91443 68309 63960 120030 COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS 20718 152388 168979 178878 25149 117890 106737 91750 197873 12614 19266 148929 90771 31449 79032 10 0046 1891 80028 196592 78157 283805 166590 50313 24271 162514 233797 178973 33641 27348 154645 2246 18 17 35 166813 21787 87786 33641 120850 117272 18333 124903 106804 108 247 172328 596 94 73815 139 433 47 463 94123 335407 211167 70 837 178878 23518 107441 22608 11 1883 92324 113356 21946 74668 107726 20 382 76593 63342 117946 105316 139047 204930 27348 220452 48888 50316 60976 64959 55897 156518 76015 7819 76 182 186470 SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS 43023 84 416 38127 13856 134861 30458 13552 144204 2976 147729 52601 30942 102836 153497 1659 114113 6178 87868 82357 123913 15245 02068 4178 2 54195 4848 4 18254 19475 82109 38010 12694 177460 74284 166 189 17777 32223 120953 177460 177460 166189 167777 13694 9 136949 106383 57717 178831 129021 31688 258063 227498 122238 36909 152820 112667 30205 78510 13204 16947 224768 219740 60323 7754 163777 31980 44577 71714 7559 1 60083 43611 35857 207387 152736 247355 68041 106012 91403 4962 19571 179016 2045 323277 11238 15868 99418 757 14 11350 71196 130931 76160 117489 172705 186268 83651 56175 18533 10312 0 9662 1 86557 27980 111559 55457 NATURAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS 207158 24042 5973 1 28099 44022 189476 46853 670 56 54408 132874 68498 67795 20824 95035 199310 115644 64170 180989 46623 106218 385042 26900 20824 94408 57551 100626 8265 1259 41 , 50201 270392 85723 1725 37 67205 169130 49072 85814 112309 51064 98614 4645 85814 112309 247148 3 06580 195071 169047 121330 134957 46623 164580 111646 117486 50649 156133 50649 93975 103573 93200 328373 86620 12120 130648 83820 57429 51840 74428 31829 228370 86183 171159 86 183 106769 7049 2 303310 42448 173796 24556 16 518 121256 140758 12187 36354 93482 96773 20671 98470 103663 1 ,122740 12187 112148 99039 98862 40677 28651 5130 51466 21678 2882 8 64375 62609 276 PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE THE FOLLOWING PAGES PRESENT THE SCORES FOR EACH OF THE TWELVE ITEMS OF THE PERCEIVED ADEQUCY OF PERFORMANCE INSTRUMENT, SCOBES FROM EACH RESPONDENT ARE GIVEN. SELF-SCO RES ARE IDENTIFIED WITH AN ASTERISK. IN EACH CASE, THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENTS IS THE COLLEGE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICES HEAD OF LIBRARY HEAD OF COUNSELING DEPABTMENT HEAD OF SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPABTMENT HEAD OF NATURAL SCIENCE DEPABTMENT., THE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS ARE THOSE ASSIGNED TO EACH MEMBER OF THE SAMPLE, IN ORDER TO ENSURE ANONYMITY. . VARIABLE NUMBERS ARE GIVEN AT THE HEAD.OF THE COLUMNS, AND ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1=MEAN 1 2=»EAN 2 3=PRODUCTION 4 = QUALITY 5=EFFICIENCY 6"EFFECTIVENESS 7 = ANT.ICIPATION 8=RESPONSE TO CHANGE 9=SPEED OF ADJUSTMENT 10=PROPORTION ADJUSTING 11=CO-OPERATION 12=OVERALL ADEQUACY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5. 0 5 . 0 4 . 04.0 3. 0 4 . 04. 04. 0 5 . 0 4 . 02. 0 4 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 4 . 0 5 . 0 4 . 0 5 . 0 4 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 05. 04 . 05.05. 0 4 . 04.04.04. 04. 04. 05 . 0 4.04.04.05.03.05.04.05.04.04.05.04.0 5.05.04.04. 04.05. 04. 04.04.04. 05. 05.0 5.05.03.04.04.04.03.04.04.04.05.05.0 4.04. 03.03.04. 05.04.04.03. 04. 05. 04. 0 4.04.03.03.02.02.03.03.03.Q3.03.03.0 4.03.03. 0 3.02 . 0 3.03.05.03.04.03.03.0 3 . 03. O3.,03. 04.04.03, 04. 02. 04. 04. 03 . 0 3.03.02.02.03.03.03.03.02.02.04.03.0 4 . 04. 04. 03.04. 0 4 . 03. 04. 03.05. 05. 04.0 1.02.02.02.02.02.01.01.02.01.02.02.0 3 . 02. 0 3 . 03.03. 03.03. 03.03. 03.03. 03. 6 1.02.02.02.01.02.02.03.02.01.02.02.0 3.03.02.02 .01.03.02.01.02.02.02.0 2.0 4.04.04. 04. 0 3 . 03. 03. 04.03.05. 04. 04. 0 3 . 04 . 03 . 04 „ 02 . 0 3 . 02 . 04 . 02 . 03 .05.03.0 4.04.0 3 . 03.0 3 . 03. 04.04.03.05. 04. 04.0 2.03.04.04.02,03.03.03.03.02.04.03.0 4.03.03.03.04.04.03.04.03.04.03.04.0 3.04. 05. 04 . 0 4. 05. 05.04.04. 05. 05. 05. 0 3.03.02.02.02.03.02.02,03.02.03.03.0 2 . 02. 0 2 . 03. 02. 02. 01.02.02.01. 02. 02. 0 3.03.03.03.03.03.02.04.02.03.03.03.0 NOT SCORED BY COLLEGE PRINCIPAL 4 . 04. 04. 04.02. 0 4 . 04. 04. 03. 04.04.04.0 4.05.04 .05 . 04. 05 .04 ,05. 03 .05.0 4.04. 0 4 . 03. 03. 03. 02. 0 3.02. 03. 03. 03. 04. 03. 0 3.04.03.04.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.04.0 2.02.03.02.02.02.02.01.02.02.03. 02.0 2 . 52. 52. 52. 53.03. 03. 04.03. 04. 03. 02 . 5 4.03.03.03,02.03.03.02.02.03.04.03.0 3.03.02.03.02. 0 2. 03.04.03.03. 03. 03. 0 3.04.03.03.02.04.03.02.02.04.05.03.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 1 2 4. 04. 03. 04, 05. 0 4.03. 04. Q4. 04. 04. 04. 0 2.03.03.03.03.04.02.03.03.03.05.03.0 3.03. 03. 03. 03.0 3.03.04.03. 03. 03. 03.0 4.03.04.04.04.04.03.04.03.03.04.04.0 3.02. 02.02. 03. 03. 03. 04.02. 03.03.03. 0 4. 04.03. 0 3. 03. 0 3 .0 3.02. 03.03. 03.03 . 0 4.04.04.04.03.03.03.04.04.03.03.03.0 4. 03.0 3. 0 3. 0 3. 0 4. 03. 04. 03. 04. 04.,04. Q 3,03.03.03.02.03.03.03.02 .0 4 .03 . 03 . (0 5. 05. 05. 05. 05. 05. 04. 05. 05. 05. 05. 05.0 5.05.04.04. 0 3. 05. 04. 03. 03. 04.05. 04. Q 4.04.03.04.03.03.02.03.03.04.04.04.0 4.04.04.04.0 4.04.04.05.04.04. 04.04. 0 3.04.03.03.03.05.04.04.04.04.05.04.0 4.04.04. 04.0 4. 04.03.03.04.04.04. 04.0 COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 13 * 23 33 * 43 53 63 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 11 .12 4. 05. 04.04.03.04. 04. 04. 05. 04. 04. 04. Q 4.04.04.04.02.04.03.05.02.05.04.04.0 4.0 4.0 4.04.04.04.04.04.03.04. 04.04.0 2.02.02.02.02.02.03.03.02.03.02.02.0 3. 02. 03.03.02. 0 3. 04. 04. 03.04.02.03. 0 4. 04. 03.04. 03. 03.04. 04.04. 04. 04. 04.0 3. 03.03.03 . 04.04 .03 .04.03. 04.05. 04.0 4. 03. 03. 0 3. 03. 02.02. 04. 04. 04.03. 03.0 2.01.0 3.01.02.01.03.05.02.04.03.02.0 3. 0-2.03. 02.03. 02.03.03.02.04.02. 02.0 4. 04. 03. 03. 03. 04. 03. 04. 03. 02.04. 03.0 4.05.04.05.04.04.03.04.05.04.05.05.0 3.04. 02.04.0 4. 04. 02. 05.05. 04. 05. 04. 0 3, 02. 03. 03 . 03 . 03 . 03 . 03 . 03. 03. 03. 03. 0 3.04.03.03.03. 04.03. 04.03.03. 04.04. 0 4. 05. 04. 04.05. 05.04.04. 04.05..04..04. 0 3.03.03.03.03.03-03.04.03.04.03.03.0 4. 04. 0 3.0 4. 0 3. 03. 53.05. 03.03.04. 04. 0 4.04.03.03.03.03.03.04.03.05.03.04.0 4.04.04.03.04. 04. 03.03.03. 03. 04.04.0 4.03.0 3- 03.04.0 4.03.04.03.04.04.04.0 4 » 03.04.03.05.05.03.03.04.05.03.04.0 3.03.02.03.02.02.03.04.03.03.04.03.0 2.03.04.02.02.03.03.04.03.02.02.03.0 2. 02.0 2.02.0 3. 0 3. 02. 02.02. 02. 03. 02. 0 NOT SCORED BY COLLEGE PRINCIPAL 3.04.02.04.03.02.04.04.04.04.04.03.0 3.04. 03.04.04. 03.03.05.03. 05.04. 04.0 2.02.02.02.03.02.03.03.02.04.03.02.0 2.03.0 3.0 3.02. 03. 03. 0 4.03. 04. 03. 03 . 0 3. 02. 0 2. 02. 02. 02. 02. 02. 02. 02. 03. 02. 0 2. 52. 52. 53. 03. 04 .03. 04 .03. 03. 04. 02. 5 4.05.05. 04. 04. 0 4. 04. 05. 05.04.05.05. 0 2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.Q2.0 4.03.0 3.0 3. 0 3.0 4.03.03.03.04.03.03.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3-05. 03.03.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.03.0 4.0 3.0 3.04.03.03.03.04.03.05.03.05.04.04.0 2. 02. 03. 02.02.02.03. 03. 03. 02. 03. 02. 0 3.03.03.04.04.04.03.04.04.04.04.04.0 3.04.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.04.04.03.0 2.02. 0 3.03.03. 03.03.03.03.03.04.02.0 4.04,03.03.03.04.04,05.04.04.05.04.0 2.02. 02. 02.02. 0 3.03. 03.02.04.02. 02.0 3.04,04.03.03.03.03.05.04.04.05.04.0 5.05.04.04.03.04.03.05.05.05.05.04.0 3.03. 03. 03.02. 03.03.04.03.03. 04.04. 0 5.04.04.04.04.05.04.05.04.05.04.05.0 2.02.02. 0 2. 0 3. 03. 03. 05. 04. 04. 04.02.0 5.03.03.03.03.04.03.03.03.04.03.04.0 281 SOCIAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENTS IDENTIFICATION NO MBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 4.05.04.04.03.04.03.04.05.04.04.04.0 4.05.04. 03.03. 04. 03.05.03. 04. 03. 04. 0 3.03.03.03.04.03.02.03.03.03.02.03.0 * 4. 04. 0 4. 05. 03.0 4. 04. 04. 04.04. 05. 04. 6 5.05.04.04.04.0 3.03.03.03.04.03.05.0 24 3.04.02.03.02.02.02.02.03.02.03.02.0 4.04.0 2. 03.0 3. 03,02.03.02.03. 03.03. 0 3.02.02.03.02.02.01.02.02.02.03.02.0 * 4.03.03.03. 03. 02.02.04.03. 04. 03.03. 0 4.05.03.04.03.04.02.02.04.03.03.03.0 34 4.04.02.03.03.04.03.04.03.03.04.03.0 5.05.0 4.04.04.05.03.05.04.05.05.05.0 3. 04 . 02. 03 . 03. 04 . 02 . 03 . 03. 02.04. 04.0 * 4. 03. 0 3.04. 04. 0 3.04. 03.04.05. 04. 04.0 4.04.03.03,03.04.03.03.03.04.03.03.0 44 4.05.03.04.04.03.03.02.03,03.03.Q3.0 4. 04. p 3. 0 3.0 3. 03.03. 04. 02.04.03. 04.0 4.04.03.03.03.03.54.04.03.04.03.04.0 * 4.04. 0 3. 04. 03.04.03. 04.02. 05. 03.04 .0 3.03.04.04.04.04.03.03.03,03.04.04.0 54 4.03.03.03.04.04.03.04.03.04.04.04.D 4. 03. 04. 04. 04.05.04.04. 04.05. 04.04. 0 3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.04.03.0 * 3.03.04.0 3.03.0 3.03.04.04.03.03.03.0 2.02.03.02.03.03.02.04.03.03.03.02.0 64 NOT SCORED BI COLLEGE PRINCIPAL 4.04. 0 4.0 4. 04. 0 4. 02. 02.04. 04.02.04.0 4.04.03.04.04.03,04.05.04.05.Q5.05.0 * 3. 04.04. 04.03. 04.03.04. 03. 04.04.04. 0 3.04.03.04.03.02.03.03.03.04.03.04.0 74 4.04.03.03.04,04.03.03.03.03.03.04.0 3,03.0 3.03.03.04.03.04.03. 03.03.03.0 4.04.03.03.03.04.03.03.03.03.03.04.0 * 4. 04.03.0 4.03.0 2.02. 03.03. 03. 03. 04. 0 4.04.54.05.03.04.03,04.03.04.04.04.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4.03. 0 3. 03. 03. 0 4. 03. 04. 04. 05. 03.03. 0 4.03.0 4.0 3.04.0 3.03.03.0 4.03.05.03.03. 03.03. 0 4.04.03.03.04.04.03.04.04.04.04.04.0 4.04.03.03.04.04.03.03.04. 04. 03.04.0 5.04. 0 3.04. 04. 04.03.03. 04. 04. 04.03.0 4.03.04.04.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.04.0 4.03. 03. 03. 03. 04.03. 04. 02.03. 02. 03. 0 5.04.04.04.04.04.03.03.04.04.03.04.0 4.04.04. 0 3. 0 3. 0 3. 03. 04 . 03. 04 . 05. 04.0 5.05. 04.04. 04. 05.03.03. 04. 03. 04.04. 0 3.04.03.04.02.03.02.02.03.03.02. 03.0 4.04.03.03. 03. 0 4.03.04.04.04.03.04.0 3.04.03.04.03.03.03.04.05.04.04.04.Q 4. 04.03. 03.0 4. 04. 03.03. 03. 04. 03. 04. 0 DEPARTMENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4. 05. 04. 04. 03. 0 4. 03. 04. 05. 04. 04. 04. 0 4.05.04.03.03.04.03.05.03.04.03.04.0 3. 04. 03.04.04. 03.02. 03. 03. 03. Q2. 03.0 4.04.04.02.03.04.04.03.03.04.02.04.0 5. 05. 0 4. 04. 03. 03.02. 01. 03. 04. 03. 05. 0 2.04. 02.04.0 3.02.03.02.02.03.04.03.0 4.05.03.03.03.03.04.03.02.04.03.03.0 4.03. 0 3.03. 02.03.02.03.03. 02. 03. 03. 0 4.63.03.03.03.02.02.04.03.04.03.03.0 4.05.03.04. 05.04.02.02.05.04.05.04.0 4. 04. 0 2.03. 03. 0 4. 03. 04. 03.03. 04. 03. 0 4.04.05.05.03.04.04.04.03.05.05.04.0 4.04.03. 04.04. 04.02. 04. 03. 04. 05. 05.0 3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.0 3. 04. 0 4.03. 0 4. 03. 03.03.04. 04. 04.04 . 0 5.05.0 3. 04.0 4. 0 4.03.02.04.04.03.04.0 4.04.04.04.03.03.03.04.03.05.03.04.0 5.05.04.04.03. 04. 04.05.04. 04.03.04.0 4.04.03.04.03.04.03.04.03.05.03.04.0 5.05. 05.04.03.04. 04. 03.04.03.04. 05. 0 4. 0 3. 03. 03.04.04.03. 04. 03. 04. 04. 04. 0 5.04.04.04.04.05.04.04.04.05.04.04.0 3.03. 03.03.0 3.0 3.03.03.03.03. 03. 03. 0 3.03.03.03.03.0 3.02.0 3.03.03.03.03.0 3.04.0 3. 04.03.03.02.04.03.03. 03.04.0 NOT SCORED BY COLLEGE PRINCIPAL 4.04.04.04.04.03.02.02.04.04.03.04.0 4.04.04.04.05.03.04.05.04.05.04.05.0 5.03.04.03.03.03.02.02.04.02.02.04.0 3.04.03.04.03.02. 03-03. 03. 04. 03.04.0 4.05, 0 3. 03. 04. 04. 02. 02. 03. 03. 03. 04. 0 3.03.03.03.03.04.03.04.03.03.02.03.0 3. 03. 03. 04.02. 03.02. 02.03.03.02. 03. 0 4.04.03.04.03.02.02-03.03.03.02.04.0 4. 04. 55. 05. 03. 04. 03. 04.04. 04. 04. Q4.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2,04. 03.03.03.04.03.04-04. 05>03. 03.0 3,03,0 3,0 3.04.03.03,03.04.03^05.03.03.04.04.0 4.04.0 3.03,02.03.02.02.02-04.02.04.0 3.04. 04-04.04.04.03.03,03^04.04.04.0 5.05.04.04.04,04.04.04.04.05.05.04.0 4.03.04.04. 03.03. 03.04.03. 03. 04. 04. 0 5.04.03,03.G4.04.03.04.03.04.05.04.0 5. 04,04,04. 04,0 <*. 03. 03.04. 04.03.04. 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 04 . 0 3 . 0 4. 0 3 . 05 . 0 4 . 0 4 ,04 . 04 . 0 5.05.04.04.03.03.02.02.02.02.02.03.0 3.04. 03. 03.04.02.02.03. 03. 03. 02.03. 0 4,04,03.03.03.04.03.04.04.04,03.04.0 3.02. 03.Q2.02.02.02.03.02.04.03.02.0 5.05.04.04.04.04.03,03.04,04,04.0 4.0 2 85 APPENDIX C SIGNIFICANT CORRELATIONS THE FOLLOWING TABLES PRESENT SIGNIFICANT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE VARIABLES EXAMINED IN THE STUDY. FOR EACH VARIABLE THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE VARIABLES IS DISPLAYED ABOVE THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE. , DECIMAL POINTS HAVE BEEN OMBITTED FROM THE COEFFICIENTS IN ALL CASES. 2 86 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIABLES OF STRUCTURE IN THE FOLLOWING SERIES OF TABLES, VARIABLES ARE IDENTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: NUHBER VARIABLE 1 FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION (B2/&I) 2 FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION {B.A.I. ) 3 CONCENTRATION OF AUTHORITY 4 . AUTONOMY 5 DISCRETION 6 IN-UNIT LEVEL OF DECISION-BAKING 7 FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION (1) 8 FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION (?) 9 DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW {1) 10 DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW (2) TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 6411 3558-3676 4444 .001 .062 .055 .025 2 49 96 5993-6076 .012 .003 .002 3 -7426 1.000 -4752-3352-3526 .001 .001, .017 .074 .064 4 -7426 5328 .001 .008 6 -4752-3352-3526 ,017.074 .064 7 5447 8 9 .007 10 NON—TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 27 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 7083 .001 8 9 4525 .0 23 6222 10 .002 -5029-31281.000 .012 .090 .001 -5029-3 087 .012 .093 -3128 .090 COLLEGES TABLE 28 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 4479 .097 -5908 .036 8277 8780 7809 .002 .001 .004 -8298-7534-5412 .001 .006= .053 8154 6044 .002 .032 7686 .005 9 10 -5415 .053 -4677 .086 5123 ,065 4658 ,087 6605 ,019 7037 ,012 2 88 LIBRARIES TABLE 29 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 6544 .020 -6821 .015 10 1.000 .001 -6821 .015 7758 ,Q04 COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 ! 8135 5780 .002 .040 6595 .019 -4430 .100 6 7 5780 .040 6595 .019 1,000 .001 -4430-7999 .100 .003 8 9 5920 .036 5751 .041 10 10 SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 9927-4685 6636 -4685 5565 8355-4616 .001 .086 .018 .086 .047 .001-.090 2 -5771 8124 -5771 9041-5481 .040.002 .040 .001.050 3 -7512 1.000 -6758 .006 .001 .016 4 -7512 8169 5 .006 .002 6 -6758 .016 7 4831 .079 8 9 10 SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 -6336 .025 2 8044 5263-6223 .003 .059 .027 3 -7871 1.000 -5263 .003 .001 .059 4 -7871 4596 5 .003 .091 6 -5263 .059 7 6207-4545 .028 .093 8 9 5187 .062 290 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIABLES OF CONGRUENCE AND PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE IN THE FOLLOWING SERIES OF TABLES, VARIABLES ARE IDENTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: VARIABLES 1-10 ARE THE CONGRUENCE V ARIABLES NUMBER VARIABLE 1 CONGRUENCE ON FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION (B*/AI) 2 CONGRUENCE ON FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION (B.A.I.) 3 CONGRUENCE ON CONCENTRATION OF AUTHORITY 4 CONGRUENCE ON AUTONOMY 5 CONGRUENCE ON DISCRETION 6 CONGRUENCE ON IN-UNIT LEVEL OF DECISION—MAKING 7 CONGRUENCE ON FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION (1). 8 CONGRUENCE ON FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION (2) 9 CONGRUENCE ON DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW (1) 10 CONGRUENCE ON DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW <2) VARIABLES 11-24 ARE THE VARIABLES OF PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE 11 MEAN (1) 12 MEAN (2) 13 PRODUCTION 14 QUALITY 15 EFFICIENCY 16 EFFECTIVENESS 17 ANTICIPATION 18 RESPONSE TO CHANGE 19 SPEED OF ADJUSTMENT 20 PROPORTION ADJUSTING 21 PROBLEM SOLVING 22 CRISIS COPING 23 CO-OPERATION 24 OVERALL ADEQUACY CONGRUENCE (WITH MEAN NON-SELF SCORES) TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 33 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -4315 • 029 3 4427 .025 4 305 3 3464 3827 .095 .067 ,048 5 3495-3638 .065 .057 6 -3038 .096 7 -5827-6212-3487 -4505 -3966-4039 .004 .002= .066 .023 .042 .039 8 -4516-4641-3003 -4961. -5017 .023 .020 .099 .013 .012 9 4716 .018 10 -3058 .095 CONGRUENCE f WITH COLLEGE PRINCIPAL SCORES) TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 34 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 -3385-3987 .072 .041 4 5 7 -480 2-8020-5139-6389 -3664 .016 .001 .010 .001 .056 8 -5671-3947 -6005-3732 .005- .043 .003 .053 10-3376 .073 -5210 .009 TEACHING DEPABTMENTS TABLE 35 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3670 3721 .067 .064 3775 .061 3736 3759 .063.06 2 4289 .038 -6272-6604 .003 .001 -3419-3478 .082 .079 -3537 .075 5208 .013 -3498 .077 4236 .040 TEACHING DEPABTMENTS TABLE 36 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 -3254 .094 3778 3613 4242 061 .070 .040 -3257 .094 - 530 7-6376-7071-7715-3085 .012 .002 .001 .001 .106 -5120-4346 -4198 .015 .036 .041 10 CONGRUENCE (WITH SELF—SCORES) TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 37 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3744 .052 4424 4579 5038 .025 .021 .012 4218 3897 5704 3161 ,3144 .032 .045 .004 ,087 .088 3019 3101 3481 .098 .092 .066 -3558 3576 .062 ,061 4747 4600 4787 3926 3731 .017 .021 .016 .043 .053 -3019 -3016 .098 .09 8 10 3659 .056 .050 .068 .076 .043 ,012 TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 38 19 20 21 22 23 24 1-3229 .089 2 4552 6010 4307 .022 .003- .029 3 4 3616 3524 . 059 .064 5 4726 ,018 6 3537 .063 7 -3434 -4076 .069 .037 8 3091 3762 .092 .051 10 294 CONGRUENCE (WITH MEAN NON-SELF SCOBES) NON-TEACHING DEPABTMENTS TABLE 3 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 -4260 -4675 .031 .019 2 3034 .097 3 -3782 .050 4 -3319 -3603-3876 .076 .059 .046 5 3254 4209 4308 .08 3 .032 .029 6 -3308-3495-4731 -4902-3430 .077 .065 .018 .014 .069 7 8 9 10 NON-TEACHING DEPABTMENTS TABLE 40 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 -4068 .038 -3236 .082 3339 3804 .075 .049 > -4199-3767 -3796 .033 .051 .049 4304 6550 3017 3829 029 .001= .098 .048 10 CONGRUENCE BITH COLLEGE PRINCIPAL SCORES NON-TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 41 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 17 18 4253 .039 3 4 5 -3387 .085 -4333 .036 6 -417 8 -4203-4922 -4279-4722-3442-3251 .042 .04 V . 019 * 038 ,024 . 081 ,094 7 6212 6245 4172 6439 4530 6542 4203 .00 3 .003 . 042 ,002 . 030 .002 .04 1 8 4868 4795 5233 4884 9 .020 .022 * 013 .020 10 NON-TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 42 19 20 21 1 2 22 23 3192 .098 24 3 4 5 6 -3319-4242-4883-4420 -4395 .089 .QUO .020 .033 .034 7 4581 5709 7484 5804 3322 5256 .028 .007 .001 .006 .089 .013 8 52 38 6622 4118 ,013 .001- .045 9 10 CONGRUENCE (WITH SELF-SCORES) NON-TE&CHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 43 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3690 3690 410 5 4862 3293 4122 .055 .055 .036 .015 .078 .035 3 4 43 86 .027 5 6 -3178 .086 7 3065 .Q94 8 -3389 .072 9 10 NON-TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 44 24 3779 .050 4 5 6 7 8 9 19 20 21 22 23 1 -4118 .036 2 3345 .075 3 10 2 9 7 CGNGBOENCE (HITH MEAN NON-SELF SCOBES) LI BEARIES TABLE 45 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 -6422 ,023 7 8 9 10 LIBBABIES TABLE 46 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5128 .065 5 6 -4754 .082 7 5627 .045 8 9 10 CONGRUENCE WITH COLLEGE PRINCIPAL SCORES LIBRARIES TABLE 47 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 5858 .049 3 -7694 .008 4 -5400 5 .067 6 -4766 -7100-5702-4984 .097 .016 .054 .086 7 7899 7722 6613 5743 7873 9395 7880 .006 .007 .026 .053 .006 .001 .006 8 9 10 LIBRARIES TABLE 48 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 -5270-5112-5404 .072 .080 .067 3 4 5 6 -5809-6061-6932-6895 .050 .042 .019 .020 7 5186 9262 7570 86 08 5088 9086 .076 .001= .009 .001 .081 .001 8 4723 . 100 9 10 299 CONGRUENCE (WITH SELF-SCORES) LI BRARIES TABLE 49 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 -5394 .054 2 3 5599 .046 4 5068 .067 5 4632 4632 6629 5777 .089 .089 .018 .040 6 7 5746 5635 .041 .045 8 -5244-5244 -4549-7628-5179 .060 .060 .093 .005 .063 9 10 LIBRARIES TABLE 50 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4801 .080 4 5 4509 .095 6 -7218 .009 7 7457 .007 8 -5721-5469-6458-4801 -5338 .042 .051 .022 .080 .056 10 300 CONGRUENCE {BITH MEAN NON-SELF SCORE) COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 51 11 . 12 13 10 15 16 17 18 1 -5758-5724 -7012 -8228 .041 .042 .012 .002 2 3 5183 6919 .062 .013 4 -7339-4366 .008 .104; 5 6250 6 7 . 8 4512 . 095 9 10 .027 COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 52 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 -4445-5199-7128 -4550-5016 .099 .06 2 .010 .093 .070 2 3 4 5 4610 .090 6 7 5371 6178 .055 .029 8 9 10 301 CONGRUENCE (WITH COLLEGE PBINCIPAL SCORES) COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 53 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 -59 41-5217 -5046 .046 .075 .083 2 3 4 -8188-6847 .003 .021 5 6 7 8 5462 5272 5217 .064 .072 .075 9 10 COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 54 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 -4951 -5477 .088 .063 2 3 4 5 6 7 5979 .045 8 6455 5590 ,030 .059 9 10 302 CONGRUENCE (WITH SELF-SCORES) COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 55 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 -4757-5579 .082 .047 2 7491 4557 4975 .006 .093 .072 3 5685 .043 4 7737 7737 5764 6091 5972 .004- .004- ,041 .031 .034 5 -5701-5701-5847-6086-7967 .043 .043 .038 .031 .003 6 7 8 4824 .079 9 10 COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 56 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 4954 .073 3 4 6266 5594 4431 .026 .046 .100 5-7288 -4969 .008 ,072 6 -5271 .059 7 5000 .071 8 9 10 CONGROENCE (BITH MEAN NGN-SELF SCOBE) SOCIAL SCIENCES DEPABTMENTS TABLE 57 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 -5338 .056 2 5016 ,070 3 -5016-5440-6120 .070 .052 .030 4 5047 5587 4984 5469 .068 .047 .071 .051 5 -5644 -4538 .045 .094 6 -4771 -7161-5068 .082 .010 .067 7 -5228-5530 .061 .049 8 9 5157 -5132 5662 .064 .065 ,044 10 SOCIAL SCIENCES DEPABTMENTS TABLE 58 23 19 20 1 -4524 .095 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 22 -4677 .086 4875 .076 -70 16 .012 8 -4917 .074 24 4815 .079 4660-5690 ,087 .043 -5080 .067 -7504 .006 -7269 .009 10 3 04 CONGBUENCE (HITH COLLEGE PBINCIPAL SCOEES) DEPABTMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE TABLE 59 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 5345 5196 .069 .076 3 -5210 -5969-7100 .075 .045 .016 4 5361 .068 5 -5412 .066 6 -5880 .048 7 8 6175 5248 .038 .073 9 10 SOCIAL SCIENCES DEPABTMENTS TABLE 60 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 -7759 .007 4 6091 . 041 5 5052 7126 .083 .016 6 -6025 .043 7 -5078 -4788 .08 1 .096 8 9 10 CONGRUENCE (HITfl SELF-SCORES) SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 61 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 -5618 -4439 .046 ,099 2 4 86 9 .077 3 -5132 7977 .036 .065 .003 4 4613 4629 .090 .089 5 4633-4522 .089 .095 6 4508 -5410-7218 .096 .053 .009 7 -7256-7095-6519 -5698-4737 .009= .011 .021 .043 .083 8 -4975 .072 9 -4975 .072 10 SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 62 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 6458 5573 .022 .047 2 7707 6093 ,005 .031 3 4 4461 5477 5303 ,098 .051 .057 5 6 4655 .088 7 -6606 .019 8 6458 .022 9 -56 98 5222 .043 .061 10 -4938 -5505 .073 .050 CONGRUENCE (WITH HEAN NON-SELF SCORES) SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 63 11 12 13 14 15 16 17, 18 1 2 -4830 -5062 .079 .068 3 5978 4425 .034 .100 4 5 5897 4939 5601 .036 .073 .046 6 6963 .013 7 -4985-4862 -7047 .071 .077 .011 8 -6220-6976-6481 -7307 -7223-6550 .027 .012 .021 .008 .009 .020 9 -5093-4499 -5247-5382 .066 .096 .060 .054 10 SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 64 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 -5297 .058 2 3 4 5 4431 • 100 6 7 -4645 -5638-60 27-6236 .088 .045 .033 .027 8 -6088 -66 41-5546 5031-4800 .031 .018 .04 8 069 . 080 9 -7424 -5147 5340 .007 .064 056 10 -5989 .034 CONGRUENCE (WITH COLLEGE PRINCIPAL SCORES) SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 65 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 6710 80 46 5010 6957 .024 .004= .085 ,019 4 -5218 .075 5 4722 .100 6 5801 6957 .051 .019 7 -9121 -9000 - 5702 .001 .001 .054 8 -676 5 -7197 -5189 .023 .014 .076 9 -5462 -56 07 .064 .058 10 5217 .075 SCIENCE DEPARTSENTS TABLE 66 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 -5075 .082 3 -5218 .075 4 5 6 7 -5279-6928-9098-84 05 -6062 • 072 .019 . 00 1 . 002 .042 8 -6001-6957 -6144 * 044 .019 .039 9 -6451 -8859-5218 • 030 .001 .075 10 • 3 08 CONGRUENCE (WITH SELF-SCORES) SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 67 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 4503-4818 .096 .079 2 7064 7945 6336 7513 .011 .003 .025 .006 3 5963 5552 5796 4591 ,034 .048 .040 .091. 4 -5410-6721 .053 .017 5 -4671 .087 6 4801 5474 4522 .080 .051 .095 7 6242 .027 8 529 1 5614 5076 5148 .058 .046 .067 .064 9 10 4671 .087 SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 68 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 -6330 .025 2 4452 46 20 4536 5843 .099 .08 9 .094 .038 3 5461 .051 4 7 288 -6548 .008 .020 5 6 7 6030 4994 .032 .071 8 5461 051 9 525 2 .060 10 6963 .013 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIABLES OF STRUCTURE AND PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE IN THE FOLLOWING SERIES OF TABLES, VARIABLES ARE IDENTIFIED AS FOLLOWS 2 VARIABLES 1-10 ARE THE STRUCTURAL VARIABLES NUMBER VARIABLE 1 FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION (BV&IJ 2 FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION {B.A.I. ) 3 CONCENTRATION OF AUTHORITY 4 AUTONOMY 5 DISCRETION 6 IN-UNIT LEVEL OF DECISION-MAKING 7 FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION CD 8 FORMALIZATION OF ROLE DEFINITION (?) 9 DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW (1). 10 DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW (2) VARIABLES 11—24 ARE THE VARIABLES OF PERCEIVED ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE 11 MEAN (1) 12 MEAN (2) 13 PRODUCTION 14 QUALITY 15 EFFICIENCY 16 EFFECTIVENESS 17 ANTICIPATION 18 RESPONSE TO CHANGE 19 SPEED OF ADJUSTMENT 20 PROPORTION ADJUSTING 21 PROBLEM SOLVIRG 22 CRISIS COPING 23 CO-OPERATION 24 OVERALL ADEQUACY WITH HEAN NON-SELF SCOBES TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 69 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 -5149-4992-4767-6308-4605-3976 .010 .013 .017 .001 .021 .041 3648 .057 5 6 -5149-4992-4767-6308-4605-3976 .010 .013 .017 .001 .021 .041 7 3418 -3986 .070 .041 . 8 4401 -3031-4280 .026 .097 .030 9 4136 4117 3423 5970 .035 .036 .07 0 .003 10 4839 4065 3573 5705 .015 .038 .061 .004 TEACHING DEPABTMENTS TABLE 70 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 -4072 -3918 .037 .044 3 -3879 -5150 .046 .010 4 5 6 -3879 -5150 .046 .010 7 -3901-4797-5462 .045 .016 .006 8 -6100 -4767-5418 .002 .017 .007 9 4328 3531 3613 2954 .028 .063 .059 .103 10 3398 5737 .071 .004 3 11 WITH COLLEGE PRINCIPAL : SCO EES TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 71 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 2 6056 4443 •004 .032 3. r-5274- 5402-3399-4875-3914-6438 -3998 .012 .010 .084 .020 .054 .002 .050 4 4284 .038 5-4742-4321 -5492-5776 .023 .037 .009 .Q06 6 -5274-5402-3399-4875-3914-6438 -3998 ,012 .010 .084 .020 .054 .002 ,050 7 -3217 3627 5691 3681 -4012 .096 .070 .007 .066 .04 9 8 6877 5527 -4161 .001 .009 .043 9 3567 3721 4 778 3780 .073 .064 .022 .061 10 TEACHING DEPARTMENTS SCORES TABLE 72 20 21 22 23 1 2 -5432 .010 3 -5472 -4310 .009 .037 4 5 -4346 .036 6 -5472 -4310 .009 .037 7 -8470 -3530 -64 35 -3673 .001 .075 .002 .067 8 -6237 -50 18 .003 .017 9 4099 3990 3289 .046 .050 .091 10 -3538 .075 -4276 .03 8 NITH SELF SCORES TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 73 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 -3582 . 061 2 5812 3229 3142 3609 .004 .08 2 .089 .059 3 4 5 -4232 .031 6 7 4970 .013 8 38 36 3870 3999 .047 .046 .040 9 -5438 -3595 .007 .060 10 TEACHING DEPABTMENTS TABLE 74 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 4033 .039 3 4 4578 ,021 5 6 7 8 9 10 3225 .083 WITH MEAN NON-SELF SCORES NON-TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 75 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 -4116-4116 -4866 -5779-3477-3343 .036 .036 .015 .004 .067 ,075 2 -3542 .063 3115 3298 091 .078 -3432 ,069 8 2991 4620 4379 5242 .100 .020 .027 .009 10 NON-TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 76 20 21 22 23 24 1 -3814 -3695 .04 9 .054 2 3 4 3960 .042 5 4958 3114 3625 .013 .091 .058 6 7 8 3483 .066 9 10 WITH COLLEGE PRINCIPAL SCORES NON-TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 77 1 1 . 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 -3736 .063 2 3 3167 . 100 4 5 6518 6319 3347 5863 3334 5419 5123 3495 4182 .002 .002 ,087 .005= .088 ,010 .015 .078 .042 6 3167 .100 7 -5141 .015 8 4165 3796 .043 .060 9 10 NON-TEACHING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 78 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 5560 5946 7113 5155 5434 .008 .005 .001 .014 ,010 6 7 -3318 -3241 .089 .095 8 10 WITH SE IF-SCO SES HON-TEACHING DEPABTMENTS TABLE 79 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 5906 5906 4553 50513269 5190 4117 5458 .003 .003 .022 .012 .080 .010 .036 .006 2 3693 3693 3373 4292 2989 4463 .055 .055 .073 .029 .100 .024 3 3554 .062 4213 5126 3586 .032 .010 .060 3554 .062 4124 .035 5381 5381 4770 5042 6016 4313 4042 5954 4322 ,007 .007 .017 .012 .003 .029 .039 .003 .029 10 NON-TEACHING DEPABTMENTS TABLE 80 20 21 22 23 24 1 6547 6475 .00 1 .001 2 -3166 i668 .087 .056 3 4 -3844 4447 .047 .025 5 3141 .089 6 7 8 3491 4643 .066 .020 9 10 316 WITH MEAN NON-SELF SCORES LIBRARIES TABLE 81 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 -5399 -5772 .054 .040 3 4 5 6 -5732 .042 8 4451 4451 5001 5706 4985 .099 .099 .071 .043 .071 9 10 LIBRARIES TABLE 82 20 21 22 23 24 1 -4846 .078 2 3 4 5 6605 .019 6 7 -4721 .084 8 5521 4566 4479 .049 .092 .097 9 10 WITH COLLEGE PBINCIPAL SCORES LI B BABIES TABLE 83 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 2 3 5186 .076 4 5 7834 7027 6267 6178 6444 6324 5640 5629 .012 .017 .035 .038 .031 ,034 .057 .057 6 5186 .076 7 -5721-5575-4870 -6496-916 5-5388 .054 .Q59 .092 .029 .001..067 8 6118 6017 6815 6641 5231 6509 .040 .043 .022 .026 ,074 .029 9 10 LIBRARIES TABLE 84 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 5456 .064 3 4 5 8381 6978 6022 8021 .002 .018 .043 .005 6 7-7339-680 1-7643 -6983 .012 .022 .008 .018 8 4783 5581 .096 .059 9 10 318 HITH SELF SCO EES LIBBABIES TABLE 85 11 12 13 1 5138 5138 .064 .064 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 15 16 17 18 5110 5110 .066 .066 7301 7301 8072 8177 008 .008 .00 2 .002 4815 .079 19 5579 .047 -5784 .040 -4775 .081 5879 4956 .037 .073 LIBRARIES TABLE 86 20 21 22 23 24 1 6507 6106 .021 .030 2 3 5733 .042 4 -4651-6913 .088 .013 5 6925 4424 .013 .100 6 5733 .042 7 5023 .070 8 4700 7303 .085 .008 9 10 319 WITH HEAN NON-SELF SCORES COUNDELING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 87 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 -6005 -6829 .033 .015 2 -8440 .001 3 4 -5364 .055 5 6 7 . 6933 4717 .013 .084 8 -5235 .060 9 10 COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 88 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 -7588 .005 4 4445 5603 .099 .046 5 5425 .053 6 -7588 .005 7 8 9 10 320 WITH COLLEGE PRINCIPAL SCORES COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 89 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 -5436 -4767 .065 .097 2 -6476 -5662 .030 .056 3 4 5 5048 .083 6 7 8 9 10 COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 90 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 4789 .096 5 8018 4725 .005 .100 6 7 8 9 10 321 WITH SELF SCORES COUNSELING DEPABTMENTS TABLE 91 11 12 13 6707 6707 .017 .017 7859 7859 .004 .004 14 6424 .023 . 5464 ,051 , 15 16 17 18 19 5681 043 , 6517 021 , 5346 056 , 4648 088 . 7 460 007 , 6539 4653 4880 088 .070 4 993 7898 020 .071 .003 5222 .061 5 6 7 8 7541 7541 .006- .006 5883 ,037 5460 .051 6078 031 5222 061 6451 6140 5828 7418 8648 5055 .022 .029 .039 .007 .001 .068 10 COUNSELING DEPARTMENTS TABLE 92 20 21 22 23 24 1 5973 6902 .034 .014 2 6092 . 100 4368 8116 , 103 .002 6 7 -5527 .049 8 4722 7336 .084 .008 9 10 5798 039 322 WITH MEAN NON-SELF SCORES SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPABTMENTS TABLE 93 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 4530 -094 2 5764 -4858 -041 -077 3 -5228-4756-4425-5307 -7281 .061 -082 -100 .057 .008 4 5 -4513 .095 6 -5228-4756-4425-5307 -7281 . .061 .082 .100 ,057 .008 7 -5382-5399 -4955 .054 .054 .073 8 6059 -5325 .032 .057 9 5455 7454 .051 .007 10 SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPABTMENTS TABLE 94 20 21 22 23 24 1 -8005 . 003 2 -8404 .001 3 -5802 .039 4 -7094 .011 5 6 -5802 .03 9 7 -6615-7205 -8104 .019 .009- .002 8 -9072 -5251 .001 .060 9 10 WITH COLLEGE PBINCIPAL SCORES SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPABTMENTS TABLE 95 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 49 35 5444 6674 .089 .065 .025 2 5758 5692 ,052 .055 3 -560 1-59 49 -5653 .058 .046 .056 4 -5052 .08 3 5 -5696 -7234 .055 .014 6 -5601-5949 -5653 .05 8 .046 .056 7 6334 .034 8 6113 .040 9 6191 .038 10-5043-5044 .083 .083 SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPABTMENTS TABLE 96 20 21 22 23 24 1 -7209 .014 2 -7905 -5148 .006 .078 3 -6 088 .041 4 -5587 -6496 -4763 .059 .029 ,097 5 -5452 .064 6 -6088 .041 7 - 8 130 -8360 .004 .002 8 -7591 -6 348 .009 .033 9 4717 5431 .100 .065 BITH SELF SCORES SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 97 11 12 13 ia 15 16 17 18 19 1 2 3 -5809 .039 4 5 -5166 .063 6 -5809 .039 7 -6096 -4515 .031 .095 8 9 10 SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 98 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 5145 .06 4 6 7 8 9 -5751 .4962 .041 .072 10-6172-4993 5303 .029 .071 .057 WITH HEAN NON-SELF SCORES SCIENCE DEPABTMENTS TABLE 9 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 7155 .0 10 1 2 3 -4679- 4551-4828 • 086 . 093 . 079 4 5 6 -4679-4551-•482 8-• 086 . 093 . 079 7 8 9 7531 7875 4459 • 006 . 003 . 098 10 6 328 4812 4842 • 025 . 080 . 078 5813 .039 -4455 .098 -5466 .051 -44 55 .098 5737 6082 4844 5055 5629 .041 .031 .078 .068 .045 5266 7241 5000 .059 .009- .071 SCIENCE DEPABTMENTS TABLE 100 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 -5728 .042 3 -5001 -496 9 .071 .072 4 5 6 -5001 -4969 .071 .072 7 8 -539 2-6375 .054 .024 9 6884 5615 4765 5000 7913 .014 .046 .082 .071 .003 10 6814 7477 .015 .006 HITH COLLEGE PRINCIPAL SCORES SCIENCE DEPABTMENTS TABLE 101 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 -5240 7134 .074 .015 2 5074 -5775 .082 .052 3^5504-5356 -5801-5099-7827 -520 1 .062.069 .051-080.006 .076 4 7236 58 26 .014 .050 5 -5108-4873 -7 259 .080 .092 .013 6-5504-5356 -5801^5099-7827 -520 1 .062 .069 .051 .080 .006 .076 7 5142 6091 .078 .Q41 8 6852 .021 9 5190 5714 4833 6981 .076 ,054 ,094 .018 10 4830 5710 5308 .094 .054 .071 SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 102 20 21 22 23 24 1 6987 4803 .018 .095 2 -6987 -5901 4803 .018 .047 .095 3 -5743-4960 .053 .087 4 4955 .088 5 -5600-4756 .058 .098 6 -5743-4960 .053 .087 7 -8847 -4868 .001 .092 8 -5308 .071 9 5677 6204 5991 .055 .037 .044 10 5001 6193 .085 .038 WITH SELF SCORES SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 103 11 12 13 14 15 1 16 17 18 19 2 6626 6400 7171 6977 5825 5438 .018 .023 .010 .012 .039 .050 3 -5136 .064 4 5 -5161 .063 6 -5136 .064 7 8727 8661 6999 6518 5898 .001 .001 .012 .021 .036 8 4861 5652 7433 7076 6325 .077 .044 .007 .011 .025 9 -5929 .035 10 -5987 .034 5024 .069 6535 .0 20 -4824 . 079 SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS TABLE 104 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 -4816 4816 .079 .079 3 -5254 .059 4 4642 .088 5 6 -5254 .059 7 7372 5193 .007 .062 8 9 10 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055716/manifest

Comment