UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Productivity of university educators Brown, Daniel John 1968

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A8 B76.pdf [ 6.29MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102400.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102400-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102400-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102400-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102400-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102400-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102400-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102400-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102400.ris

Full Text

THE: PRODUCTIVITY: OF UNIVERSITY-' EDUCATORS' by DANIEL JOHN: BROWN4 B.Sc-., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963 A"' THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION? i n the-Department of EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION^ We accept this, t h e s i s as conforming tb the r e t i r e d standard' THE UNIVERSITY" OF BRITISH! COLUMBIA August, 1968 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 it 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 h.ils representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of Brit ish Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada i ABSTRACT This; survey investigates; some, of the s o c i a l determinants of e d u c a t i o n a l ' p r o d u c t i v i t y . A." theory w i t h i t s b a s i s i n the s o c i o l o g y of small groups fs: presented i n an attempt" to ex-p l a i n how leader behavior and c o l l e a g u e a l r e l a t i o n s i n a u n i v e r s i t y department might a f f e c t the p r o d u c t i v i t y of pro-f e s s o r s . A sample of. u n i v e r s i t y s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s was s e l e c t e d and v a r i a t i o n s of Halpin's LBDQ; and OCDQ" along w i t h a q u a n t i t a t i v e assessment of. ' p r o d u c t i v i t y were administered! by i n t e r v i e w . The data were; subjected to r e g r e s s i o n analy-s i s and 39% of" the p r o d u c t i v i t y v a r i a n c e was found accountable to the p r e d i c t o r s . The v a r i a b l e s of aloofness? (a leader's bureaucratic b e h a v i o r ) , c o n s i d e r a t i o n (the l e a d e r ' s tendency to t r e a t h i s s t a f f ''humanly"), t h r u s t (the leader's tendency to s e t an example), hindrance (group f e e l i n g t h a t they are 1 required to do "'busywork"'), intimacy (the s o c i a l dimension),; and produc-t i o n emphasis (the leader's; behavior which i s focused on p r o d u c t i o n ) , the number of student a s s i s t a n t s , and the o r i e n t -a t i o n towards teaching emerged asi s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r ' s of p r o d u c t i v i t y . Other p r e d i c t o r s , such as research o r i e n t a t i o n , t r a v e l fund a v a i l a b i l i t y , degree, degree date, rank, approx-imate age, morale, s t i m u l a t i o n , i n i t i a t i n g structure, and p u b l i c a t i o n emphasis were not s i g n i f i c a n t but i n the p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n . F i v e e x p l o r a t o r y analyses were conducted. The r e s u l t s accounted f o r l e s s p r o d u c t i v i t y variance "but tended to sup-port the aboye f i n d i n g s . i i i TABLE. OF." CONTENTS. . • ; • PAGE Chapter; I Introduction 1 Chapter: II Theory ' 5 Conditions 6 A'xioms 9 Explanations, and Hypotheses; 15 Corollaries 21 Covariates 22 Chapter III Methodology 25 Population 25 Sample 26 Survey Procedure 30 Interview Procedure 33 The Agreement Index 3*+. Interview Schedule 39 The Minisurvey hO. A Methodological Note 1+2 Preparation of the Data "for Regression U-6 Exploratory Analysis Discussion 51 Explanation of Regression Analysis 53 Chapter IV Data Analysis Results; 56 Chapter V Discussion of Results 62 Chapter VI Conclusions 67 Summary o f Results 67 PAGE Commentary- . 6 8 Further Research 70 The Educational Aaminis?tratbr 72 Bibliography lh Appendix* 78; University Department Questionnaire 78 Department Member Interview 82 Mlnisurvey Productivity Index 88-Discussion of Explorartory Analysis Results 93 V LIST OF" TABLES TABLE' TITLE PAGE 1 Sampling D i s t r i b u t i o n by University Department 28 2 Analysis' Results from Multiple Regression 56 3 Analysis Results from Stepwise Regression 58 h Analysis' Results from Simple Regression 60 5 Response Distributions f o r Agreement Index .81 6 Selected Response Distributions f o r Department Member Interview . 8 5 7 Correlation Matrix f o r A l l Variables 86 8 Results- of Minisurvey::. Academics: and Teachers; Combined 90 9 Results- of Minisurvey: Academics; 91 10 Res>ults of Minisurvey r Teachers: 92 11 Exploratory Analysis Results:- Multiple Regression from Group Consensus and Academic Weightings 95 12" Exploratory Analysis Results: Stepwise Regression from Group consensus and Academic Weightings 95 13 Exploratory Analysis Results:- Simple Regression from Group Consensus and Academic Weightings 96 1*+ Exploratory Analysis Results: Multiple Regression from Group Consensus" and Teacher Weightings' 96 v i TITLE . PAGE Exploratory Analysis' Results: Stepwise". Regression from Group Consensus" and Teacher Weightings 97 Exploratory Analysis Results:- Simple Regression from Group Consensus; and Teacher Weightings 98 • Exploratory Analysis Results:* Multiple. Regression from Individual Response and Combined A'cademic: and Teacher Weightings^ 98 Exploratory Analysis. Results:" Stepwise Regression from Individual Response and Combined Academic and Teacher Weightings" 99 . Exploratory Analysis Results:- Simple Regression from Individual Response and Combined A'cademic and Teacher Weightings 99 Exploratory Analysis Results: Multiple Regression from Individual Response and Academic Weightings 100 Exploratory Analysis Results: Stepwise Regression from Individual Response and Academic Weightings 100 Exploratory Analysis R e s u l t s : Simple Regression from Individual Response and Academic Weightings 101 Exploratory Analysis Results: Multiple Regression from Individual Response and Teacher Weightings 101 TITLE PAGE Exploratory Analysis Results: Stepwise Regression from Individual Response and Teacher Weightings 102 Exploratory Analysis Results:- Simple Regression from.Individual Response and Teacher Weightings 103 v i i i ACEN0WLEDGEIvO!NTS Hy most sincere thanks are due to those who were i n s t r u -mental i n bringing t h i s study to f r u i t i o n * These include the members of my thesis committee, Dr. Lawrence W. Downey, as chairman, Dr. Harold J . Dycfc, and Dr. Braxton M. A l f r e d . Dr. Downey provided the I n i t i a l impetus f o r the study$ the aid that made the study possible, and Invaluable guidance as the survey progressed. Dr. Dycfc provided considerable guidance and encouragement throughout the l a t t e r stages of this work. Dr. A l f r e d served as a frequent advisor on r e -search methods and also, played a most supportive r o l e . Additional acknowledgements are due to Harold L e i b e l and Brian Cudworth, fellow students i n educational, administra-t i o n , who adapted the Halpin instruments to a un i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g . F i n a l l y , many thanks are due to. my wife, Mamie, a constant source of encouragement and aid throughout the many endeavours associated with t h i s t h e s i s . CHARTER I INTRODUCTION The study of organizational sociology presents many questions regarding the interactions of individuals i n a modern bureaucracy... One who proposes to investigate t h i s area 1 of human a f f a i r s must have a strong b e l i e f i n the potency of the s o c i a l determinants; of human behavior as) compared with determinants which are physical, b i o l o g i c a l , or psychological. This study proposesrto investigate, i n both a t h e o r e t i c a l and a p r a c t i c a l vein, some of the be-haviors of professionals: i n u n i v e r s i t y organizations. The; key concept i n t h i s survey i s t h a t of educational productiv-i t y as applied to u n i v e r s i t y professors;.. Their productivity may be considered to be th e i r professional contributions-such as'their writings and research, and t h e i r organization-a l contributions .such as the i r teaching and administrative endeavours., The central questions of this i n v e s t i g a t i o n are these:-, do some of the variables which operate i n an organization, f o r instance, those :^relating tor leadership: behaviors and group work relations,.have an: influence on educational productivity? From the p r a c t i c a l .and p r e s c r i p -t i v e point of view of: the study of educational administra-t i o n , what can a department head do to f a c i l i t a t e greater 2 productivity on the part of his subordinates? Other ques-tions immediately arise.. Is the large degree of individ-ual autonomy and the looseness of the university department-al structure sufficient to minimize any effect of leadership-and work relations variables minimal when compared to factors such as economic considerations or a person's own orient-ation? This thesis is; an attempt to begin to answer some of: these intricate problems relating to educational productiv-ity. The question of the social determinants of group pro-ductivity is implicit in most of the writings on administra-tion. Since the advent of trie'"Human Relations School" great stress has been placed upon the importance of the sociological factors which are believed to profoundly influence human productivity. This present study attempts to investigate one small aspect of this problem— the results of the efforts of a university group. Groups of researchers are normally to be found at universities, research institutes, and in the laboratories of governments and commercial enter-prises. As, these groups fit into their respective organ-izational structures, they are administered by a leader who serves to coordinate and direct group efforts. This particular group situation is characterized by a strongly professional attitude of its membership. The members consider themselves to be autonomous in that they as individuals exercise considerable discretion over their work. They tend to be status-striving such that they endeavour to achieve^  3 p r o f e s s i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n and promotion through t h e i r work. A l s o , these personnel tend to be w o r k - o r i e n t e d — t h e y are h i g h l y dedicated to t h e i r research and i t s r e l a t e d s c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t i e s : . One may ask questions on the problem of e d u c a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y from e i t h e r of two major points of view. E i t h e r one can take a t h e o r e t i c a l stance and ask,"what -factors i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g a f f e c t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p r o d u c t i v i t y ? " or one can ask,"what can an a d m i n i s t r a t o r do to f o s t e r p r o d u c t i v i t y i n the personnel subordinate to him?" The f i r s t aspect i s concerned w i t h theory b u i l d i n g and asks f o r explan-a t i o n s . The second i s ; concerned w i t h p r e d i c t i o n and the p r a c t i c a l problems of 'running' an educational o r g a n i z a t i o n . The f i r s t i s concerned w i t h the q u a l i t y of e x p l a n a t i o n w h i l e the second i s concerned w i t h the s e l e c t i o n of f a c t o r s f o r p r e d i c t i o n . This study adopts the j o i n t goals of both the above approaches to research. In a s e c t i o n devoted to theory c o n s t r u c t i o n , i t w i l l s t a t e (as e x p l i c i t l y as p o s s i b l e ) , the r a t i o n a l e used to d e r i v e the hypotheses which are l a t e r t e s t e d . I n a s e c t i o n on methodology, i t w i l l d iscuss the methodological steps and problems which are of i n t e r e s t to both t h e o r e t i c a l and p r e d i c t i v e research. The s e c t i o n devoted to a n a l y s i s w i l l d i s c u s s the r e s u l t s as found i n r e l a t i o n to the theory. The f i n a l s e c t i o n w i l l then summarize the planned r e s u l t s , some e x p l o r a t o r y r e s u l t s , and w i l l o f f e r a commentary on the t h e o r e t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of the study, possible future research, and some ramifications f o r the educational administrator. 5 CHAPTER II  THEORY The theory i n this thesis has been given the format of an axiomatic theory s i m i l a r to that proposed by Zetterberg ( 1 9 6 5 a ) . This mode of .explanation was chosen because Its assumptions are made e x p l i c i t l y , i t requires a d e f i n i t i o n f o r each concept used, and i t s l o g i c i s c l e a r l y expressed; i n short, i t attempts to be rigorous, i t i s seen that the . function of a theory i s t6 provide a basis:; f o r the genera-ti o n of hypotheses may then be tested empirically to give-evidence f o r or cast doubt upon the explanations from which they were deduced. The theory developed below concerns i t s e l f with the. explanation as: to why cer t a i n predictors ((the leadership s t y l e and work r e l a t i o n variables) might a f f e c t productivity* The antecedent conditions stated l i m i t the scope of the theory to groups which are very similar to research groups. The axioms (or assumptions), which are given are statements which are frequently u t i l i z e d i n the explanations which follow. The explanations themselves are a c t u a l l y theories i n miniature.— they begin with a predictor and lead through a chain of cause and e f f e c t u n t i l they ar r i v e at productivity. Assuming that the l o g i c i s sound, the axioms; and antecedent conditions are 6 correct, and that t r a n s i t i v i t y holds, from each of the explanations offered may be deduced a hypothesis r e l a t i n g the predictor to the dependent variable of productivity. The following are. seven antecedent conditions which es t a b l i s h the boundaries of a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the theories; to be presented. I t i s understood that ther theories are not intended to apply to group; situations under which the seven conditions are not met. CONDITIONS' Condition CI The following axioms apply to a small group. Definition:;- a% small group; i s , defined as; a small aggregate of people between the members of three and twenty, who i n t e r a c t with face-to-face contact. Condition C2 The assumptions apply to the members of a small group* Definition :; group members are-::persons, the elements: of ax groupv Condition C3 The group i s task-oriented. Definition:-" a task-oriented group i s defined as a group whose primary reason f o r existence i s the accomplishment of tasks. Condition Ck-The group- has a formal leader.. Definition;.': ar formal leader i s a group leader who is; appointed and has the formal recognition as being the group-, leader. Condition C5 Av norm which prescribes i n d i v i d u a l autonomy i s present. Definition:•autonomy i s defined as a set of beliefs; which i n f e r that an i n d i v i d u a l should r e t a i n a large measure of control over the d i r e c t i o n , i n t e n s i t y , content, and time of his. work,. The presence of: this, norm has been well documented as a? r e s u l t of surveys of many research and professional organ-i z a t i o n s . Scott ( 1 9 6 5 ) reports; that i n a s o c i a l welfare agency investigated, those who were prof e s s i o n a l l y i n c l i n e d were more demanding of autonomy.. Hagstrom ( 1 9 6 l + ) , i n a discussion of s c i e n t i f i c teamwork, indicates that the autonomy norm is. very strong—one response from an interview was-: " T e l l i n g someone what to do i s taboo." Investigating the s c i e n t i s t - s u p e r v i s o r relationship;^ Glaser ( 1 9 6 3 ) states: "Recognized competence i n research of both parties? is; shown to be a source of mutual a t t r a c t i o n , r e c i p r o c i t y In work and maintenance of autonomy". This comment emanated from the empirical study of a large government research organization. Kornhauser and Hagstrom ( 1 9 6 2 ) c l e a r l y indicate that the results of many previous: studies show that s c i e n t i s t s place a high value on freedom of research. A. survey of u n i v e r s i t y s c i e n t i s t s by West: (I960) suggests that they w i l l tolerate only minimal r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e i r freedom. Baumgartel ( 1 9 5 7 ) , on 8 investigating the. leadership; styles, of research adminis-tr a t o r s , found that j o i n t decision making with the subordin-ates contributed to greater motivation and more positive attitudes toward the organization. In an e a r l i e r study of a naval research laboratory, Shepherd and Brown (1956) also found the s c i e n t i s t s l : stress, f o r independence. Felz (195-6), i n his i n i t i a l studies on performance on research organiza-tions, indicates.-that productivity was higher when autonomy of action was granted. Condition C6-Ar norm, which endorses, s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g behavior i s pres-ent. D e f i n i t i o n : s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g i s the behavior on the part of individuals to attempt to gain upward mobility by promotion or through recognition by t h e i r contemporaries within t h e i r profession. Status-striving became apparent when a number of research organizations were studied. P.elz and Andrews (1966), from a survey of 1,311 s c i e n t i s t s i n eleven d i f f e r e n t laboratories, found that both s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g f o r organizational promotion and s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g for professional recognition were both present. Marcson ( i960) , using a case study approach, found that involvement, s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n , and status recognition (from the group as well as from the profession) are what he c a l l s the "professional needs of the s c i e n t i s t " . The study of a u n i v e r s i t y s o c i a l research group by Bennis (1956) under-l i n e s the norm of s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g as being a potent moti-vator f o r research,, Condition C7 A: norm which stresses devotion to work i s present. D e f i n i t i o n s devotion to work is. behavior on the part of individuals which i s characterized by intense i n t e r e s t , concentration, e f f o r t and time directed towards t h e i r work. Pelz and Andrews (I966), i n the i r major study, indicate that scie n t i s t s ^ are involved with t h e i r work, university-s c i e n t i s t s being more involved than those i n government i n s t i t u t i o n s . Shepherd and Brown (1956), found that there was a high emphasis on science i n the research laboratory which was studied. Bennis (1956), i n his study on research groups, states that t h i s same strong work norm operates. The conditions which describe a u n i v e r s i t y research department have now been stated and an attempt has been made to substantiate them.. The following are four axioms which w i l l be used frequently i n the explanations or theories. The approach used here i s an application of the sociology of small groups. AXIOMS Axiom A l The greater the power of a norm, the greater the con-formity of behavior of group members to that norm, and, the less the power of a'norm, the less the conformity of behavior of group members to that norm. D e f i n i t i o n r a norm i s a rule for member behavior which i s shared by the group and which arises: from a person's values; and the circumstancesvof behavior.. Definition;" the power of a norm i s defined as the extent to which a group w i l l tend to impose•sanctions upon a member who violates, or conforms to the. norm. De f i n i t i o n ; conformity i s any action or l i m i t a t i o n of action i n accordance with a given rule., (The opposite of conformity i s violation)."* With reference to the power of a norm, greater power-means greater severity of.punishments i n the form of ostracism, f o r instance, as a r e s u l t of normative v i o l a t i o n , or, greater reward or reinforcement f o r a high l e v e l of conforming behavior. For example, a group may bring pressure to bear: on an i n d i v i d u a l who exceeds the agreed rate-of group productivity.. This may be done by simply re g i s t e r i n g d i s -approval, by i n t e r f e r i n g with the deviate !s work, by threating the wayward member, or by any of a number of other means. On the other hand, should a member be perceived as being extreme-ly- h e l p f u l " i n the work situation,, he tends: to be rewarded with return favours, group friendship, ensured status as a group member, and/or other pos i t i v e reinforcements f o r his; action. However, i t i s seen that the extent to which .he i s sanctioned (either p o s i t i v e l y or negatively) w i l l depend on the r e l a t i v e strength and importance of the norm i n question as perceived by his fellow group members, as well as the extent to which he conforms to deviates from the norm. & positi v e example of the foregoing would be a group member. who i s p o l i t e to his fellows when a "politeness norm" holds.. He w i l l be rewarded (though mildly) with politeness i n return. Should he save- the group from d i s s o l u t i o n by out-side influence under circumstances where a l l members are agreed that the safety or intactriess of the group i s a prir-mary concern, then group members w i l l tend to reward his action highly. A" negative example might be the v i o l a t i o n of a "promptness; norm". Members may express t h e i r disapproval or begin a c t i v i t i e s without the deviate, but he receives no major punishment. Should he v i o l a t e an "incest norm"r or be g u i l t y of grossly non-professional behavior, about which there are strong f e e l i n g s , then he may be excluded from the. group o r ~ i n the most extreme cases, the group- may terminate his l i f e . I t i s suggested , then, that the stronger these sanctions, the more l i k e l y i n d i v i d u a l members w i l l conform to them. In the case of the research group, where members have emerged from a -lengthly t r a i n i n g and s e l e c t i o n process, and where membership i n the group i s valued, that group mem-ber behavior w i l l conform l a r g e l y to the powerful norms, and, with respect to the lesser norms, much greater deviance w i l l be tolerated. In other words, a very weak norm of physical f i t n e s s would e l i c i t very l i t t l e conforming behavior and v i r t u a l l y no negative sanctions i n i t s v i o l a t i o n . Axiom A2 The greater the number or i n t e n s i t y of vio l a t i o n s of norms on the part of a person, the less the group-directed communication to him over time. D e f i n i t i o n : communication i s defined as the exchange of information and the transmission of meaning., Definition:- group-directed communication i s that communica-t i o n which is - i n i t i a t e d by any member of a group and i s directed towards: a given i n d i v i d u a l . This* axiom concerns i t s e l f with one type of negative s a n c t i o n — t h a t of communication reduction to the deviate. I t i s acknowledged that other forms of negative sanction may well take place, but i n the context of a professional re-search group i t i s suggested that i n the case of the possible other sanctions there ex i s t norms which would prohibit theiir use. An experiment by Schacter: (1951)". showed that group-members who disagreed with a deviate's opinion tended to stop communicating to him towards the end of the discussion, demonstrating that they were redefining the psychological group and excluding the deviate, who was v i o l a t i n g a pre-defined consensus norm. Evidence f o r the above assertion may be also taken from the results of a study by Festinger and Thibaut (1951), wherein the communication towards the holders of extreme opinions diminished as- time progressed. Once again, the psychological group was redefined to the exclusion of the deviate. Axiom A3 The greater the number and duration of communications, the greater the stimulation, and, the less the number and duration of communications, the less the stimulation* D e f i n i t i o n : stimulation i s the rate of reception of: ideas 13 of common i n t e r e s t , assistance, and encouragements of one person from another. This axiom presupposes very strongly that the group i s a research group and that the conditions stated above are applicable. Support for t h i s assumption may be taken from Pelz and Andrews (1966) who state that communication within research laboratories greatly promoted the stimulation of s c i e n t i s t s to produce, Marcson (i960): suggests that one of the needs of a s c i e n t i s t s i n involvement with others i n order to produce the stimulation needed. Bush and Hatlery (1956), i n discussing studies on s c i e n t i f i c research, highly recommend teamwork and communication as a means of stimulating s c i e n t i s t s . In an empirical study on medical researchers, Pelz. (1956) states: "Results indicate that s c i e n t i s t s tend to perform more acceptably when they are c l o s e l y associated with colleagues; having a v a r i e t y of values.;, experiences, and; d i s c i p l i n e s , and when supervisors provide frequent stimulation combined with autonomy of action." Frequent; contact between s c i e n t i s t s i s seen as a source of stimulation. I t seems reasonable to suggest that a s c i e n -t i s t working l a r g e l y alone would tend to communicate; l e s s with his- fellows and thus the i n f l u x of new ideas and- encour-agements; to him would be reduced., Axiom A l f The greater the stimulation,-, the greater the productiv-i t y , and, the less the stimulation, the less the productivity. Definition:' a^  person"s productivity i s defined as h i s number-of work units produced per u n i t of time7. D e f i n i t i o n t . group, productivity i s the sum of i n d i v i d u a l productivities:.. The a r t i c l e s quoted i n support of axiom A3 are l a r g e l y applicable to this assumption as, well.- Pelz and Andrews (1966$ explain that colleagues enhance performance by stimulation through contact. Crane (1965)", i n a study of u n i v e r s i t y s i z e and scholarly productivity, suggests that -both greater productivity and greater recognition of students from major u n i v e r s i t i e s , resulted from the contacts- that these students had with eminent s c i e n t i s t s i n t h e i r respective f i e l d s — c o n t a c t s , that i s , f o r both stimulation and future job opportunities^ Pelz (1956).., i n the above quotation, makes the point about frequent stimulation leading to more acceptable performance. Considering the" evidence presented here, i t seems reasonable to suggest that an i n d i v i d u a l who i s not stimulated f o r any reason, be i t lack,,of communication, an unwillingness to discuss his work with colleagues, or a lack of adequate; self-expression, f o r example, w i l l tend to have hi s research productivity limited to written materials; and his - own resources;. The' four axioms which are applicable to this study have-now been stated, and an attempt has been made to substantiate them. The theories or explanations are now discussed. Each of the ten explanations begins with a^  predictor variable and ends with the dependent variable of productivity.- The hypotheses generated by the explanations consist simply of each predictor variable with i t s i n d i v i d u a l e f f e c t on 15 productivity, EXPLANATIONS AND HYPOTHESES' Explanation E l The greater the i n i t i a t i n g structure on the part of a leader, the greater the group- productivity,. Definition:- i n i t i a t i n g structure, as defined by Halpiri , (1966"), refers to "the. leader"s behavior i n delineating the relationship: between himself and members of the work-group, and i n endeavoring to establish well-defined patterns o f organization, channels, of communication, and methods of procedure". In a group i n which a devotion-to-work p r e s c r i p t i o n (condition C 7 X i s , present, this type of leader behavior w i l l serve: to expedite the work of subordinates,. As a r e s u l t o f this behavior, the leader tends: to reinforce the group work norm. Ass this norm i s strengthened, so w i l l productivity increase, by axiom A l , wherein group members? conform to strong norms. Explanation E2F: The greater a leader"s consideration, the greater the groups pr o d u c t i v i t y . Definition:' Halpin (1966) defines consideration as: "behavior i n d i c a t i v e of friendship, mutual trus t , respect, and. warmth i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the leader and the members of his staff.." f Consideration, as defined, implies that the group w i l l have f r i e n d l y s o c i a l relations with i t s leader. This kind of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n i n turn implies, that there w i l l be.a higher l e v e l of communication between leader and group. Greater communication results i n greater, stimulation of group members-by axiom Ag and conditions C'6 and C7 (the s t a t u s -s t r i v i n g and work norms)... By the same conditions and axiom Alk, the greater stimulation results i n greater group; pro-d u c t i v i t y . Hereafter, this consideration w i l l be c a l l e d consideration I I . Explanation E3 The, greater the group; disengagement, the- l e s s the pro-d u c t i v i t y . Definition:: disengagement i s defined by Halpin (I966) as "the teachers' tendency to be "hot with .it"» This dimension describes a group which i s "going through the motions," a group- that i s "not i n gear." with respect to the task at hand* I t corresponds to the more general concept of anomie as f i r s t r described by Durkheim. In short, this subtest focuses; upon the teachers" behavior i n a task-oriented situation."' A: discussion i n v o l v i n g disengagement and i t s e f f e c t on research group productivity presumes a s i t u a t i o n out of con-text' from that assumed by the s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g and work pre-s c r i p t i o n s . Should the group be disengaged, and should these norms not be operating, then t h e i r lack of strength .implies a reduction i n productivity by axiom A l * The group; which i s disengaged does not come under the rubric of a research group;' as proposed by this thesis:. 17 Explanation Eh The greater the group hindrance, the less the group"s productivity. Definition?- Halpin ( I 9 6 6 ) defines hindrance as; "the teachers' f e e l i n g that the p r i n c i p a l burdens them with routine duties, committee demands, and other requirements which the teachers construe as unnecessary "busywork".. The teachers perceive that the p r i n c i p a l i s hindering rather than f a c i l i t a t i n g t h e i r work."" If group members f e e l that t h e i r leader i s burdening them with petty duties and i s hindering t h e i r work, they w i l l perceive the leader to be v i o l a t i n g both the autonomy and work norms (conditions C'5 and C7).. T h i s v i o l a t i n g of norms results i n reduced group-to-leader communication, by axiom A2. The reduction i n group-to—leader communication effects less stimulation on the part of group members by axiom A3 and the conditions of s t a t u s e s t r i v i n g and work-orientation (condition C6 and C7). With these same conditions and axiom Bk, the reduction i n stimulation results, i n a reduction i n produc-t i v i t y . Explanation E5 The greater the group: intimacy, the greater the group prod u c t i v i t y . Definition::: intimacy is: defined by Halpin (1966) as "the teachers 1' enjoyment of f r i e n d l y s o c i a l relations with each other."' Intimacy, as defined, i s the extent of f r i e n d l y group 18 s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s and the greater the group intimacy, the greater, the amount of intra^-group- communication. The greater t h i s communication, the greater i s the stimulation of group members by axiom A3 and with the antecedent con-d i t i o n s of' s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g and work, CT6 and C7... This great-er stimulation results i n greater-productivity by axiom A% under the same two conditions:.. Explanation E6 The greater the leader's; aloofness, the: less the group:; productivity., Definition:- Halpin*s (1966) d e f i n i t i o n of aloofness i s as follows::- "Aloofness r e f e r s to behavior by the p r i n c i p a l which is: characterized as formal and impersonal:. He "goes by the book" and prefers to be guided by rules and p o l i c i e s rather than to deal with the teachers i n an informal, face-to-face s i t u a t i o n . H i s behavior, i n . b r i e f , i s u n i v e r s a l i s t i c rather than p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c ; nomothetic rather than i d i o s y n c r a t i c . To maintain this s t y l e , he keeps h i m s e l f — a t l e a s t , "emotion-a l l y " — at a distance from his staff."' The more a-leader i s aloof i n the above sense, the more he tends to v i o l a t e the autonomy norm (C5) i n that he is; im-personal and nomothetic. T h i s normative v i o l a t i o n then results i n - l e s s group-to-leader communication by axiom A2. Keeping the antecedent conditions of s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g and work (C6 and C7I i n mind, this: reduction i n group—to-leader com-munication determines less group member stimulation and f i n -a l l y , by axiom &h, the stimulation decrease results-: i n a 19 reduction of group productivity. Explanation E7 The greater the leader's production emphasis, the l e s s the productivity of the group* D e f i n i t i o n : production emphasis, as: defined by Halpin (1966) i s "behavior by the p r i n c i p a l which i s characterized by close supervision of the s t a f f . He i s highly d i r e c t i v e and plays; the role of a 'straw boss". His communication tends to go i n only one d i r e c t i o n , and he i s ; not sensitive to feedback from the s t a f f . " 1 The production emphasis, behavior with i t s close super-v i s i o n and high d i r e c t i o n tends: to v i o l a t e the autonomy norm (C5) of'the research groupv The greater the. v i o l a t i o n of this norm, the less the group-directed communication to the leader tends; to be by axiom A2>* This reduction i n group-directed communication then effects reduction of stimulation of the part of group members- by axiom A3 and the antecedent conditions of status s t r i v i n g and work (C"6 and C"7). F i n a l l y , by axiom Al+ and conditions C6 and C7, the less the stimulation of group members, the less t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y * Explanation E8 The greater the stimulation of group members, the great-er the group productivity* Recalling the antecedent conditions of status s t r i v i n g and work-0rlentiati6n ; (C6'' and Cf)], the. greater the7 degree o f stimulation o f group members, the greater the degree group^ productivity which occurs. This i s axiom A l f . 20 E x p l a n a t i o n E9 i The greater the t h r u s t on the part of a l e a d e r , the greater the group"s p r o d u c t i v i t y . D e f i n i t i o n ; " "Thrust r e f e r s to behavior by the p r i n c i p a l which i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h i s evident e f f o r t i n t r y i n g to 'move the o r g a n i z a t i o n . 1 Thrust behavior i s marked not by c l o s e s u p e r v i s i o n , but by example which he p e r s o n a l l y sets.. Apparently, because he does not ask the teachers to give of themselves, any more than he W i l l i n g l y gives, of h i m s e l f ; h i s behavior, though s t a r k l y t a s k - o r i e n t e d , i s nonetheless viewed f a v o r a b l y by the teachers." from H a l p i n ( 1 9 6 6 ) * This type of leader behavior tends; to r e i n f o r c e the pre-e x i s t i n g work norm of c o n d i t i o n C7 because the leader s e t s an example of high p r o d u c t i v i t y . , As high production i s a method of s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g , so the s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g p r e s c r i p t i o n ( c o n d i t i o n C"6) i s a l s o r e i n f o r c e d . With both these norms strengthened, group, p r o d u c t i v i t y r i s e s i n response, accord-i n g to axiom A l which r e l a t e s to the power of group norms. Exp l a n a t i o n E10 The greater a leader's c o n s i d e r a t i o n , the greater the group's p r o d u c t i v i t y . D e f i n i t i o n ; ; H a l p i n ( 1 9 6 6 ) defines c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n thi s ; sense to be "behavior by the p r i n c i p a l which i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an i n c l i n a t i o n to t r e a t the teachers 'humanly 1, to t r y to do a l i t t l e something extra, f o r them i n human terms." This i s not the same c o n s i d e r a t i o n which r e l a t e s to l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e as;• given i n explanation E2. Con s i d e r a t i o n as defined 21 - i above w i l l hereafter be referred to as consideration I . Behavior of the leader which involves consideration I implies communication between leader and group vrhich would otherwise not e x i s t . This increase i n group-directed communication under the conditions of s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g and work-orientation (C6 and C?) tends to e f f e c t greater stim-u l a t i o n on the part of the participants by axiom A3. The res u l t i n g stimulation then contributes to higher productivity by means of axiom AU- under conditions C6 and C7. COROLLARIES The hypotheses-to-be-tested are only some of the pos-s i b l e hypotheses that may be deduced from the theories presented. I f the theories are broken down into t h e i r sep-arate cause-and-effect u n i t s , these i n d i v i d u a l units such as the aforementioned axioms may be tested. Also, any combina-t i o n of these cause-and-effect u n i t s , such as the r e l a t i o n between axiom A2 and axiom Al+, which may be deduced by using axiom A3, may be tested, at l e a s t i n p r i n c i p l e . In this case, by axiom A2, the more vi o l a t i o n s of group norms, the fewer communications. And by axiom Ah, the greater the stimulation, the greater the productivity. Linking these two axioms through axiom A3 which states that the greater the number and duration of communications, the greater the stim-u l a t i o n , then the r e s u l t i s that the more vio l a t i o n s of group norms, the less the productivity. I t should be noted, however, that confirmation of the 22 predicted results tends to strengthen a l l aspects of the theory, so that the most useful test of the theory i s that which encompasses a l l of i t s parts (Z'etterberg, 1965b) • In this way, the tests a c t u a l l y support or refute the entire cause-and-effect chain. COVARIATES A great many other-'variables: besides;, the ten predictors-may e a s i l y be seen to influence educational productivity. These factors- range from the s o c i a l to the psychological, economic?, b i o l o g i c a l , and physical*. The s o c i a l factors: include an individual"s rank, which may well f a c i l i t a t e , h i s a b i l i t y to j produce i f he i s a senior man because deferences; are made to him. The opposite applies to a junior man who: both defers and receives less deference.. The receipt of a Doctor of: Philosophy degree may indicate academic competence: and resultant greater productivity compared to the receipt of a- masters; degree* Although the studies: on morale ((or esprit) are inconclusive, common sens;e might indicate that a research group- may well function best i n an atmosphere of high morale rather than low morale.. The date of receipt of the highest degree which an i n d i v i d u a l holds may also be quite s i g n i f i c a n t . I f the date i s very recent, t h i s may indicate that the i n d i v i d u a l i s just now embarking on an academic career and the teaching r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s may be absorbing energy that w i l l s hortly be directed toward research and" publishing. I f the date is. over a" decade ago, this may indicate that the in d i v i d u a l may have an i n f e r i o r degree compared to his modern contemporaries or that he has had more time to be out of" contact with the new developments i n his d i s c i p l i n e which are r e a d i l y available to students. Another s o c i a l variable of concern i s the emphasis on publica t i o n found within a given department. An in d i v i d u a l i n a department with high publication emphasis- may respond to such a departmental norm or simply be hired on the basis of high personal productivity by those i n charge of the department who subscribe to that norm. In either case, where a high publication emphasis preva i l s , an in d i v i d u a l i s more- l i k e l y to be highly productive. A. f i n a l s o c i a l factor i s the number of graduate student assistants allocated to a professor. If this number i s large, then both his teaching and research are expedited, res u l t i n g i n greater productivity. The psychological variable of primary concern i n this; study i s that of an individual's orientation to teaching, research, or both teaching and research. If his orientation i s towards teaching, i t seems reasonable to suggest that his energies w i l l be directed towards the srtudents more than toxfards the more personal pursuits of research and publishing If his i s a research orientation, he may well register more highly on a publication index. And i f his orientation i s both teaching and research, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to say whether his teaching time detracts, from his research pursuits- or whether such teaching pursuits-augment his research and publishing c a p a b i l i t i e s . The two economic variables' to be 2k considered are the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f " t r a v e l funds and the amount of research grants received. A' small t r a v e l fund allowance tends to c u r t a i l a person's a b i l i t y to attend conferences at which he may d e l i v e r papers or generally contribute to academic discussions -. The slzre of research grants" that a person acquires tends to l i m i t the extent of his research and his consequent a b i l i t y to report findings which may r e s u l t . The b i o l o g i c a l factor of major note here i s that of age. This variable may tend to r e s u l t i n i n -creased productivity as competence i s gained through exper-ience, or i t may coincide with a reduction i n creative po t e n t i a l with consequent reduction i n scholastic productiv-i t y . The f i n a l v a r iable, a physical one, is: time. The time spent under the influence of a department head must be taken into account. This, time factor must, be limited to the time spent under the department head i n question, otherwise the' productivity to be measured may not be a function of condi- . tions i n that p a r t i c u l a r department at a l l . 25 CHAPTER III  METHODOLOGY POPULATION The s t a t i s t i c a l population was defined as. those s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s (excluding those personnel who were c l e a r l y i n non-social pursuits:) i n the departments of Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, P o l i t i c a l Science, Economics, Edu-cati o n a l Administration, Educational Psychology, and Edu-cational Sociology i n the f i v e major u n i v e r s i t i e s : i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and Alberta, These universities: were the University of Alberta at Edmonton, the University of Calgary at Calgary, Simon Fraser University at Burnaby, the University of B r i t i s h Columbia1 at Vancouver, and the University of V i c t o r i a at V i c t o r i a , This s t a t i s t i c a l population states the l i m i t s of inference to which generalizations, may be made from a. sample of t h i s population. The conceptual population, however, extends beyond the above population to those s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s working under conditions not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s s i m i l a r to those of the above s o c i a l scientists-. In other words, this study- has tentative g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y to u n i v e r s i t i e s beyond B r i t i s h Columbia and Alberta. Although the above population defines 3^ departments, four were eliminated from the population because they contained two or fewer, subjects.. The o r i g i n a l population estimate was made from the un i v e r s i t y calendars which were available at the time.. As: this estimate, was made pri o r to most of the 1968 u n i v e r s i t y calendars being made available, the use- of 19&7 and 1966- calendars.; resulted i n the suppres-sion of the population f i g u r e . When the in d i v i d u a l depart-ments were consulted, the population was found to be exactly 382 (which includes: Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y ) . SAMPLE": As- this study i s mainly .concerned with the relations between leader and group and among group members, the method of random clu s t e r sampling was considered to be the most appropriate. I f i n d i v i d u a l sampling were used, then a minimum number of subjects from each department would have to be chosen (at random from the entire population).'in order to gain a measure of group consensus regarding the leader be-haviors; and colleagueal relations- i n question* The random clu s t e r sampling procedure was executed as; follows: each of the 30 departments within the population was assigned a unique two-digit number--. Then, by means; of a stra i g h t pin and a table of random numbers, the departments to be included i n the sample were selected i n turn. As the; se l e c t i o n continued, a. record of the t o t a l number of i n d i v i d -uals; was maintained. When this t o t a l became approximately equal to 180 subjects, the sel e c t i o n was terminated. The sample siz e of 180 was chosen because: a size of over 100 was required for the intended method of analysis (with 100 being the absolute recommended minimum), because i t was expected' that a considerable number of subjects: would not be available fo r the interview and because replacement with t h i s sampling method Is not possible. As a r e s u l t , this o r i g i n a l sample size was i n f l a t e d to hjfo of the population, a percentage well i n excess of what might be considered normal sample s i z e * It was not attempted to s t r a t i f y by either subject matter or by universities;. However, the random Cluster sampling'technique resulted! i n c l o s e l y representative samples for u n i v e r s i t i e s . Only two d i s c i p l i n e s were poorly represent-ed:-' economics had a small representation while sociology was over-represented i n terms: of the population breakdown f o r each subject area. Table I gives; an i n d i c a t i o n as to how the subjects; were di s t r i b u t e d across u n i v e r s i t y departments. The f i r s t column, e n t i t l e d "Copulation Total"', l i s t s the t o t a l number of. i n -dividuals' i n the sampled departments, the t o t a l population by u n i v e r s i t y , and the t o t a l population f o r the study* The second column, e n t i t l e d "Department Sample Size"' gives the : number of sampled individuals per department and the t o t a l of sampled individuals by u n i v e r s i t y . The t h i r d column, e n t i t l e d "Predicted Sample Size", gives the i n i t i a l sample' size estimates based on the o r i g i n a l population size estimate, The fourth and f i n a l column, e n t i t l e d "Actual Sample Size" l i s t s the number of subjects' available to be interviewed by department, by u n i v e r s i t y , and f o r the entire study. The figures; i n parentheses, below the four totals indicate the corrected totals a f t e r Simon Fraser University was; excluded 1 from the survey, the reasons f o r which are explained below* TABLE 1 SAMPLING DISTRIBUTION BY UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT Department'; Population Department1 Predicted Actual Total Sample. Sample. Sample Size Size; Size: University 1'of Alberta-Anthropology 7 77 6 h Sociology 22: 22 16 18 Psychology 22: 22 20 9 P o l i t i c a l Science 17 IT 7 13 13 Educ. Admin.. l*f lh 15 11 Non-Sampled kh \ Population Total 126 82 70 55 University of  Calgary Anthropology-Sociology 13 13 9 7 E d u c Admin* 6/ 6 3 h Educ • Psychology 9 9 11 5 Educ. Sociology , 3 3 2' 3 Non-Sampled Population M-0 Total. 71 31 25 19 Simon Fraser-University Anthropology-Sociology 9 9 9 0 Non-Sampled Population 33 Total 9 9 0 29 TABLE - 1 (CONTINUED) SAMPLING DISTRIBUTION BY UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT* Department Population Department: Predicted Actual Total Sample- Sample: Sample Size; Size-. Size University of-. B r i t i s h Columbia Anthropology 7 7 6 3 Sociology 12 12 • 10 6 Psychology 20 20 20 16 P o l i t i c a l Science lU, l*f 12 .8 Educ. Admin. if if if 3 Non-Sampled 50 Population Total 107 57 .52 36 University of V i c t o r i a 1 Anthropology-Sociology 7 7 7 if Psychology 8 8 6 7 P o l i t i c a l Science 6 6 if 3 Economics? T' 7 6 5 Non-Sampled5 8 Fopulation Total- 36" 28 23 19 F i n a l totals:. 382 207 179 129 ( 3 W (198) (1790 (129) I t should be noted that the actual department size d i f -fered from that predicted (see Table 1)". This i s evident because of the absenses of ce r t a i n professors from t h e i r o f f i c e s during the period of time when data was being gathered at the u n i v e r s i t y concerned. The discrepancy i s also a re-f l e c t i o n of the four r e f u s a l s . These refusals account f o r 2% 30 of the sample red-action, while the absenses account f o r 33$ of the a t t r i t i o n . Within this 33$, 12$ i s accountable to professors who had moved away to teach'summer session, who had changed positions permanently, or who were on holidays. The four refusals (accounting for 2$ of the a t t r i t i o n ) - gave most plausible reasons f o r ref u s a l which, i n the author's, view, were not connected with productivity. This leaves 21$ of the sample representing subjects unavailable f o r interview. Although i t i s correct that there were some i n -stances of poor health which prevented some individuals from maintaining the usual o f f i c e hours, i t i s also correct that some subjects maintained other o f f i c e s or worked at home par t l y to avoid interruptions (such as productivity surveys). I t would seem plausible that while some were away from the o f f i c e on not-so-productive pursuits, i t was evident that others were away at conferences or were pa r t i c i p a t i n g i n f i e l d research. The point to be made i s this:: while the 21$ of unaccountable non-returns i s a high percentage, i t would seem d i f f i c u l t to develop a rationale that would suggest that other than random bias influences the results a c t u a l l y c o l l e c t e d . For each rationale developed that would introduce bias, there appears to be a counter rationale which would tend to reduce this bias to an acceptable level*. SURVEY PROCEDURE A l l data-gathering f o r this aspect of the survey took place between May 23 and June 28, 1968. Time spent at the various u n i v e r s i t i e s was: six days at the University of Alberta, broken into two sets of three days each with an i n t e r v a l of two weeks, three days at the University of Cal-gary, broken into two sets of one day and then two days, separated by two weeks, about ten days at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, divided into two sets of f i v e days .each, separated by two weeks, and two days at the University of "Victoria, separated by a month's i n t e r v a l . As i s e a s i l y understood, the topic of educational productivity i s one which might be termed ' c o n f i d e n t i a l ' . As a r e s u l t , i t was thought best to secure the? permission off the department heads i n question p r i o r to commencing i n t e r -views: with any department members. The method of, gaining access to the various departments was: simply a telephone c a l l from Dr., I*.W. Downey, chairman of the Centre f o r the Study of Administration i n Education, Faculty of Education, the University of B r i t i s h Columbia; (the author rs; department head) to the department head whose department was; next to be i n t e r -viewed. A few heads of departments?were contacted d i r e c t l y by the author. The purpose of the department head consulta-t i o n v/as to inform these gentlemen of the purpose and pro-cedure of the survey and to reassure them that i t was con-f i d e n t i a l and that i t would have no. r e f l e c t i o n on either departments or i n d i v i d u a l s . Department head reactions were extremely varied. They ranged from s l i g h t apprehension to the statement that the study was a waste of time to the remark that the department 32 "had just'participated i n a-'similar study. However, entree-was granted i n a l l cases and many of these gentlemen, either through personal investigation of educational productivity• or simply by occupying the position of department head, had given considerable thought to the problem. Some offered excellent suggestions regarding the present study and other possible variations of i t . The author i s of the opinion that this, b r i e f conversation with each department head served to e s t a b l i s h considerable rapport. I t also resulted i n d i r e c t aid such as the answers to questions regarding the department, l i s t s of department members, and oceassionally c i r c u l a r s which indicated the impending interview with i t s o f f i c i a l sanction. Regarding Simon Fraser University's exclusion from the study, when the head of the P o l i t i c a l Science, Sociology and Anthropology department was telephoned by the author, i t became clear that because this department had had three de-partment heads i n close succession, and because the present survey depended on a c e r t a i n degree of continuity of depart-mental leadership over time, that this-department was not suitable f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n by this study. As; a r e s u l t , t h i s department was deleted from the sample and since this'was the only department representing Simon Fraser University, the u n i v e r s i t y was deleted from the population ofC the study. I t might be mentioned i n passing that the four remaining u n i -v e r s i t i e s are more homogeneous i n many respects than the one deleted. INTERVIEW PROCEDURE 33 The i n d i v i d u a l department members were then approached*-during normal working hours and when they were alone (insofar as was p o s s i b l e ) . Introductions were made i n this way: "Excuse me, Dr. Andrews? I'm Dan Brown from the De-partment pf Educational Administration at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia and we're interested i n some of the leadership variables and work r e l a t i o n variables that we believe might a f f e c t an i n d i v i d u a l "s< productivity i n a s o c i a l science department such as this one. I was wondering i f i t were understood that any information I might gain would be completely c o n f i d e n t i a l , would you be kind enough to give me a ten-minute interview on t h i s , at your convenience?"' Department members reacted to the request f o r an interview i n a number of d i f f e r e n t ways. Most interviewees elected to commence the interview at the time of i n i t i a l inquiry, but some decided to postpone i t for a few hours or a day. The ten-minute time demand, which usually lasted f o r f i f t e e n minutes and on occasion continued for f o r t y - f i v e , did not appear to be onorous i n any of the cases.- Many had a few questions regarding d e t a i l s of the study, such as the study's. purpose and for whom the author was working. Although most expressed l i t t l e or no concern about the co n f i d e n t i a l nature of the survey, a few checked this, point during the interview, and two challenged the author's. c e r t i f i c a t i o n to conduct such an interview (they vrere both s a t i s f i e d ) . A few refusals were encountered. One did not wish to divulge departmental secrecy. Another was.not interested i n this kind of research t o p i c . Two others refused outright, saying that they disagreed very much with the methods: employed i n survey research generally. 3^ Most interviewees were given to commenting on the study-but the general tone of the. response could never be predicted (by the author) on the basis, of any obvious c r i t e r i o n * Sociologists were sometimes most c r i t i c a l while psychologists were, at times, most e n t h u s i a s t i c Those who had methodo-l o g i c a l interests tended to be c r i t i c a l of the instruments: employed. Whenever c r i t i c i s m was encountered, the author agreed to i t f o r the sake of t r a n q u i l l i t y . Most remarks, of a c r i t i c a l kind were quite well j u s t i f i e d , i n the author's; view* The interview progressed from questions on the man and his a c t i v i t i e s ; to a b r i e f , t hirty-three item questionnaire regarding the department head behavior and colleagueal r e l a -tions within the. department. The c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the occas-si o n a l item was required, both on the agreement index and on the interview schedule i t s e l f (b6th described i n d e t a i l below). THE AGREEMENT INDEX The instrument u t i l i z e d as a measure of eleven of the predictors i n this study i s a v a r i a t i o n on those devised by Andrew Halpin (1966), c a l l e d the Leadership Behavior Descrip-t i o n Questionnaire (which measures i n i t i a t i n g structure and consideration II) and the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (which measures disengagement, hindrance, e s p r i t , intimacy, aloofness, production emphasis, thrust, and consid-eration I ) . The Leadership-Behavior Description Questionnaire (hereafter termed LBDQ) was constructed by administering a number of sample items which described leader behavior to three hundred United States A i r Force crew members who then rated-'their commanders on the items. Af factor analysis was applied to the items and two empirically defined c l u s t e r s emergedr i n i t i a t i n g structure and consideration, which to-gether accounted for 8hfo of the common variance. The: pub-lishe d form of the LBDQ which has: f i f t e e n items for each dimension, has an estimated r e l i a b i l i t y of 0.93 f o r i n i t i a t -ing structure and 0.86 f o r consideration* The' Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire? (hereafter termed the O.CDQ;) had similar origins... A bank of about 1000 items which were statements about leader and group behavior- (with s p e c i f i c reference to p r i n c i p a l behavior and principal^teacher relations - i n public schools) was reduced to a t o t a l of eighty. These eighty items were administered to 1,151 teachers 1 i n seventy-one elementary schools with the responses being registered on a- forced-choice L i k e r t frequency scale.- Factor analysis was applied to thi s instrument as well.. The-number of items was reduced to sixty-four and eight empirically defined clusters: emerged, four r e l a t i n g to teacher group behavior (the f i r s t four mentioned above) and four r e -l a t i n g p r i n c i p a l behavior (the second four mentioned above). The development of both the above instruments i s described i n considerable d e t a i l by Halpin (1966).. During the e a r l i e r stages of this present study i t was intended to apply the Halpin instruments d i r e c t l y to respond-ents i n un i v e r s i t y departments.. However i t was noted that-some of the items were simply not applicable to the un i v e r s i t y scene. Some of the LBDQ items were not considered a p p l i c -able because of the special superior-subordinate relationship which exists i n a un i v e r s i t y department (as opposed to that i n the United States A i r Force). Many of the OCDQ items were directed s p e c i f i c a l l y to the role relationships which exis t i n the public schools:.; As a. r e s u l t , two new instruments x^ere devised. The Halpin instruments were changed by the delet i o n of some items, the addition of others, and the a l t e r -ation of s t i l l others. In most cases, the changes were the substitution of "department head u : for "he" or "principal"" and the substitution of "department members" or "members."' fo r "teachers" or " s t a f f members"7., In a l l cases, the attempt was- made to keep the substantive aspect of each dimension i n t a c t so that the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the o r i g i n a l instruments might s t i l l r e t a i n some meaning. The o r i g i n a l instruments suffered two other changes i n this study besides the a l t e r a t i o n of the items.. F i r s t , i t was decided by the author that the frequency scale used by Halpin was inadequate when one considers the problem of i n -t e n s i t y . In other words-, i n response to a statement such as, "Father shouts at me.,", the respondent who uses a frequency scale may reg i s t e r "seldom"', while i n f a c t , father may s e l -dom shout but when he does, the entire c i t y knows i t . How-ever, a respondent on an i n t e n s i t y scale would regi s t e r "very loud" yet father seldom shouts.. For the above reason, an agreement scale was. used i n the present study. This is. 37 s t i l l a L i k e r t scale and the respondents: were asked to answer by in d i c a t i n g whether they strongly disagree, disagree, are uncertain (or neither disagree nor agree!, agree, or strongly agree. This scale, registered on the integers 1 2 3 ^ 5> allows f o r frequency and i n t e n s i t y to be present i n a single response. Unfortunately, i t also demands the compromise of the two. One other aspect of this, scale, as opposed to Halpin 1 s scale embodying four choices, is: that i t allows, an in d i v i d u a l to make a neutral commitment. This approach is; less p r o f i t a b l e insofar as i n d i v i d u a l items are concerned, but i n terms of the general responses; and the cooperation of the i n d i v i d u a l who i s w i l l i n g to spend the time f i l l i n g i n an index purely as. a favour to the interviewer, i t i s f e l t that the instrument may be.less bothersome to complete as a r e s u l t * The second change to be noted regarding the instruments i s that they were applied to a population d i f f e r e n t i n many ways from that on which they were developed. In defense of such an appl i c a t i o n , i t may be said that the LBDQ, i s of general a p p l i c a b i l i t y , while the OCDQ was developed from the responses of educators, and s o c i a l scientists; may c e r t a i n l y be termed '"educators". However, i t is: noted that there e x i s t many common sense differences between the s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia-and Alberta u n i v e r s i t i e s i n 1968 and the American elementary teachers i n 19&3. ^he above f a c t serves as a warning that results from an untested instrument should-be treated with due circumspection. One f i n a l point of note i s that one other dimension was-: added to the ten o r i g i n a l c l u s t e r s . This dimension, c a l l e d "'stimulation", was envisaged as one of special importance on the u n i v e r s i t y scene and i s included i n the instrument on r a t i o n a l grounds only.. By this i t i s meant that the c r i t e r i o n f o r i n c l u s i o n of each item i n t h i s cluster i s that of l i k e content with the others and a defensible l i n k with the theo-i r e t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of "stimulation". The author i s responsible only f o r the scale used i n the above instruments. The a l t e r a t i o n and content of the i n s t r u -ments i s the work of others, as indicated i n the "acknow-ledgements" section. One f a m i l i a r observation about u n i v e r s i t y professors i s that they tend to have l i t t l e time. For this reason i t was: decided to c u r t a i l the above instruments so that they might be answered, along with several interview questions, within ten or f i f t e e n minutes. I t was found that i f three items were selected from each subtest, then the thirty-three chosen items could be answered within a reasonable time. As a r e s u l t , the three items that were chosen were those three deemed to be quite s i m i l a r i n content with the remainder and those which seemed the most suitable as operational definers of the concept being measured. Again, these items were chosen on r a t i o n a l grounds alone. A' copy of the agreement index has been included i n the appendix* ' 39 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE A l l information gathered during the survey that was not determined by the agreement index i s contained i n the i n t e r -view schedule. This information may be subcategorized into two sections: that concerned with the covariates of pro-d u c t i v i t y mentioned above, such as grants, personal o r i e n t -ation, and degree, and that Which i s used to form ah oper-a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of productivity i t s e l f , such as books published, conferences attended, and dissertations directed. Productivity i s defined i n th i s study as the weighted sum of a number of separate f a c t o r s . Although the weighting of each factor was: determined by those i n the population of s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , the factors themselves, were i n i t i a l l y established by the author i n collaboration with the members; of the1 Centre, f o r the Study of Administration i n Education at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia* I t would seem appropriate here to discuss the reasons- for i n c l u s i o n of each part of the global concept of p r o d u c t i v i t y . The operational d e f i n i t i o n of productivity includes twenty-one separate v a r i a b l e s . The three questions regarding books published, monographs published, and a r t i c l e s : published" during the time period was: included because- i t i s understood' that publication i s part of the normal role expectations f o r s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s i n this population. The same argument applies to work i n press or work i n progress. A l l are subject to the influences of leadership and work r e l a t i o n v a r i a b l e s . The three questions r e l a t i n g to help with student theses and dissertations account f o r another p r o f e s s o r i a l r o l e expecta-tion.- A further seven factors r e l a t e to some of the diverse a c t i v i t i e s which may be undertaken by u n i v e r s i t y s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s . Reviewing manuscripts f o r a publishing f i r m provides'a service and i s also a measure of professional recognition. Presence on the e d i t o r i a l board of a journal indicates* both service and recognition as. well... Being a guest l e c t u r e r at conferences and doing consulting work r e f l e c t r o l e expectations outside the u n i v e r s i t y . An o f f i c e r s h i p or directorship i n a professional association is.another measure of both recognition and service. P a r t i c i -pation at learned societ i e s and attendance at conf erences> are measures of service within the educational sphere i n terms of the transmission of knowledge among contemporaries* F i n a l l y there are teaching time and meeting time, both measures of service., The former i s a ' r e f l e c t i o n of service to students; and the l a t t e r is: an indicator of service to the. department, f a c u l t y , or u n i v e r s i t y . A., copy of the interview schedule has. been included i n the appendix* THE MINISURVEY The instruments used i n the above survey were intended' to gather data, which, when combined, would render a single score f o r the educational productivity f o r any given respond-ent* However, i t became obvious that these data may be com-bined i n any number of ways. I t was. apparent that weights hi had to be assigned to each facet of productivity. These, weightings could be assigned a r b i t r a r i l y by the author, or by the author i n consultation with his thesis committee members, or by a panel (part of the population studied) or by the r subjects, who were sampled. As. there were twenty-six items to be weighted, i t was; decided to apply the weightings of a panel of judges to the productivity measure so that a f i n a l score of productivity might be calculated. The s t a t i s t i c a l population of this minisurvey consists . of those subjects i n the departments of Economics and Edu-cat i o n a l Psychology at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The conceptual population, however, consists of those; indivi d u a l s who. are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the ones; i n the two departments, above. A. random sample of f i f t e e n was selected using the same procedure as above, namely, by a s s i g n -ment of a two-digit number to each subject and chosing the sample through the use of a pin and table of random numbers. As- no c o n f i d e n t i a l information was to be gained, no department heads were consulted and subjects were approached d i r e c t l y , during normal working hours and when alone whenever possible. The author introduced himself, explained his pur-pose i n c a l l i n g , and requested the subject spend about ten minutes i n f i l l i n g i n what he would consider to be just weights-, on a quantitative productivity instrument. Two refusals: were registered i n the minisurvey as w e l l . Both disagreed enough with such a quantitative approach to educational productivity that they did not wish to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the construction of k2 a quantitative instrument. Replacements were made for those who were not available and for those who refused. As two were not available, the replacement percentage i s 26% and this; i s not considered to bias the results unduly. The refusals contribute to 13$ of the replacement but as no obvious r a t i o n -ale i s evident as to why the responses of the refusers should be s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from those who considered them-selves productive i n other than quantitative ways, this re«* placement figure i s disregarded. A copy of the productivity index has. been included, i n the appendix.. A METHODOLOGICAL NOTE: Pri o r to the analysis of the findings of this study, some-', attention should be given to the soundness of the procedures on which the conclusions: are based. This section i s devoted to a'discussion of some of the methodological d i f f i c u l t i e s ; which were encountered by this survey* As-: modern u n i v e r s i t i e s are characterized by frequent s h i f t s ' o f personnel, i t might be expected that the averager time span f o r departments to have some influence on their department members might be rather, short. Professors are geographically mobile and department headships are frequently f i l l e d only to be vacated shortly thereafter.. Because of t h i s problem, the underlying assumption of continuity which pervades this; study is. only p a r t l y f u l f i l l e d * Another problem regarding the application of a theory of small to a u n i v e r s i t y department i s : does: a large department f u l f i l l the size-requirement i m p l i c i t i n the -assumptions out-li n e d e a r l i e r ? Are not sub-groups discernable i n a depart-ment of eighteen members?. Is i t not possible that the leader behavior toward c e r t a i n sub-groups may be d i f f e r e n t from the' leader behavior toward others? Whatever the basis f o r the sub-group- formation, i s i t not l i k e l y that the work relations w i l l vary between sub-groups? The status of the productivity concept as a dependent variable i s also seen as a ' d i f f i c u l t y . This study attempts to account f o r the prediction of a l i s t of predictors and covariatesrof productivity as a dependent v a r i a b l e . I t i s not d i f f i c u l t to appreciate the p o s s i b i l i t y that productivity many, i n turn, influence some of the independent variables of this survey. Any causal relationships Which are imputed to the results may i n f a c t be: reciprocal.. Regarding the instruments used i n this survey, i t i s noted that neither has been pretested as a check f o r r e l i -a b i l i t y or v a l i d i t y . Their v a l i d i t y rests on i n t u i t i v e ap-peal, with some reference to an empirical foundation i n the case of the adapted LBDQ..and OCDQ.. One inter e s t i n g c r i t i c i s m encountered during the interviewing was that the productivity instrument, because of i t s quantitative approach, defines a- "busy" man rather than a "productive" man. Insofar as these men are the same, that i s , insofar as productive men are busy and vice versa, the instrument has some v a l i d i t y . However, when the professor who publishes productively ( i n the estimation of his colleagues)., but only publishes r a r e l y i s rated by such an instrument, he tends, to be scored as.a low producer., The same c r i t i c i s m applies to the subject who i s known as an excellent teacher, a key contributor to depart-mental a f f a i r s , or invests his time as a p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s t . An e f f o r t to overcome this serious problem was- made by the author during the formulation of. the productivity i n -strument. However, i t became evident that the introduction of q u a l i t a t i v e aspects to the measure was' beset with more d i f f i c u l t i e s than the straightforward quantitative measure-which was used. A suggestion was made to give each publica-t i o n mentioned by the respondents a rating on the basis of i t s publisher. I t i s . well known that c e r t a i n publishing houses and journals are rated highly by c e r t a i n d i s c i p l i n e s , while other outlets, are considered s.ecohd class or unknown. Although panels could have been established i n each d i s c i -pline to judge each outlet, this:, would not be a defensible indicator as to the q u a l i t y of a book or a r t i c l e . , Fbrr example, a journal i n biology which is-unknown to anthro-pologists may accept a high q u a l i t y a r t i c l e from an anthro-pologist because, of the a r t i c l e ' s relevance to a topic i n biology. Another approach that was considered was the assessment of department members by each other on an o v e r a l l productivity r a t i n g . This technique, while i t has obvious v a l i d i t y , lack the comparability required for a large-scale study involving a considerable number, of variables. The major disadvantage of this research appears ' to be: t h a t ' i t was carried out " i n situ"., The fact' that the invest-i g a t i o n was. conducted i n a " T e a l l i f e " environment contributes greatly to the problem of control of v a r i a b l e s . I t i s never desired to control a l l possible variables, but only f o r those factors f o r which a rationale may be developed which would indicate: that those certain factors have an influence on the dependent variable.. Control i s then focused on the systematic error biasv I t i s understood that error due to random influences on productivity i s not of major concern because these influences are indeed random and not systematic. How-ever, with a limited number of" independent variables taken into account, any factors which are not controlled are confounded with those which have been measured. Here are some of the non-controlled variables which are confounded with the independent variables and the influence of which tends to reduce any i n s i t u study to a descriptive and speculative l e v e l : h i r i n g practices, effects outside of the time span s p e c i f i e d , stimulation from outside the department, the presence of informal leadership, the s p e c i a l status of an acting head as compared to a f u l l head of department, and various personal orientations such as t h e o r e t i c a l , method-o l o g i c a l , administrative, and non-behavioral. With these and other influences operating on the dependent variable, i t ' i s d i f f i c u l t to say whether the v a r i a t i o n i n productivity i s due to the factor suggested by the s t a t i s t i c s or i s a c t u a l l y , due to another source of v a r i a t i o n . One further warning i s appropriate. The topic under i n v e s t i g a t i o n does not allow any kind of approach other than an ex post facto attack on the problem. As' there i s no manipulation of variables involved (but merely an attempt to measure them), the results must be viewed with some c i r -cumspection for, this reason as w e l l , PREPARATION OF THE DATA. FOR REGRESSION ' F i r s t the data gathered i n the agreement index and the interview data were combined and transformed into variables suitable f o r use i n regression analysis. The following i s a commentary on how these adjustments were made. As the reader may r e c a l l , the data gathered i n the agre ment index represented eleven variables each having three items each to which the respondent gave an answer on a f i v e -point o r d i n a l scale which extended from strong disagreement to strong- agreement.. In order to make the data'suitable f o r regression analysis, l e t us f i r s t consider the case where the results indicated that the response d i s t r i b u t i o n to a l l the items, of a" p a r t i c u l a r variable were normal with a mean of v3tlm. As the normal, curve i s symmetrical, i t may be asserted that with these p a r t i c u l a r items', f (2) must equal f(hY and f (CL) must equal f (5 ) . - Again, because the normal curve i s symmetrical, the random, independent variable distance from x2Xu to , : 3 , ! equals the distance from ' 3 r to tht and the distance from " 1 " to " 3 r equals the distance from " 3 r to " 5 1 1 . But, i t is. stressed, nothing may be mentioned1 about the distance between " l 1 - and '2:" as compared to that between v2.n and , 3 " . The above argument i s v a l i d as long as: a normal (or more important, monotonic either side of the mean and symmetrical about the mean)- d i s t r i b u t i o n ' involving an infinite-number: o f cases is, assumed. Thus the ordinal scale could be transformed into an i n t e r v a l one i f responses "1" and " 5"were removed. However,•this would r e s u l t i n the loss of c r u c i a l data, at the extremes of the scales.. The. problem of having either an ordinal scale or i n t e r v a l s c a l e for regression may be overcome by finding the average of the: responses f('l) and f (2), to result' i n the number f ( x ) . This number has: its. unique counterpart on the independent variable axis, namely ,!x.f * As may be seen, this r x t would be located near to what i s ' 2 ' and to the l e f t of i t . . The same pro-cedure may be applied to f(k). and f (5) to render a point just: to the r i g h t of fl+tv Let this new point be named 'x , M . Again, because o f the.symmetric and" monotonic property of the curve, these two new points: are equidistant from the midpoint ' 3 * » Hence, the o r i g i n a l ordinal scale may be: collapsed into an i n t e r v a l three-point scale wit^i a wider range than the o r i g i n a l " 2 , ! , " 3 " , "if* s c a l e . Arithmetically, this new scale may be constructed by transforming a l l " l ' s into , ; 2 l !s and a l l 'Vs into "+"s. The rationale proceeds s i m i l a r l y for those items which do not render a response d i s t r i b u t i o n which i s approximately normal. In these cases, the d i s t r i b u t i o n peaks at either , ! 2 I ! or ,,5+". If the o r i g i n a l assumption of a normal d i s t r i - . bution on a- variable s t i l l holds, then the question would have rendered a normal distribution i n the responses,-were the response categories appropriate and not biased towards one extreme. From this i t follows that the number of re-sponses to one side of the mean should equal the number of responses on the other side. As a result, i f the mean were located at I ' 2 , ! , then the scale may be envisaged as a seven-point scale, with those responses, which would have been located in categories and ' 0 I ; having been registered in r l " . Again, i f the responses: to the l e f t of the mean (those; in the hypothetical categories r—1 . " and v01] and in the real category ' 1 " ) were averaged and an 'x1 were found to corres-pond to their f CxX, and the same procedure is. applied to the:-categories | ! 3 I ; , , ! lf , !, and , . then the *x* and 'x" * w i l l define an interval scale of two equal lengths. It is ac-knowl edged' that'this procedure' Is an approximation'to the; trichotomization discussed above. One further adjustment i s necessary before the procedures, are comparable: the scales which were empirically centred on " 2 " or rhv must be recentered oh , 3 | ! . The thirty-three items in the agreement index were adjusted according to the method described. One f i n a l r e -quirement was the combination of the trios- of items; into a single measure for each individual variable. As the levels of each item were made equal, the item scores were then added to give an overall score for each variable. This is; seen as. legitimate because the items for any given variable would have the same variance. The scales for the eleven >9 factors: then consisted of seven points, ranging from '6' to •12", with a midpoint of '91'* A- consensus measure among individuals was then calculated by averaging the scores of each factor over a group of individuals.. The covariates of productivity also were adjusted p r i o r to t h e i r subjection to regression analysis:. The measures that were understood to apply within the given time span had th e i r scores divided by the time span i n months. Two measures, that'-of the number of graduate assistants who were available; to a given professor, and that of the number of years since the respondent's highest degree had b'een awarded (degree date) were then entered d i r e c t l y into regression. Two others, namely the departmental emphasis on publication and the-a v a i l a b i l i t y of tr a v e l funds were adjusted i n the same man-ner as the Halpin variables described above. The item on research grants: received was corrected f o r those who had reported shared grants. When the grants were held j o i n t l y , the t o t a l amount was equally divided among a l l recipients; and this amount was then combined with any others received as a sole r e c i p i e n t by the respondent. The remaining covariates- were f i r s t dichotomized (or trichotomized) and then entered into the regression as dummy variables. F i r s t , considering personal orientation, four responses, were registered:, towards research, and towards teaching and research j o i n t l y . As the development category was viewed as having greater s i m i l a r i t i e s with the teaching orientation than with the other categories, the two 'developers 1 were placed i n the teaching category. Als t h i s v a r i a b l e was. tr i c h o t o m i z e d , i t introduced two dummy v a r i a b l e s i n t o the re g r e s s i o n : the f i r s t was equal to '1' i f a respondent's o r i e n t a t i o n was to teaching (and '0I: otherwise); the second was equal to ,'1,! i f the respondent's^ o r i e n t a t i o n was towards research (and "0 r otherwise!. The; f i n a l category, t h a t of a j o i n t o r i e n t a t i o n to research and teaching, was taken as the base on which the other results:; of the two dummy variables; were, compared. The items r e p o r t i n g degree,•rank, and approx-imate age were dichotomized i n a l i k e manner. The degree category e l i c i t e d o n l y two responses: a masters degree or a do c t o r a t e . A: s i n g l e dummy v a r i a b l e was. introduced such that i t s r value was: " l l : when the degree was a doctorate-, and •0" when the degree was: not. I n this : way, the r e s u l t s : would i n d i c a t e i f the: presence of the doctorate was: concurrent w i t h greater p r o d u c t i v i t y . The ranks: as reported, formed the f i v e ; c a t egories of l e c t u r e r , i n s t r u c t o r , a s s i s t a n t p r o f e s s o r , • as s o c i a t e p r o f e s s o r , and f u l l professor ((or t h e i r e q u i v a l e n t s ) . Two categories: of ranks were formed: j u n i o r and s e n i o r , the sen i o r being the a s s o c i a t e and f u l l p r o f e s s o r s , the junior-the remainder. I t should be mentioned i n passing, that i n the case of post d o c t o r a l research f e l l o w s , t h e i r rank a t t h e i r home campuses; was: the rank reported. The dummy v a r i a b l e was then given a value of *l l : f o r the seniors; and '0' f o r the j u n i o r s , thus using the j u n i o r s as a base. F i n a l l y , the item of approximate age was dichotomixed i n t o those over and under f o r t y years, and the younger group was- again used as a base.. The results of the minisurvey, provided the weightings which were used to combine the diverse items r e l a t i n g to productivity. The f i n a l productivity score was calculated by finding the weighted sum of books; published, monographs published, a r t i c l e s published, books i n press, monographs andi a r t i c l e s i n press, books i n progress-, monographs and a r t i c l e s i n progress, doctoral dissertations directed, doctoral, committees, masters theses, directed, positions as manuscript-reviewer, positions as o f f i c e r or d i r e c t o r of a professional organization, number of times a guest l e c t u r e r , number of e d i t o r i a l boards of journals, number of papers given, panels participated i n , and meetings chaired at meetings of learned s o c i e t i e s , number of conferences attended, plus a s p e c i a l weighting of teaching and time spent i n meetings* EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS DISCUSSION One of the functions of research, expeeially research i n a professional f a c u l t y such as: education, i s to discover, what information may be gained through prediction alone rather'than s o l e l y to test t h e o r e t i c a l l y derived hypotheses. In other words, i f the relationship between two variables i s found i t i s not always necessary to establish a possible explanation to account f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p . The discovery that-one variable predicts another may have many p r a c t i c a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s yet have no immediate th e o r e t i c a l importance. In accordance with the above argument, one aspect of the analysis of the data gathered i n this survey i s devoted to methods:which were not planned when the study was devised., I t was f e l t that such efforts: would be rewarded by the speculations and possible, p r a c t i c a l applications to which they might give rise.. I t i s possible to analyze the data, not just on the basis of groups consenses of a l l members of a u n i v e r s i t y department, but also from the personal or perceptual point of view., Perhaps^ leader behavior and work relations influence an i n -dividual's productivity more d i r e c t l y as the i n d i v i d u a l himself perceives the leader behavior and working climate i n a department., Eerhaps leader behaviors and work r e l a t i o n s vary s u f f i c i e n t l y from subject to subject such that each man . a c t u a l l y works i n a u n i v e r s i t y department which he perceives quite d i f f e r e n t l y from h i s colleagues. Because of these-considerations, i t was decided to analyze the data; according to i n d i v i d u a l responses alone, with no measure of group-consensus being taken into account. S t i l l i n an exploratory vein, i t was: discovered that the teaching and committee meeting items i n the minisurvey reg^ istereu" a" large standard error of t h e i r means: when the data were being processed to locate the means. Further investiga-t i o n indicated that the minisurvey respondents could be e a s i l y divided into two sets: those who rated teaching and committee meeting services as: being highly productive enterprises, and those who rated them comparable to the other aspects of educational productivity. Evidently those with a teaching o r i e n t a t i o n ( h e r e a f t e r mentioned as 't e a c h e r s ' ) , have a d i f f e r e n t c oncept o f p r o d u c t i v i t y f r o m t h o s e who have a r e s e a r c h o r i e n t a t i o n ( h e r e a f t e r named ' a c a d e m i c s ' ) . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n d i d n o t appear t o be r e l a t e d t o any ob v i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n such as f a c u l t y . I n accordance w i t h t h e above, i t was d e c i d e d t o a n a l y z e t h e d a t a i n t h r e e o t h e r ways: a c c o r d i n g t o t h e o r i e n t a t i o n s o f t e a c h e r s , academics, and t e a c h e r s and academics combined (.the combined method b e i n g the o r i g i n a l p l a n ) . The d a t a were t h e n a n a l y z e d i n s i x ways: - On a group b a s i s w i t h academic: and t e a c h e r w e i g h t s ( o r i g i n a l p l a n ) - On a group b a s i s w i t h academic w e i g h t s - On a group b a s i s w i t h t e a c h e r weights; - On an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s w i t h academic and t e a c h e r weights; - On an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s w i t h academic w e i g h t s - On an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s w i t h t e a c h e r w e i g h t s . EXPLANATION OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS: R e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s i s a s t a t i s t i c a l method w h e r e i n i t i s attempted t o e s t a b l i s h a r e l a t i o n s h i p o f p r e d i c t i o n be-tween a s e t o f p r e d i c t o r , o r independent v a r i a b l e s and ( i n the p r e s e n t case) a s i n g l e dependent v a r i a b l e . T h i s r e -l a t i o n s h i p i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n i t s most s i m p l e f o r m by the example: Y= a + bX, where Y( i s the dependent v a r i a b l e , X i s the independent v a r i a b l e o r p r e d i c t o r , a i s t h e v a l u e o f t h e p r e d i c t i o n when X=0, and b i s t h e s l o p e o f t h e l i n e i n t h i s s t r a i g h t - l i n e r e l a t i o n s h i p ( t h e s l o p e b e i n g the r a t i o o f the change o f the dependent v a r i a b l e f o r each u n i t o f change o f the p r e d i c t o r ) . I t should be noted, as i n any s t a t i s t i c a l analysis, the Y which i s predicted and the actual Y corres-ponding to any given predictor value X may be quite d i f f e r e n t . However, i f i t i s established that the slope, b, has a very small p r o b a b i l i t y of being equal to zero (as would be the case i f the relationship were nonexistent) then i t may be said that a trend e x i s t s . This, method of trend determination may be extended from prediction equations where only one predictor variable i s to be found to the case where several are included. A multiple regression analysis, one which indicates the p r o b a b i l i t y of the existence of a trend between each predictor and the dependent variable (with a l l other predictor's being taken into consideration) was performed on the data to determine both the combined a b i l i t y of a l l the independent variables taken together i n predicting i n d i v i d u a l productivity, and the contribution of each i n turn. This and the following analyses were carried out through the use of the Triangular Regression Package, a multi-purpose regression program available at the Computing Centre, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. A stepwise regression, analysis:, one which selects those predictors which are best able to account fo r the variance i n the dependent variable and at the same time have a high p r o b a b i l i t y of t h e i r associated trends being non-zero, was also performed on the data. Results from this analysis indicate which are the most economical variables which might be used fo r prediction of productivity. In the p a r t i c u l a r case of stepwise regression, the analysis was also carried out through the use of the computer program University of. B r i t i s h Columbia-- STEP, an adaptation of the o r i g i n a l Biomedical Computer Programs: written at the Department of:' Freventive Medicine, University of C a l i f o r n i a aU Los Angeles. A simple regression analysis (depicted i n the above formula), which considers:: the predictive a b i l i t y of each independent variable, i n turn and without reference to the other predictors, was performed on the data as w e l l . This technique was used to determine i f there were any independent variables which alone might be adequate predictors without-having to take a l l the others into account.. CHAPTER Iff DATA: ANALYSIS". RESULTS' The predictor variables calculated on the basis: of group consensus^and the productivity variable calculated on the basis• of. the teacher and academic weightings, com-bined were f i r s t analyzed using the multiple regression program. The results, are summarized i n Table 2". TABLE' 2: ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM MULTIPLE REGRESSION! COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION:: .3922: F-PROB.: 0.0000 STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY r 7.60 CONSTANT1 COEFFICIENT: 25.71 ; STANDARD' ERROR:: 26.3M-PREDICTOR PAW. BETA COEFF. TOTAL BETA;. COEFF. STAND:.. ERROR F RATIO F 'PROS. disengagement .133 1.32: 2.2M- 0.35 0..56 hindrance .206 1.91 r .2b Z. 22 0.1J — es-prit .057 o'M 1..6I 0.09 0.75 *" intimacy - .313 -3.98 2.17 3.35 0.07 + aloofness -.,61M- -5.03 2:. 67 3.5^ 0.06' * production emphasis .372. 3.72 1.94- - 3.67 0.06 * thrus t ~.6M-3 - ~7 .MI- 3.36 V.90 0.03 57 TABLE 2. CONTINUED PREDICTOR PART. BETA COEFF.. TOTAL BETA" COEFF. STAND. ERROR F RATIO F PROB. + consideration I .267? *+.8? 2.52- 3 . 7 ^ 0 . 0 5 st- stimulation . 2 1 0 2 . 3 2 2 . 2 8 I . 0 3 0 . 3 1 ar. i n i t i a t i n g structure . 1 1 6 1 . 1 2 2.0>f 0 . 3 0 0 . 5 9 consideration II - . 0 2 9 - 0 . 3 0 1 . 9 3 0 . 0 2 0 . 8 5 + student assistants. 2 . 8 9 0 . V 7 2 5 . 5 8 0 . 0 0 0 publication emphasis . 0 0 8 0 . 2 3 2 . 6 7 0 . 0 1 0 . 8 9 + teaching orientation - I f . 1 7 1 . 9 2 i f . 7 0 0 . 0 3 research orientation O .76 I . . 76 0 . 1 8 0 . 6 7 = t r a v e l funds . 0 8 9 1 . 8 3 . 2.55 0 . 5 1 0 . i f 8 grants - . 1 2 5 - 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 1 2 . 0 5 0 . 1 5 = degree 3 . 3 3 2 . 3 2 2 . 0 5 0 . 1 5 degree date; - . 0 3 * * - 0 . 0 6 0 . 1 8 0 . 1 0 . 0 . 7 ^ rank o.ki 2.0*f 0.04- 0 . 8 2 = - age: - 0 . 9 1 2 . 1 0 0 . 1 8 0 . 6 7 ,!+,: indicates a s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t Cat the 0 . 1 0 l e v e l ) i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n indicates a non-significant r e s u l t i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n indicates, a s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t (at the 0 . 1 0 level) opposite from the d i r e c t i o n predicted. The same data were then analyzed using the two step-wise regression computer programs. The a l f a l e v e l f o r acceptance and r e j e c t i o n was 0 . 1 0 , the same f o r both 58 programs. The r e s u l t s , which were i d e n t i c a l , are given here. TABLE 3 ANALYSTS' RESULTS FROM STEPWISE REGRESSION COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION:: ..3IO6 F-EROB.: 0 . 0 0 0 0 STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY":: 7 . 6 0 CONSTANT COEFFICIENT:. 32..00 STANDARD ERROR: 3 . 7 0 PREDICTOR TOTAL BETA COEFF. STAND.. ERROR F F RATIO PROB. *~ hindrance 1.35 0 . 7 0 3.72" 0 . 0 5 *" intimacy - 3 M 1.00 12.15 0.001 + student a s s i s t a n t s : 2 . 9 5 0 . 5 0 3%.H>1 0 . 0 0 0 + teaching o r i e n t a t i o n -H-.63 1M . 1 0 . 3 5 0 . 0 0 2 ' + ' and as i n d i c a t e d i n Table 2 . The r e s i d u a l s p l o t t e d by the computer from the B i o -medical stepwise r e g r e s s i o n program were' examined. A. r e s i d -u a l p l o t i s - a p i c t u r e of the way the r e s i d u a l s (the d i f f e r -ence between predicted and a c t u a l p r o d u c t i v i t y values) vary along each independent v a r i a b l e i n t u r n . For i n s t a n c e , f o r each s t i m u l a t i o n measure of 6 . 0 , there i s one p r e d i c t e d value f o r p r o d u c t i v i t y , and the values greater than and l e s s than the p r e d i c t e d value which correspond to those subjects who have a s t i m u l a t i o n measure of 6 . 0 . Plots: are examined be-cause they are c l e a r v i s u a l i n d i c a t o r s which inform the i n -v e s t i g a t o r i f the assumptions: made during the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s were i n f a c t warranted. These c a r d i n a l assumptions: concerning the regression errors are::: the errors are. inde-pendent (randomly influenced by other f a c t o r s ) ; the errors have a zero mean; the errors have a constant variance; and the errors have a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . While the errors are independent insofar as other variables could be taken into account, i n this study, and while the errors: have a zero mean because a constant term appears i n the model, the plots i n -dicate most c l e a r l y the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the regression model (the model determines i f some of the predictor variables should be represented as squared or cubic terms i n the equa-t i o n instead of simple l i n e a r terms as i n this study). The plots were examined and the errors appeared to have a con-stant variance, to have a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n , and there was no evidence of lack of f i t that might indicate the pres-ence of c u r v i l i n e a r i t y . The data were then analyzed by the simple regression' program to determine the presence of any outstanding predic-tors which are able' t'o> p r e d i c t independently of' the other independent v a r i a b l e s . Results are reported i n Table h. The results of the multiple regression analysis i n d i -cate that some variables vary as predicted with the depen-dent variable, others vary as predicted but not s i g n i f i -cantly, and s t i l l others vary i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n from that predicted. Aloofness, consideration I, thrust, intimacy, production emphasis., hindrance, the number of student assistants-, and a person's orientation towards teach-i n g s emerged as s i g n i f i c a n t predictors of educational produc-60 t i v i t y . Insofar as the manipulations on the leadership and work r e l a t i o n variables allow them to be considered as i n t e r -val scale variables, then some comparisons may be made among these and the other s i g n i f i c a n t covariates as to t h e i r order of s u p e r i o r i t y of prediction. I f the scales remained or d i n a l , regression analysis could be legit i m a t e l y applied to them because the beta c o e f f i c i e n t s would r e t a i n t h e i r sighs under any monotonic transformation. However, there would be no basis f o r comparison insofar, as; r e l a t i v e p r e d i c t i b i l i t y i s concerned. TABLE *+ ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM SIMPLE REGRESSION PREDICTOR ' COEFF. MULT. DETERM. TOTAL. BETA COEFF. STAND. ERROR F RATIO F PROB. hindrance 0.02H- lM 0.81 3.17 0 . 0 7 aloofness. 0 . 0 3 0 l.ki 0171 3 . 8 8 0.0U-production emphasis O.OH-1 2.03 0 . 8 6 5M 0 . 0 2 student assistants 0.190 2.81 0.51 2 9 . 6 9 0 . 0 0 0 teaching orientation 0 . 0 6 5 -V.79 1.61 8.76 0.00k degree O.OH-O 5 A 0 2.12 6.if 7 0 . 0 1 On the basis of the p a r t i a l beta- coefficients?, i t would appear: that the order of predictive power i s r thrust, aloofness, num-ber of student assistants, production emphasis, intimacy, and. consideration I, with the status of teaching orientation being indeterminate. Other variables also contributed as prodictors, but non-signif i c a n t l y . The variables: which covary In the predicted d i r e c t i o n , even though their beta c o e f f i c i e n t s were not s i g n i f i c a n t were:., e s p r i t , stimulation, i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c -ture, publication emphasis, research orientation, t r a v e l fund a v a i l a b i l i t y , degree, degree date, rank, and age (which was predicted i n both d i r e c t i o n s ) . The c o e f f i c i e n t of multiple determination (R-squared), accounted f o r 39.22$ of the v a r i -ance i n productivity. The central differences between the multiple regression and stepwise regression analyses were that hindrance was considered s i g n i f i c a n t i n the l a t t e r but not i n the former, and that the R-squared value f o r the step-wise regression was considerably lower. The simple regres-sion r e s u l t s , obtained c h i e f l y f o r in t e r e s t purposes, reg-istered d i f f e r e n t l y from the other two analyses, as: might be expected. Three variables; are of note.because they predic-ted (non-slgnificantly) i n the d i r e c t i o n opposite from that suggested i n the theory section. They were consideration I I , disengagement, and the amount of research grants received. CHAPTER 7" DISCUSSION OF RESULTS; This investigation indicates that aloofness (the extent to which a leader i s bureaucratic), consideration I (the extent to which &. leader treats: his s t a f f "humanly"), thrust (the extent to which a leader sets an example),; intimacy (the s o c i a l dimension), production emphasis, (leader behavior which i s narrowly focused on production), and hindrance (the extent to which "busywork""annoys, the work group) emerge as s i g n i f i -cant s o c i a l predictors of educational productivity. The; number of student assistants; and a person's orientation to-wards: teaching (as compared to others whose orientations; are towards both teaching and research) also registered as s i g -n i f i c a n t . However a note of caution should" be interjectedi here. Prediction does not necessarily imply causation. Sta-t i s t i c a l results: cannot by themselves illuminate: any determi- • nants of p r o d u c t i v i t y - — t h e y can only make: inferences, which, when aided by explanations: are able to suggest causal r e l a -tionships which are always, subject to further v e r i f i c a t i o n . Assruming methodological soundness, an investigator must turn to his, theory ( e x p l i c i t or i m p l i c i t ) to check i f his findings; "make sense"5. The methods of further, v e r i f i c a t i o n must be directed towards the inteterminate results, of this survey. I t was found that e s p r i t (morale), stimulation (the extent to which id'eas are exchanged), i n i t i a t i n g structure deader d i r e c t l v e -nessr with regard to the entire group), publication emphasis (for salary increase and promotion), research orientation (again as compared to those, whose orientation i s both teach-ing and research), the a v a i l a b i l i t y of professors' travel funds, the receipt of a doctorate (as compared to a masters' degree), the date of. the highest degree, a. man's rank (senior rank as opposed to junior), and his age Cover f o r t y as opposed to under forty) a l l predicted a change i n productivity i n the same d i r e c t i o n as: was done i n the theory section but not be-yond the p o s s i b i l i t y of a chance prediction alone (not s i g -n i f i c a n t l y ) . Some note should be taken of those predictors which were s i g n i f i c a n t yet i n the wrong d i r e c t i o n from that hypothesized' or suggested i n the theory section.. These were intimacy, production emphasis, and thrust i n the multiple regression and intimacy along with hindrance i n the stepwise regression-results.. Obviously, alternate explanations are i n order. When the adapted Halpin instrument i s : consulted with these, results i n mind, some d i f f e r e n t explanations suggest them-selves . With regard to intimacy, the emphasis i s very much on friendship almost to the exclusion of others beyond the: de-partment i n question., The three, items, mentioning the l o c a -t i o n of closest friends i n the department, the home: v i s i t s of department members, and conversation about personal lives: i n the department might be construed as an i n s u l a r i t y dimen-sion as well as a f r a t e r n a l one. If this i s indeed the case, then i f i n s u l a r i t y leads to low productivity, i t might be predicted that those of high intimacy (as construed i n t h i s way) may well be less productive. The o r i g i n a l Halpin d e f i n i t i o n of production emphasis; implies a leader who might well v i o l a t e the norms of a un i -v e r s i t y work group. However, i f the leader's role i s viewed l i b e r a l l y by those i n the work group, actions such as deter-mining teaching assignments., ensuring colleagues work to capacity and i n s i s t i n g that departmental regulations be f o l -lowed may be viewed as some of the legitimate r o l e expecta-tions of a departmental leader. I f , then, production empha-sis: has been operationally defined as a guidance dimension wherein departmental operations are expedited, then i t is. possible that those departments having "smoother operations"' may well tend toward greater educational productivity. The problem regarding the variable of thrust may be answered s i m i l a r l y . Again, i f the operational d e f i n i t i o n i s consulted, the words "department head works longer hours than department members"-, "'the department head offers con-st r u c t i v e criticism"', and "the department head sets an example by working hard himself "'are those to which the interviewees responded. The two items on the department head's work habits are answered from the point of view of the work group, that i s , with reference to the group's own work habits. Is i t 65 not possible that those-, groups which are less productive yet have a leader who expends an average work e f f o r t would tend to rate him high on e f f o r t because they themselves are r e l a -t i v e l y less i n c l i n e d to work as hard as the department head or work the same number of hours? The opposite also holds. Those department members who are very hard workers would s e l -dom indicate that the boss works, longer hours or that he works longer hours, or that he works hard because what an average professor would regard as working hard to them is' just a normal expenditure of e f f o r t . I f , i n f a c t , hard work and high productivity vary together, then i t seems reasonable that t h i s dimension would be negatively correlated with educational productivity. F i n a l l y , the results indicate that the concept of h i n -drance also varies with productivity i n the manner opposite: from that which was predicted. I t i s proposed to consider the hindrance problem from the same point of view i n which the thrust counterexplanation was offered above. The opera-t i o n a l definers. of hindrance r e l a t e to. such concepts, as the interference of routine duties, burdensome committee work, and the problem of paperwork. Again, the more productive respondents: may view these obligations as; being much more onorous; than those: who are less productive. As a- r e s u l t , those high i n hindrance are associated with high productivity while those low i n hindrance: are. associated with low produc-t i v i t y . (This: argument assumes, of course, that any given individual's time i s limited and that, on the average, a. high 66 i n d i v i d u a l productivity demands a high time investment and a considerable work ef f o r t . ) Is i t not possible to reverse any rationale suggested by the theory so that the results of a study may be accom-modated? In the author's opinion, the potential f o r reverse rationales among the variables considered i n this survey has been v i r t u a l l y exhausted. Only one of the remaining variables (disengagement) appears to lend i t s e l f to such an opposite interpretation as do the above four. Some mention should be made of the three variables, which, though they were not s i g n i f i c a n t predictors, did re g i s -ter results contrary to those suggested by the theory section. These were disengagement (group non-involvement), considera-t i o n II ;, (leader-staff relations involving warmth, respect, trust and friendship), and amount of grants. Disengagement may vary p o s i t i v e l y with productivity I f , again, those who are highly productive tend to respond p o s i t i v e l y to the items used as disengagement measures. Very tentatively, i t may be suggested that consideration II represents an i n s u l a r i t y dimension i n terms of i t s three items. With regard to grants,, the poor qua l i t y of such a measure tends to greatly reduce i t s considerable potential predicting power. (An in d i v i d u a l may produce: on the basis of grants previously received.) 67 CHATTER VI CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY OF' RESULTS' The results of this survey have s i g n i f i c a n t l y linked a number of the independent variables, with the dependent v a r i -able. When a department head's behavior i s characterized by aloofness (actions which are formal and impersonal, nomothetic and bureaucratic) group productivity i s reduced i n his depart-ment. In other words, the greater the aloofness", the less the productivity, and the obverse holds as: w e l l . When a de-partment head shows consideration I (an i n c l i n a t i o n to treat staff, members "humanly"), the group productivity i s increased, with the obverse holding- i n thi s case as; above. The more student assistants which a; given professor has at his disposal, the greater his in d i v i d u a l productivity. And i f a department member indicates that his personal orientation i s towards, teaching, then his productivity may be predicted to be lower than a man who indicates research or both teaching and re-search as his. personal o r i e n t a t i o n . Further results indicate that a number of other predic-tors are less conclusively linked with educational productiv-i t y . Keeping i n mind that any conclusions, to be reached are most.tentative, i t would appear that high group e s p r i t , stim-l a t i o n , high leader i n i t i a t i n g structure, sizeable t r a v e l allowances, a. research orientation, a doctorate, a degree recently awarded, and senior rank a l l contribute to the ed-ucational productivity of an i n d i v i d u a l . However, i t appears, that with advancing age (and receeding date of degree), pro-d u c t i v i t y i s l i k e l y to be lessened. The exploratory results indicate (again, tentatively) that there are r e l a t i v e l y minor differences between analyses based on i n d i v i d u a l responses as opposed to group consensus, and among analyses based on those with combined teaching and academic orientations as. compared to those with academic orientations as compared to those with greater sympathy fo r teaching. Judging on the basis of number of s i g n i f i c a n t pre-dictors and percentage of productivity variance explained, i t would seem that the o r i g i n a l analysis, planned on the basis of group consensus, with regard to leader behavior and work r e l a t i o n s , and on the basis of general consensus: regarding the weights for aspects of productivity, was superior to any of the exploratory analyses. COMMENTARY This thesis has attempted to describe and account for one small aspect of the behavior of professional personnel, i n a modern bureaucracy. The b e l i e f i n the existence of the s o c i a l determinants of behavior which are;comparable i n power-to physical, b i o l o g i c a l , economic, or psychological^deter-minants has been t e n t a t i v e l y supported through the investiga-t i o n of predictors which have probable causal relations with 69 the elusive concept of educational productivity. From the point of view of the educational administrator, the " p r a c t i c a l man"; with the requirement for techniques of optimization of r o l e f u l f i l l m e n t , a few prescriptions are i n order. I t would appear that a u n i v e r s i t y department head i s able to f a c i l i t a t e the productivity of his s t a f f members. Despite the wide acclaim of pro f e s s o r i a l independence, the actions of department, heads and the behaviors of colleagues are apparently able to influence the amount of output of such scholars. I t Is possible, then, through the suppression of behaviors described by aloofness and the stress of behaviors described by consideration I, and through the manipulation of group variables, to create a "climate" within a univ e r s i t y department which i s highly conducive to educational produc-t i v i t y . This thesis was also undertaken with a view to theory construction. Generally, the results appear to lend support to the explanations offered i n the theory section. Four factors which were notable exceptions to this trend of support were: intimacy, production emphasis, thrust, and hindrance, as they were operationally defined i n this study. While possible alternative explanations were: offered, i t should be noted that these had t h e i r basis: i n the methodology of the study rather than i n theory. The only t h e o r e t i c a l consider-ation raised was. that'productivity may be viewed as an inde-pendentent variable as well as a dependent one. The author: i s of the view that although the supportive evidence f o r the 70 theory i s only p a r t i a l , none of i t s - explanations; should be discarded u n t i l further- investigation i s undertaken. A": comment on the limits, of generalization of the thesis; results i s warranted. I t was mentioned i n the methodology section that while the s t a t i s t i c a l population i s limited to the four u n i v e r s i t i e s from which the sample was drawn, the conceptual population encompasses;- a l l those i n s t i t u t i o n s which are not s u f f i c i e n t l y d i s s i m i l a r from those sampled. With increasing caution, inferences may be extended to those s o c i a l science departments i n Canada, to a l l research departments; i n North American u n i v e r s i t i e s , and to a l l research departments i n North American research i n s t i t u t i o n s . F i n a l l y , but with the most reservation, the findings may perhaps be generalized, to a l l . departments i n both knowledge-producing and knowledge-transmitting organizations, within our general c u l t u r a l bound-aries;.. This l a s t inference, while highly speculative, would apply to v i r t u a l l y a l l educational organizations and th e i r respective educational productivities.. FURTHER RESEARCH Research on this: topic may be extended on the basis: of the theory presented. Thy hypotheses which were chosen f o r investigation i n this study are: only a few of many possible a l t e r n a t i v e s . Other' c o r o l l a r i e s which may be derived from the theory are the i n d i v i d u a l cause-and-effect units them-selves. Different combinations of these units also provide, considerable challenge to the empirical investigator. For instance, does the leader's, v i o l a t i o n of the autonomy norm 71 imply a reduction i n group stimulation? A. suggestion which relates- to the theory but does not follow from i t i s this:, research may be carried out when the antecedent conditions: of the theory are: manipulated. In other words, given that some of the conditions of the small group— the presence of the formal leader, the task-orientation of the group, the group autonomy norm, and the work n o r m — a r e not present, which of the deduced relations s t i l l hold? Theory building and empiri-c a l testing of this v a r i e t y could lead towards a substantiated, general theory of work groups which might be applicable under' many conditions.. The study of the"concept of educational productivity may be undertaken i n many ways. Focusing on the productivity instrument for a moment, and r e c a l l i n g the comments regarding i t s q u a n t i t a t i v i t y and i t s . lack of" any attempt at v a l i d i t y , i t might be suggested that any future productivity study be undertaken with some q u a l i t a t i v e base i n mind. The thought of having each department member rate the o v e r a l l productivity of each other member has i t s p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s but also i t s obvious benefits?. I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y and interdepartment-a l considerations, come into play here. Perhaps the concept o f productivity i t s e l f (a global one) could be broken into some major areas such as teaching and student service, admin-i s t r a t i v e and departmental service j and research or profes-s i o n a l service. In this: way, one department member could be given three ratings. The thought of looking at the pay of a professor also has i t s merits:: "Let the market'be your guide"'. Yet'some markets have d e l i b e r a t e l y fostered t h e i r separate-promotion and salary plans and many professors f i n d salary as being only one of many position considerations, others, being prestige, research opportunity, funds, and'favourable teach-ing and: administrative loads. The best advice with regard to sc productivity instrument seems to be the warning that what-ever the: instrument selected, i t is. open to considerable c i r -cumspection. P r a c t i c a l inconvenience aside, the application of"a number of instruments which give r i s e to a composite score would seem to render the f a i r e s t appraisal of a man's produc-t i v i t y i n a u n i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g . The problem of instrument v a l i d i t y i s also a d i f f i c u l t one. As was:, indicated above, the productivity instrument used i n this study l a r g e l y defines a busy man, but less so a productive one. As was the ease i n this study, an instrument such as. the-agreement index which is* constructed on l a r g e l y r a t i o n a l grounds i s d i f f i c u l t to defend. The: solution to this problem i s the construction of an instrument which has i t s c l u s t e r s defined empirically. THE EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATOR Is i t possible to devise an instrument so complete, that i t might be put to p r a c t i c a l use i n educational administra-tion? I t i s conceivable that one day educators- may come to r e l y on such an instrument as an aid' to -assessment f o r pro-motion? While crudeness of instrumentations prohibits, present u t i l i z a t i o n by p r a c t i t i o n e r s , future measures may indeed be-come commonplace i n the educational organizations of tomorrow. 73 At present, the warning should be heeded that reliance on such instilments might well lead to abuse i f the many other i n t u i -t i v e indicators of productivity are not taken into account. The author wishes to emphasize: that the results rendered from the measure of educational productivity used i n this study must be treated most te n t a t i v e l y . As f o r the agreement index:, there are many p o s s i b i l i t i e s ; f o r the growth of other superior instruments. Such devices: could be used as sensitizers, to discover the actual leader behaviors and working climate i n any educational department'. Leaders could then be impersonally alerted to the actions which might be taken i n order to foster greater educational productivity on the part of th e i r subordinates. Again the caution i s given that an administrator using instruments such as t h i s must take a l l known factors into account and then, with common sense as guide (but not master) he may better administer his department. 7h BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson,B., "Status. Classes i n Organizations", A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1966, v o l . 11, p.264. Baumgartel, Howard, "Leadership S t y l e as a V a r i a b l e i n . Research A d m i n i s t r 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 , 1957, v o l . 2, pp. 344-360. Baumgartel, Howard, "Leadership, M o t i v a t i o n s , and A t t i t u d e s i n Research L a b o r a t o r i e s " , J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Issued,1956, v o l . 12, No. 2, pp. 24-31. Bennis, Warren G. "Values and Organization i n a U n i v e r s i t y S o c i a l Research Group"7, American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, v o l . 21, 1956, p.555. Brown, Paula, "Bureaucracy i n a Government Laboratory", S o c i a l Forces, 1954, v o l . 32, pp. 259-268,. Bush, George P. and L o w e l l H. H a t l e r y , "Teamwork and C r e a t i v i t y i n Research", A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Quarterly,1956, v o l . 1, pp. 361-372. Caplow, Theodore, and R'.eece J; McGee, The Academic Marketplace, New York, Doubleday and Company, 1965. Crane, Diana, " S c i e n t i s t s at Major and Minor U n i v e r s ! t i e s ? A Study of P r o d u c t i v i t y and Recognition", American  S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1965, v o l . 30, pp. 699-714. Davis., Robert C. "Factors Related to S c i e n t i f i c Performance Commitment", 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 Michigan, 1957. Durkheim, Emile, Le S u i c i d e , P a r i s , F e l i x Alcan L i b r a r y , 1930, p.277. Eaton, Joseph W., " S o c i a l Processes of P r o f e s s i o n a l Teamwork, American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1951, vol.. 16, p.7Q7. . Evan,. l i l l i a m M. "Superior-Subordinate C o n f l i c t i n Research Organizations"', A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , June 1965j pp. 52-64. F e s t i n g e r , L. and j . Thibaut, ^ I n t e r p e r s o n a l Communication i n Groups'"' J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1951, v o l . 46, p.p.92-99. 75 BIBLIOGRAPHY Glaser, Barney G., Organizational S c i e n t i s t s , Their Profess- io n a l Careers, New York, B'obbs M e r r i l l , 1964* Glaser, Barney G. ^Attraction, Autonomy, and Reciprocity i n the Scientist-Supervisor Relationship", Administrative  Science Quarterly, v o l . 8, 1963, pp. 379-398. Glaser, Barney G., "Variations i n the Importance of Recognition in S c i e n t i s t s 1 Careers, S o c i a l Problems, 1962-63, v o l . lO, pp. 268-276. Golembiewski, Robert T. "Small Groups and Large Organizations" i n James G. March, editor, Handbook: of Organizations, Chicago, Rand McNally & Co:., 1965. : " . Hagstrom, Warren 0. " T r a d i t i o n a l and Modern Forms of S c i e n t i f i c Teamwork", Administrative Science Quarterly,, Dec* 1964, v o l . 9, p. 241. Halpin, Andrew. Theory and Research i n Administration, New York, Macmillan, 1966. H i l l , Winston, W. and Wendell L. French, "Perceptions of the Power of Department Chairmen by Professors", Administrative*; Science Quarterly, 1967, March, pp. 548-574. Kaplan, Norman, "Pole of the Research Administrator", Admin-i s t r a t i v e Science, Quarterly, June 1959, v o l . 4, pp, 20-42. Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn, The S o c i a l Psychology of  Organizations, New York, J^hn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966. Korhhauser, William, and Warren O. Hagstrom, S c i e n t i s t s i n Industry; C o n f l i c t and Accommodation, 1962, pp. 131-133. LaPorte, Todd R. "Conditions of S t r a i n and Accommodation i n I n d u s t r i a l Research Groups", Administrative Science  Quarterly, June 1965, v o l . 10, p. 31 v Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Wagner Thielans J r . , The Academic Mind, Glencoe, The Free Press, 1958, pp. 7-10, 392-396, 102^406, Mauls, Jerome G., '•Some Academic Influences on Publication Productivity", S o c i a l Forces, 1951, pp. 267-272. 76 BIBLIOGRAPHY Marcson, Simon, The S c i e n t i s t s i n American Industry, Princeton University Press, 1960. McEwen, William J . ''Position C o n f l i c t and Professional Orient** ation i n a Research Organization", Administrative Science  Quarterly, vol.1, 1956, pp. 208-224. Meltzer, Leo, " S c i e n t i f i c Productivity i n Organizational Settings"' Journal of S o c i a l Issues, 1956, N.6. 2, pp.32-^40. Pels?, Donald S.,"Some S o c i a l Factors Related to Performance i n a Research Organization^, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1956, v o l . 1, pp, 310-325, Pelz, Donald arid Frank M, Andrews, S c i e n t i s t s i n Organ-iza t i o n s , New Yqrk, John Wiley and Sons, Inc,, 1966. Schacte.r,S., "Deviation, Rejection, and Communication", Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 195i, v o l . 46, •pp. 190-207. ! Schein, Edgar H. o t . a l . , "Career.Orientations and Perceptions of Rewarded A c t i v i t y i n a Research Organization" 1, Administrative Science Quarterly, March 1965, v o l . 9, pp. 333-349. ! Scott, W.R. "Reactions to.Supervision i n a Heteronomous Professional Organization", Administrative Science Quarterly, 1965, v o l . 10, pp. 65-81. Shepherd, Glovis, and Paula Brown, ^Status, Prestige, and Esteem i n a Research Organization", Administrative  Science Quarterly, 1956, v o l . 1, pp. 340-360. Shepard, Herbert A. " The Value System of a University Research Group**, American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1954, v o l . 19, pp. 456-462. West, S.S., "The Ideology.of American S c i e n t i s t s " I.R.E. Transactions on Engineering Management, Em.Ml7,(I960) pp. 54-62.' " Zetterberg, Hans. On Theory and V e r i f i c a t i o n i n Sociology, Totowa, New Jersey, 1965. {&] : ! ' r~^'' BIBLIOGRAPHY Zetterberg, Hans, On Theory, and V e r i f i c a t i o n in Sociology, Totowa, New Jersey, 1965, pp. 166-174. {¥] 78 APPENDIX' UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (AGREEMENT INDEX) Please c i r c l e your response to: the statements below accourding to the following scale: 1 . strongly disagree 2. disagree 3 . neither agree nor disagree, or uncertain agree 5. strongly agree; SD D A SA 1 . Members of thi s department keep to themselves. I 2 3 5 2. Routine duties i n t e r f e r e with research and teaching. ^ 1 2 3 4 - 5 3 . Members of this department show much team s p i r i t . 1 2 3 -+ 5 h. Department members' closest friends are colleagues, i n the department. 1 2" 3 4- 5 5. Department meetings are dominated by department head reports. 1 2 3 4 - 5 6 . The department head' determines the teaching assignments and loads of department members.1 2 j 5 7 . The department head sets an example by working hard himself. 1 2 3 4 - 5 8 . The department head helps department members' solve personal problems. 1 2 3 4- 5 9. Department members provide the type of inter a c t i o n which promotes creative thinkingl 2 3~ k 5 10.. The department head's attitudes are made clear to. department members 1 2 3 4 - 5 79 - SD D A.; SA. 11. -. The department head: is, concerned with the personal welfare of ind i v i d u a l de-partment members'. 1 2 ' 3 4-. 5 1 2 . Members i n this - department ramble when they t a l k at department meetings. 1 2' 3 4 - 5 1 3 . Department members have burdensome committee r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . 1 2 3 4 - 5 14-. Department members accept the faults' o f th e i r colleagues:. 1 2 3 4 - 5 15. Department members: i n v i t e colleagues from the' department to v i s i t them at home. 1 2 3 4 - 5 16. The. department, head runs the department meetings as i f they were business con-ferences. 1 2 3 4 - 5 1 7 . The department head ensures that department memberswork to th e i r f u l l capacity. 1 2 3 4 - 5 1 8 . The department head provides constructive c r i t i c i s m ' 1 2 3 4 - 5 . 19 •• The department head helps s t a f f members s e t t l e minor differences'. 1 2 3 4: 5 2 0 . Research designs are influenced by i n t e r -action with fellow department members. 1 2 3 4 - 5 2 1 . The department head informs department members, what i s expected of them. 1 2 3 4 - 5 22. The department head treats a l l department members as colleagues. 1 2 3 4 - 5 23. Department members s t r i v e extremely hard to advance t h e i r professional reputations. 1 2 3 4 - 5 24-. Administrative paperwork i s burdensome i n this department. 1 2 3 4 - 5 2'5. There i s s i n c e r i t y and genuineness i n interpersonal relations within the depart-ment. 1 2 3 4 - 5 2 6 . Department members tal k about th e i r personal l i v e s . t o colleagues' i n the department. 1 2' 3 4- 5 spr p_ 2 7 . The department head is. "regulation-oriented" 7. 1 2 3 2'8. The department head insists- that previously established policies: be followed. 1 2 3 2 9 . The department head works longer hours: than department members. 1 2" 3 3 0 . The department head attempts to obtain better s a l a r i e s f o r department members. 1 2 3 3 1 . Department members act as f r i e n d l y c r i t i c s f o r each other to a s s i s t i n c l a r i f y i n g thinking. 1 2 3 3 2 . The department head e f f e c t i v e l y coordinates the tasks' of department members. 1 2 3 33• The department head i s f r i e n d l y and approachable. 1 2 3 A 80 SA 4- 5? 4- 5 h h if 5 5 5 5 5 The. instrument i s arranged as follows: Variable Disengagement Hindrance E s p r i t Intimacy Aloofness Production Emphasis: Thrust Consideration I Stimulation I n i t i a t i n g Structure Consideration II Statements 1, 12, 23 2", 2if 3 , 1^, 25 15, 26 5 16; 27 6, 17, .28 h 18, 29 8 , 19, 30 9 , 2 0 , 31 10, 21, 32 11, 2 2 , 33 81 TABLE 5 RESPONSE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR AGREEMENT INDEX Question , 1 2 3 4 5 Mode • 1 18 •"45"' 40 " ~'- 19 7 2 2 14 35 19 48 13 (3) ' 3 10 34 42 26 17 3 4 8 29 55 24 13 3 5 45 48 14 10 12 2 6 27 34 18 34 16 (3) 7 5 13 20 59 32 4 8 19 30 46 28 6 3 9 13 30 28 49- 9 (3) 10 13 18 20 58 20 4 11 8 19 29 59 14 4 12 12 35 30 37 15 (3) 13 6 47 33 36 7 (3) 14 7 19 39 59 5 4 15 1 12 15 82 19 4 16 34 59 20 13 3 2 17 12 44 57 15 1 3 18 11 31 41 39 7 3 19 11 28 37 48 5 4 20 11 25 21 61 11 4 21 9 26 35 50 9 4 22 12 14 15 46 42 4 23 3 23 37 51 15 4 24 15 53 . 36 16 9 2 25 7 20 33 51 18 4 26 10 27 33 55 4 4 27 49 42 15 15 8 1 88 30 44 33 18 4 2 29 5 28 50 38 8 3 30 2 5 25 65 32 4 31 4 21 34 58 12 4 32 > 16 25 35 44 8 4 33 10 6 16 52 45 4 82 DEPARTMENT. MEMBER INTERVIEW 1. University:" 2". Department: 3» Department member: h. Appropriate time f o r a 10-minute interview: 5. Could you t e l l me when you f i r s t -joined the department? Insert this time of: time under present department head,, whichever i s l e s s . (Time: "T") 6. Would you please; respond to these questions- on the basis; of time "T"'? 7 . Could you please give me the approximate number of grad-uate students, whose services- you have u t i l i z e d i n this department (that is;, those who have done directed studies; . fo r you, or have been assistants to you) during time "Ttn? 8. What, Would you say, would be your average number of hours per week spent with helping students, course preparation, classes., marking; your teaching function generally? 9. What might be your average number of hours per week spent with meetings? 10. To what extent would you say that the basis f o r promo-ti o n and salary increase i n this department i s publica-t i o n and related a c t i v i t y ? Is- this: emphasized consider-ably (V), about average (3), or less, than average (2) (a. f i v e - p o i n t scale)? 11. What would you say was your main i n t e r e s t prior to j o i n -ing the department? By this I mean, was i t teaching ( 1 ) , development C2)., research ( 3 ) , or what? (Both, 0+)). 12., Regarding the a v a i l a b i l i t y of travel funds' from univers-i t y sources, would i t be excellent ( 1 ) , very good ( 2 ) , good (3)» f a i r (h), or poor (5) i n your judgement? 13. Approximately how many conferences have you attended since time "T"? Ih. Could you please t e l l me the t o t a l value of any grants you may have been awarded during time " T m and the number of recipients of each grant i f i t was shared? 15• Are you any of the following:. Are you a manuscript re-viewer of a publishing firm? Are you an o f f i c e r or dir e c t o r i n a professional association? Have you been a guest le c t u r e r at a conference? On the e d i t o r i a l board of a journal? 1 6 . Do you do consulting work f o r government or another agency, (If yes, how many projects?) 17. Have yo_u made an appearance on the program of a learned society? (If yes, was i t to give a paper, s i t on a panel, or chair a meeting?) 18. Have you directed any masters theses during time "T""? 1 9 . Have you directed any doctoral dissertations during time. "T""? ( j f yes, were you major adviser, committee member?) 2 0 . With regard to publication, do you have any books i n progress? 21. Any monographs or a r t i c l e s i n progress? 22. Do you have any books i n press? • 8k 23. Do you have, any monographs or a r t i c l e s i n press? 2h. Have you published any books., i n time "T m? (If yes, could you give me the name of the publishing house, • please?)! 25. Have you published any monographs? 26. Any journal a r t i c l e s ? ( i n time "T"") 27. Your degree please? (M.A. (2), Ph.D. (3)) 28. And i t s date? 29. Ahd; you are a (an) ( f i l l i n with rank one above the most l i k e l y ) ? (instructor (1), assistant professor (2), associate professor (3), f u l l professor 0+), le c t u r e r (5)) 30. Approximate age: 31. Fine. Would you please f i l l this out? It's an agreement index going from disagree on the l e f t to agree on the r i g h t . I t takes a couple of minutes. 32. Thanks f o r time and kind cooperation. ' 85 T A B L E £ SELECTED- R E S P O N S E DISTRIBUTIONS..FOR DEPARTMENT^ MEMBER. INTERVIEW:-Cues. To Die 0 1 2 .k 1 6; 1 7- student assistants 28 23 30 16 16 7 8 3 10 publication emphasis: 3 18. 60 h i l - personal orientation 33 •4! k6' tf2 i a t r a v e l funds; 36 27 9 15 15 manus;cript' reviewer 15 1 1 15 o f f i c e r or:"director 19h 22' if* k 15- guest l e c t u r e r 65 55 15 7" 2- 3" 2. 15 e d i t o r i a l board 106 21 3 16* consulting projects- 7& 32 13 5 k 1 17 gave paper 75 31 13 & 3 2 1 17' on panel 111 19 "1 17T chaired meeting 121. 10 18 theses; directed 56 2^ 16" % 11 3 2 h 19 dissertations: directed 87 2k: 10 k 1 1 19 doctoral committees 69 20 16 11 6' 6" 3" 20 books i n progress: 66 ^9 12 if. 21 monographs; or a r t i c l e s i n progress 23; 20 35 22: 15 12 li 1 22 books i n press 12k if 2. 0 1 23 monographs, or-2h a r t i c l e s i n press; 89 23 10 5 2 I 1 monographs: published 3. 102. 20 7 2: 27 degree 0 21 108 29 rank o- 63- kj 19 5 86 TABLE Z CORRELATION. MATRIX FOR ALL, VARIABLES' KEY/r 1.. 2 . I: I: •I: 9. 10. l l . disengagement hindrance e s p r i t 'intimacy aloofness-production emphasis; thrust consideration I stimulation i n i t i a t i n g structure consideration II 12. 14-.. 15. 16. 17. 18. 21. 22:. stud ent ass istents-publication emphasis teaching orie n t a t i o n research orie n t a t i o n t r a v e l funds grants degree degree, date rank approximate age productivity 1. 2, 1.00 2L 0.13 1.00 * dependent variable? il. £. £, 2. -0.73 -0.34--0..28 0.09 1.00 0.33-1.00 I: 7i 8. 1. 2. I: I: 7. 8 . 1 10 11 IE. -0.-70 -0.02 0.68 0.4-8 =0.27 =0.24-0.4-7 0.26 -0.67 0.10 0..37 0.67 -0.26 ^0.16 0.65 0.37. -0.63 -0.22 -0.63 0.4-8 •0.69 •0.31 0.8.1 o;4-8 o . o i o . i o -oc.05 0.26 -0.02 0.03 0.11 -0.03 0,4-3 0.4-8 •0.57' -0.4-5 1.00 -0.01 -0.17 0.14: 0.09 -0.14-0.02 0.4-1 0.11 0^31 0.21 -0.50 •0.38 o;.64-1.00 -0.53 -0.37 0.4-9 0.35 -0 .71 -0.10 l . o o -0.07 0.04-0.10 -0.18 0.05 -0.01 -0.01 -0.12 -0.08 -0.11 0.04-0.15 -0.12 -0.00 0.18 0.15 8 -0 .61 -0.24-0.38 ~0.18 -0.21 -0.00 v o".4-6 1.00 ilt. i i i i -0.22 0.01 0.07 -0.10 -0.20 -0.10 0.3*+: -0.06 87 TABLE. £ CONTINUED 11 18. I i 20. 21 22" 1. 2. 3 . ^ . 5. 6. 7-8. 0.16 0.03 -0.17 -0.04-0.11 0.06 -0 .11 0.03 0.01 -0.10 -0.02 0.01 0.06 0.11 0.10 - .09 -0 .11 0.04-0.11 0.04--0.03 0.00 0.04-0.08 -0.22 -0.12. 0.16 -0.03 -0.08 -0 ,01 0.10 0.12 -0.12 -0 .05 0.02 -0.18 0.02 0.08 -0 .01 0.01 0.02 0.15 - 0 , 0 9 -0.09 0.17 0.20 -0.07 0.03 2. i o 11- 2£. I X l i t 11 16 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. l*f. 15. 16. 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.54-o;59 1.00 0.21 o.o4-0.01 1.00 0.23 0.17 0.4-0 0.09 1.00 0.10 0.07 -0.11 -0.14--0.12 1.00 0.08 0.06 0.25 0.09 0.13 -0 .51 1.00 0.33 0.4-1 0.25 0.09 0.06 0.09 1.00 IZ. 18 l i 20 21 22 9. 10. 11. 12. 14-. 15. 16. -0.10 -0 .15 -0 .11 •0.10 -0 .06" -0.24-* '0.19 -0.07 0.12 0.02 0.04-0.21 0.11 -0 .15 0.04-0.05 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.00 - 0 . 1 3 -0.13 0.04-0.00 0.18 0.15 0.04-0.09 -0.03 0.14--0.08 0.14-0.03 0:13 -0 .05 0.09 -0.08 0.14--0.04-0.16 0.03 o a o -0.08 0.4-3-0.01 -0 .25 0.11 0.10 I Z 18 20 21. 22: 17. 18. 19. 20.. 21. 22:. 1.00 0.16 1.00 -0.00 0.09 1.00 0.04-0.32--0.4-4-1.00 -0.03 0.01 -0.4-9 0.62 1.00 0.03 0.22 o.o6 0.09 0.09 1.00 88 MINISURVEY PRODUCTIVITY INDEX" Please assign a weighting to the items below on the basis of how you might gauge a colleague to be productive or not, on a quantitative assessment 1-only. Please assign a Tf-Qtr. j-f y 0 U f e e l that the item does not deserve to be con-sidered. A" weight of ""6tr has been assigned to a r t i c l e s :  published as a s t a r t i n g point. Thev index; is: understood to have a fi x e d time l i m i t . 1. Books published 2:. Monographs, published (less than 100 pages) 3. A r t i c l e s published if. Books i n press; 5. Monographs or a r t i c l e s : i n pres si 6'. Books i n progress (any stage of development) 7. Monographs; or a r t i c l e s i n progress; 8., Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n s directed 9. Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n committees 10., Masters theses., directed; 11. I f manuscript reviewer of a publishing f i r m 1 2 . I f o f f i c e r i n a professional association 13. I f guest l e c t u r e r at conference lh. I f on e d i t o r i a l board 7 of Journal 1% I f does consulting work _ per" number. _ per;- number-_ per number _ per number per: number _ per number peir number _ per number _ per: number _ per number per f i r m „. per o f f i c e ..per appearance per board ^ p e r project. 1 6 . I f at a learned society:: gave paper on panel chairman 1 7 . Conferences attended 1 8 . Honrs per.' week on meetings. 1 9 . Teaching time (time: allocated to teaching function; includes pre-paration, c l a s s time, marking, helping students) If very high (over 4-5 hours; per-.-week) If above average (about 35 hours per week) If average (about 25 hours; per week) If below average (about 1 5 hours; per week) per number per number per number per number 2 or less 3 (average) 4- or more1 90 • ' ' TABLE 8 RESULTS' OF MINI SURVEY;; ACADEMICS' AND TEACHERS COMBINED ( 1 5 r e s i r o n s es;) PRODUCTIVITY ASPECT' 'MEAN STANDARD STANDARD : DEVIATION ERROR b o o k s / p u b l i s h e d m o n o g r a p h s ' p u b l i s h e d a r t i c l e s ; p u b l i s h e d b o o k s i n p r e s s ; m o n o g r a p h s o r a r t i c l e s i n p r e s s ; b o o k s i n p r o g r e s s -m o n o g r a p h s o r a r t i c l e s , i n p r o g r e s : s ; d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n s , d i r e c t e d d o c t o r a l c o m m i t t e e s m a s t e r s t h e s e s d i r e c t e d m a n u s c r i p t r e v i e w e r a s s o c i a t i o n o f f i c e r g u e s t l e c t u r e r , e d i t o r i a l b o a r d c o n s u l t i n g w o r k l e a r n e d s o c i e t y — g a v e ; p a p e r : l e a r n e d s o c i e t y — r o n p a n e l l e a r n e d s o c i e t y — a s ; c h a i r m a n c o n f e r e n c e s a t t e n d e d m e e t i n g s ; — - l e s s t h a n t h r e e , h r s . p e r : w e e k m e e t i n g — t h r e e ( a v e r a g e ) h r s , * p e r w e e k m e e t i n g s — m o r e , t h a n t h r e e h r s . p e r w e e k t e a c h i n g t i m e — v e r y h i g h ( o v e r 4-5 h r s * p e r w e e k ) t e a c h i n g t i m e : — a b o v e a v e r a g e ; ( a b o u t 35 h r s . , p e r w e e k ) t e a c h i n g t i m e — a v e r a g e ( a b o u t 25 .. h o u r s , p e r . w e e k ) " t e a c h i n g t i m e — b e l o w a v e r a g e C a b o u t 15 h r s . p e r w e e k ) 11.20 6.24- . 1-61 8.00', 2.61 .67 6.00 »00 -OO - 9 . 9 3 6.63 1.71 7.33 2.89 .74-4-.06' 2.4-0 .62 2.4-0 1.50 .38 4-.80 V..4-7 1.15 .2.00 1.51 .39 2.80 2.24-.. .57 1.73 1.33 .34-3.06 1.75 .4-5 2.53 1.59 .4-1 4-. 19 2.78 .71 1.6o 1.88 • .4-8 3.86 1.18 .3.0 2.00 1.00 .25 1.4-6 1*30 .33 .66 .97 .25 .93 1.22; .31 7 1 M 1.18 .30 2.13 1.50 .38 17.4-0 16 .^4-3 4-.2% 12*93 12.52 3.23 8,93 11.4-0 2.9^ 3.4-0 8.74-- 2.25 9 1 RESULTS' OF MINISURVEY:: ACADEMICS" ( 9 responses) PRODUCTIVITY ASPECT ." MEAN STANDARD STAND, DEVIATION ERROR b o o k s ; p u b l i s h e d m o n o g r a p h s ; p u b l i s h e d a r t i c l e s ; p u b l i s h e d b o o k s ; i n p r e s ; s ; m o n o g r a p h s o r a r t i c l e s i n p r e s s : ' b o o k s i n p r o g r e s s m o n o g r a p h s o r a r t i c l e s i n p r o g r e s s -d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n s d i r e c t e d " d o c t o r a l c o m m i t t e e s m a s t e r s t h e s e s d i r e c t e d m a n u s c r i p t r e v i e w e r a s s o c i a t i o n o f f i c e r g u e s t l e c t u r e r e d i t o r i a l b o a r d 7 c o n s u l t i n g w o r k . l e a r n e d s o c i e t y — g a v e p a p e r l e a r n e d s o c i e t y — o n p a n e l l e a r n e d s o c i e t y — a s c h a i r m a n c o n f e r e n c e s ; a t t e n d e d 7 m e e t i n g s — l e s s ; , t h a n t h r e e h r s ... p e r w e e l m e e t i n g s — t h r e e ( a v e r a g e ; ) h r s „ > p e r w e e k m e e t i n g s - - m o r e ' t h a n t h r e e h r s ; . p e r w e e l t e a c h i n g t i m e — v e r y h i g h ( o v e r 4-5' h r s . , p e r w e e k ) t e a c h i n g t i m e — a b o v e a v e r a g e ( a b o u t . 35 h r s . p e r w e e k ) t e a c h i n g • t i m e - - a v e r a g e ( a b o u t 25 h r s «, p e r w e e k ) t e a c h i n g t i m e — b e l o w a v e r a g e - ( a b o u t 15 h r s . . per w e e k ) 7 . 5 5 3 . 2 0 1 .06 7 . 1 1 2 .26 . 7 5 6..00 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 6.4-4- 3 . 7 1 1 .23 6.77 2 .94- . : . 9 8 3 . 1 1 1 . 4 - 5 • M-2 . 7 7 1 . 4 - 8 / .4-9 3 . 6 6 : 1 .4-1 •ft 1 . 7 7 1 . 3 9 .4-6 2 . 2 2 1 . 6 4 - .54-1 . 6 6 . 1 . 6 5 . 5 5 3 . 2 2 1 .92 .6% 2.4-4- 1 . 3 3 .4-4-h.22 2 .4 -8 . ,82 1 . 7 7 2 . 0 4 - . 6 8 4-.00 .'• 1 . 3 2 .4-4-2 . 1 1 1 .26 ' .4-2. 1 . 5 5 1 .50 .50 . 7 7 1 . 2 0 * 4 € 1.22; 1 . 3 9 , .4-6 1 . 5 5 1 .23 .4-1 2 . 2 . 2 1 . 3 9 .4-6 5 . 9 9 3 . 3 5 1 . 1 1 H- .66- ; 2 . 3 4 - • . 7 8 2 . 7 7 2 . 1 0 . 7 0 . 8 8 2 .52 .84-92 TABLE 10 RESULTS' OF MINISURVEY;- TEACHERS ( 6 responses) PRODUCTIVITY ASPECT1 MEAN STANDARD STAND.. DEVIATION ERROR books published 16.66 5.75 2.3H-monographs; published 9.33' 2.73 1.11 articles? published 6.00 0.00 ' 0.00 books i n press- 15.16 6.82 2.78 monographs or a r t i c l e s i n press 8.16 2.85 . 1.16 books i n progress- 5.50 2.,94- 1.20 monographs or art i c l e s ; i n progress 1.83 lM .60 doctoral dissertations directed 6.4-9 6.86 2.80 doctoral committees 2.33 1.75 .71 masters- theses directed 3.66 2..87F 1.17-manuscript reviewer 1.83 •75 .30 association o f f i c e r . 2.83 1.60 .65 guest l e c t u r e r 2.66 2.06 .84-e d i t o r i a l board J+.16 3.4-3 1.4-0 consulting work 1.33 1.75 .71 learned society—gave paper 3.66 1.03 .4-2 learned s o c i e t y — o n panel 1.83 .4-0 .16 learned s o c i e t y — a s chairman 1.33 1.03 .4-2 conferences attended .50 .9* .22 meetings;—less than three hrs.. per week .50 .83 meetings;—three (average.) hrs. per week 1.16 1.16 .4-7 meetings—more than three hrs.. per week teaching time—very high (over 4-5 hrs. 2.00 1.78 .73 per week) 34-.50 12.38 5.05 teaching time—above average; (about: 35 hrs.. per week) 25.33 11.07 4-. 52 teaching time—average (about 2;5 hrs. per week) 18.16 13.65 5.57 teaching time—below average (about' 15 hrs. per week) 7.16- 13.24- 5.4o 93 DISCUSSION OF EXPLORATORY: ANALYSIS- RESULTS Ah;overview of the exploratory results indicates that the same patterns, emerge as found i n the planned r e s u l t s . The same key variables are present while those near the c r i t -i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r this.study, 0.10 a l f a l e v e l , tend to r i s e above and then f a l l below this c r i t i c a l l e v e l . In a l l ,the cases where the variables were s i g n i f i c a n t , i t was observed that the signs of the beta c o e f f i c i e n t s were retained. Some mention should be made.of the s p e c i f i c results of some of these analyses:. In the group consensus-academic anal-yses', i t was observed that the degree predictor emerged as a s i g n i f i c a n t variable i n both the multiple: and' stepwise regres-sions. The group consensus-teacher stepwise analysis.showed disengagement as a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor. The i n d i v i d u a l -academic and teacher combined analysis was notable f o r its: lack of s i g n i f i c a n t variables.. The individual-academic anal-y s i s indicated disengagement as a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor i n mil t i p i e - regression and degree as a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor i n the stepwise regression. The f i n a l exploratory analysis, that of individual-teacher basis, registered t r a v e l fund" a v a i l a b i l i t y as s i g n i f i c a n t both i n the stepwise and simple: regression analyses. The results from the simple regression analyses (from both o r i g i n a l and exploratory analyses) indicate that as i n d i v i d u a l predictors operating without regard for any other variables, the number of student assistants, the orientation towards, teaching, and the presence of a doctorate a l l tend to account for a sizeable percentage of. the productivity variance. 95 TABLE. 11 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS' RESULTS?" MULTIPLE REGRESSION FROM ' GROUP CONSENSUS" AND ACADEMIC WEIGHTINGS" COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION:' 0.34-79 F - F R O B . : • 0.000 STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITYr 11.68 CONSTANT COEFFICIENT:- 14-:.95 STANDARD ERROR: 4-0.4-7 PREDICTOR TOTAL BETA' COEFF. STAND-. ERROR F RATIO F PROB. a l o o f n e s s -7.78 .. 4-.10 3.59 0.05 p r o d u c t i o n e m p h a s i s ; 6.68 2.98 5.01 0.02.. t h r u s t -9.66 5.16 3.4-9 o .o6 s t u d e n t a s s i s t a n t s ; 3.70 0.87 17.82 0.000 d e g r e e 6.16 3.56 2.99 0.08 TABLE 121. EXPLORATORY' ANALYSIS- RESULTS': STEPWISE REGRESSION FROM  GROUP CONSENSUS' AND ACADEMIC WEIGHTINGS' COEFFICIENT^ OF MULTIPLE. DETERMINATION: 0.2951 F - P R O B . : 0.000 STANDARD' ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY: 11.28 CONSTANT" C O E F F I C I E N T : 5.4-1 STANDARD ERROR: 5.89 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS": SIMPLE REGRESSION FROM GROUP CONSENSUS AND ACADEMIC' WEIGHTINGS 96 PREDICTOR TOTAL BETA, . COEFF.. STAND. ERROR F' • . RATIO F PROB. production emphasis 2.93 1.12 6.76 0.01 student assistants . .3.53 0.74- 22.51 0.000 teaching orientation 2.1V 5-59 0.01 degree . 5.53 2.85 3-77 0.05 PREDICTOR COEFF. MULT. DETERM.. TOTAL BETA ' COEFF. STAND'. ERROR . F RATIO' F" ' PEOB. e s p r i t .0.03 -2.34- 1.13 4-.30 0.03 aloofness 0.02 1.82. ' 1.06 2.94- 0.08 production emphasis 0.05 3.39 1.28 7.02 0.009 stud ent. as s i s tant s; 0.18 \ ' 4-.15 O.76 . 29 .V3 0.000 teaching ori e n t a t i o n 0.06 :-7.22 2.39 9.08 0.003 research ori e n t a t i o n 0.01 3.89. • 2.kZ 2.57 .0.10 degree 0.07 10.25 3.09 10.94- 0.001 TABLE. : 14-EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ;• MULTIPLE REGRESSION'FROM  GROUP CONSENSUS' AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS COEFFICIENT OF" MULTIPLE. DETERMINATION: 0.3592. F-PROB.: 0.000 . STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY: 10.03 1 CONSTANT.' COEFFICIENT':; 3 5 . 4 - 9 STANDARD ERROR: 34-.76 97 PREDICTOR TOTAL BETA. COEFF. STAND. F ERROR RATIO F PROB. h i n d r a n c e 2.84- 1.68 2.83 0.09 i n t i m a c y -5.93 2.86 4-. 27 0.03 t h r u s t -8.56 H-.4-3 3.72 0.05 s t u d e n t a s s i s t a n t s 3.4-2 0.75 20.63 0.000 t e a c h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n - 5 . 6 4 - 2.53 4-.9V 0.02 TABLE 1 5 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS: ; STEPWISE REGRESSION FROM GROUP CONSENSUS AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION: 0.3103 F-PROB.: 0.000 STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITYr 9.71 CONSTANT COEFFICIENT;: 54-. 08' STANDARD ERROR:- 11.4-0 PREDICTOR TOTAL-BETA COEFF.. STAND. F ERROR RATIO F PROB-. d i s e n g a g e m e n t -2,74- 1.05 . 6.78 0.01 h i n d r a n c e 2.75 0.91 9.09 0.003 i n t i m a c y -6.24- 1.38 20.19 0.000 s t u d e n t a s s i s t a n t s ; 3.33 0.65 26.11 •0.000 t e a c h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n -6.38 1.87 11.56 0.001 98 TABLE 16' EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS' RESULTS': SIMPLE REGRESSION FROM  GROUP CONSENSUS' AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS' PREDICTOR . COEFF. MULTv DETERM. TOTAL BETA; COEFF. STAND. ERROR F RATIO F PROB. hindrance 0.03 2.37- 1.03 5.27 0.02 aloofness- 0.03 1.83 0.91 3.98 O.Oh production emphasis 0.02 2.16 1.12 3.^9 0.05 i n i t i a t i n g structure 0.02 1.95 1.08 3.23 0.07 student assistants 0.12 2.99 0.68 18.91 0.000 teaching o r i e n t a t i o n 0.05 -5M 2.09 6.81 0.01 TABLE 17 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS: MULTIPLE REGRESSION FROM  INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE AND COMBINED ACADEMIC AND TEACHER  WEIGHTINGS COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION: 0.331!* F-PROB.: 0.001 STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY: 7.97 CONSTANT COEFFICIENT: 6.68 STANDARD ERROR: 1H-.31 PREDICTOR TOTAX BETA. COEFF. STAND. ERROR F" : RATIO F PROBY p r o d u c t i o n e m p h a s i s " 1.28 0.66 3.78 0.05 s t u d e n t a s s i s t a n t s ' 23-.06 5.57 17.08 • 0.000 t e a c h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n -if.28 1.94- . 4-.86 0.02 TABLE 18 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS' RESULTS'; : STEPWISE REGRESSION FROM' INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE AND COMBINED ACADEMIC AND TEACHER  WEIGHTINGS' COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION t 0.24-59' F-PROB.: 0.000 , STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY: 7.83 CONSTANT" COEFFICIENT": 18.02 STANDARD' ERROR:- 2.21 PREDICTOR TOTAL . : BETA" COEFF. STAND:. ERROR F . RATIO ' F ; PROB. p r o d u c t i o n e m p h a s i s : 0 .84- 0.4-7 3.16. 0.Q7 s t u d e n t a s s i s t a n t s : 25.83 5.07 25.89 . 0.000 t e a c h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n " -3 .7^ •1.4-7 6.4-1 0.01 TABLE 19 EXPLORATORY" ANALYSIS RESULTS.: SIMPLE REGRESION FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE AND COMBINED ACADEMIC AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS '." 100 PREDICTOR COEFF. MULT: DETERM. TOTAL BETA. COEFF. STAND. ERROR F' RATIO F PROB. production emphasis^ 0.02 O.96 0.53 3.26 0.06 student assistants' 0.18 28.06 5.16 29.4-9 0.000 teaching orientation 0.06 -if.78 1.61 8.76 0.004-t r a v e l funds 0.03 1.95 0.95 4-.19 0.04-degree 0.04-TABLE-5.4-0 20 2.12- 6.4-7 0.01 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS":" MULTIPLE REGRESSION FROM' INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE AND ACADEMIC WEIGHTINGS' COEFFICIENT1 OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION':' 0.3314-F-PROB. :• 0.001 STANDARD ERROR OF" PRODUCTIVITY:" 11.83 CONSTANT' COEFFICIENT:- --7.34- STANDARD ERROR: 21.23' PREDICTOR TOTAL BETA' COEFF. STAND. ERROR F' RATIO F" PRO"B'. disengagement 1.4-5 0.89 2.65 0.10 s tud ent as sistants 33.69 8..27 16.57 0.00 teaching orientation -5.83 2.88 4-.10 0.04-TABLE 21 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS': STEPWISE REGRESSION FROM  INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE AND ACADEMIC WEIGHTINGS COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION: O..2560 F-FROB..: 0.000 STANDARD ERROR OF' PRODUCTIVITY:" 11.54-101 CONSTANT" COEFFICIENT":: 16.08. STANDARD ERROR :- 3.12 PREDICTOR . TOTAL BETA COEFF. STAND. ERROR F' • RATIO F' PROB. student' assistants; 35.52' 7.62 21.68 : 0.000 teaching orie n t a t i o n -5 .05 2.19 5.29 ; 0.02 degree 6.31 2 .9O 4-.74- 0.02 TABLE 22: EXPLORATORY* ANALYSIS RESULTSTr SIMPLE REGRESSION FROM  INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE" AND ACADEMIC WEIGHTINGS" COEFF'. TOTAL  MULT; BETA PREDICTORS DETERM. COEFF.. ERROR RATIO PROB. disengagement 0.02 1.33 O.76 3.00 0.08; production emphasis. 0.02 1.27 0.79 2.58 0.10 student assistants; 0.18 .4-1,56 7.67 29.35 0.000 teaching orientation 0.06 -7.22 2.39 9.08 0.003 research orientation 0.01 3.89 2.4-2 2.57 . 0.10 t r a v e l funds 0.10 2.27 1.4-2 2.54- 0.10 degree 0.07 10.25 3.09 10.94- 0.001 TABLE 23 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS.:: MULTIPLE REGRESSION FROM  INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE. AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS. COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION: 0.2716 102 F-PROB.: 0.02 STANDARD' ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY: 10.70 CONSTANT" COEFFICIENT": 18.88 STANDARD ERROR:- 19.20 PREDICTOR TOTAL BETA" COEFF. STAND: ERROR F RATIO F PROB. production emphasis 1.59 0.88 3.24- 0.07 thrus t -IM 0.82 3.05 0.07 student assistants 24-.75 7.4-8 10.93 0.001 teaching orientation -5.13 2.60 3.88 0.04-TABLE 2k. EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTSr STEPWISE REGRESSION FROM  INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS COEFFICIENT7'OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION: 0.1975 F-PROB.: 0.000 STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY: 10.4-3 CONSTANT COEFFICIENT: 23.03 STANDARD ERROR: 3.82 PREDICTOR. TOTAL BETA COEFF. STAND. F . ERROR RATIO F PROB. production emphasis 1.08 O.63 2.94- .0.08 student assistants. ' 25.60 6'..82 14-.06 0.000 teaching orientation -T.36 1-96 4-.92 0.02 t r a v e l funds 1.87 1..14- 2.69 0.09 r 103 TABLE 25 EXPLORATORY^ ANALYSIS RESULTS;- SIMPLE REGRESSION' FROM  INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS: COEFF. TOTAL MULT'. BETA' STAND. F F PREDICTOR DETERM. COEFF". ERROR RATIO PROB. production emphasis; 0 . 0 2 1 . 2 3 0 . 6 8 3 . 2 1 0 . 0 7 student assistants 0 . 1 2 2 9 . 8 2 6 . 8 8 1 8 . 7 6 ' 0 . 0 0 0 teaching o r i e n t a t i o n 0 . 0 5 . - 5 . H - 6 2 . 0 9 6 . 8 1 0 . 0 1 t r a v e l funds 0 . 0 3 2 . 5 8 1 . 2 2 ifO+6 0 . 0 3 

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.831.1-0102400/manifest

Comment

Related Items