Tamar E. AVI-ITZHAK
The Problem
Today's university is regarded as one of society's complex organizations (Owens, 1981). Within the organizational structure of the university, the department is the basic unit, which makes the role of the department chair- person central to total organizational effectiveness (Horn, 1962; Brann, 1972;
Brown, 1977). Within the managerial system of the organization, the role of the department chairperson is composed of tasks of a nature regarding coordination in and outside of the department (Kast and Rosenzweig, 1981).
Thus, the w a y the department chairperson perceives and performs his managerial tasks makes an immediate mark, not only on his o w n structural unit, but also on the entire organization, or, as Whitson and Hubert put it
" . . . It is the department chairperson and the equality of leadership provided on the departmental level that determines the university's effectiveness. W h a t the chairperson does, or fails to do, to a large extent makes the difference in the accomplishment of the university's basic mission" (1982, p. 130).
Yet, department chairpersons participate in the managerial system on a fluid basis (Cohen, March, and Olsen, 1972). Department chairpersons are generally faculty members w h o are recruited on a temporary basis to mana- gerial roles. Department chairpersons are either elected by colleagues or appointed by other administrators (deans, provosts, rectors or senates) for one, two, or three consecutive terms, depending on the university's regulations.
W h e n the designated term is completed, the department chairperson returns to his previous faculty position. H e m a y again be elected or appointed to the same managerial role (or any other managerial role) at any time in the future.
The operational result stemming from participation on a fluid basis is that there are essentially two kinds of prospective chairpersons : 'First Timers' and 'Experienced', the latter having previously served for one or more terms
32
'First Timers' vis-à-vis 'Experienced' Chairpersonsin managerial roles. This phenomenon of rotation of the managerial role is virtually unique to universities.
The purpose of this study is to assess the practical outcomes stemming from the recruitment of department chairpersons on a fluid basis in the mana- gerial systems of universities. Specifically, this study is designed to contrast the w a y 'First Timers' vis-à-vis 'Experienced' chairpersons perceive the fulfilment of their managerial tasks and their leadership behaviour.
Data and Method
The survey methods and procedures for establishing and interpreting the factors describing the managerial tasks and leadership behaviour of department chairpersons have been discussed more fully in a previous paper (Kremer and Avi-Itzhak, 1984) to which the interested reader is referred. Accordingly, only a brief discussion of methodology will be given here.
The sample for this study was composed of 90 chairpersons from six of the seven institutions of higher education of Israel (the seventh has no under- graduate programmes and therefore, was not included in the study). Chair- persons serving at least one year in departments composed of at least 10 full- time faculty members were included in the study which was conducted during the 1983—1984 academic year.
The five factors which describe the perceived fulfilment level of the mana- gerial tasks and leadership behaviour of chairpersons were derived from 29 items. The fulfilment scores were obtained by asking respondents to rate each of the 29 items on a Likert type five-point scale from 1 (not at all fulfilled) to 5 (fulfilled to a gret extent). The interpretations of the managerial tasks and the types of leadership behaviour in question are listed in Table. 1.
Table 1 Perceived Extent of the Fulfilment of the Managerial Tasks and Types of Leadership Behaviour of Department Chairpersons ; Factor Analysis (n = 90) Managerial Task/Leadership
Behaviour
1. Curriculum and Instruction 2. Initiation
3. Staff Development 4. Departmental Status 5. Leadership Behaviour
% of explained variance
38.3 14.6 8.9 10.6 7.1
Interpretation of Positive Scores Encouraging improvement of instruction and constant curriculum evaluation Initiating change in department struc- ture, new curriculum and projects Encouraging staff professional develop- ment, recruiting n e w staff
Raising department image in and outside the university and fighting for budget Managing through committees, delegat- ing authority
N o t e : Results from iterative principle factor analysis with oblique rotation (Delta = 1) Five factors account for 79.5% of the total variance.
T. E. Avi-Itzhak
33
Discriminant analysis w a s used in this study for methodological a n d prac- tical reasons. Methodologically, this technique is a n exploratory one which has the flexibility to compose underlying functions yielding aggregate equa- tions which are understandable as simple linear regulations. T h e technique m a k e s feasible the selection of a manageable, yet efficient, predicting m o d e l , and facilitates a convenient w a y for contrasting the w a y s 'first timers' a n d 'experienced' chairpersons perceive the fulfilment of their managerial tasks.
(,First timers' are defined operationally as chairpersons w h o are currently serving their first term of no less than one year. 'Experienced' chairpersons are defined operationally as chairpersons w h o are currently serving their second term or m o r e ) .
A forward step discriminant analysis w a s employed, the criterion for selection at each step being the m i n i m u m value of Wilks' lambda (Nie et al.
1975). T h e managerial tasks and leadership behaviour (factors) serve as the discriminant variables for the analysis.
Results
T h e statistically significant (at the level of 0.01) characteristics of the discriminant function obtained from the analysis are set out in Table 2 . T h e standardized coefficients enable us to ascertain the relative contribution of each managerial and leadership behaviour task factor to the discriminant function. Data indicate that the managerial task: 'Initiation' is not statisti- cally significant (at p = .05) and therefore has no contribution as a discri- minating variable.
Table 2 Discriminant Analysis of the Perceived Extent of the Fulfilment of Department Chairperson Managerial Tasks and Leadership Behaviour (n = 9 0 )
Managerial Tasks/Leadership Behaviour
A . Standardized Coefficients 1. Curriculum and Instruction 2. Initiation
3. Staff Development 4. Departmental Status
5. Leadership Behaviour (Democratic) B . Group Centroids
'First Timers' 'Experienced' Eigenvalue
Cannouical Correlation Wilks' L a m b d a of residuals Significance
Standard Discriminant Function Coefficient
.53
—.08 .65
—.45
—.51 .61
—.45 .29 .48 .78 .01
34
'First Timers' vis-à-vis 'Experienced' ChairpersonsB y analyzing the relative distance of the discriminant coefficient from the group centroid, the contrasting of perceptions of fulfilment of managerial tasks and types of leadership behaviour of 'first timers' vis-à-vis 'experi- enced' can be summarized in the following m a n n e r :
a. Greater extent of fulfilment of related managerial tasks to staff profes- sional development and with regard to recruiting of n e w staff (.65).
b . Greater extent of fulfilment of related managerial tasks to improvement of instruction a n d evaluations of curricula (.53).
c. Lesser extent of fulfilment of managerial tasks related to raising the image of the department, fighting for budgets (—.45).
d. Lesser extent of fulfilment of leadership behaviour, e.g., managing through committees, delegation of authority ( — .51).
Discussion
T h e results reported in the previous section indicate that a significant contrast exists between the perceptions of 'first timers' vis-à-vis 'experienced' department chairpersons relative to the extent of the fulfilment of their managerial tasks and leadership behaviour. T h e question n o w arises as to the nature of this difference. Data on 'first timers' indicate that they are likely to fulfil those managerial tasks related to curriculum, instruction, a n d staff development to a greater extent than does the other group, yet are likely to fulfil to a lesser extent than the 'experienced' those managerial tasks which are related to public relations and to budget. In other words, while 'first timers' tend to fulfil to a greater extent those managerial tasks related to the needs and goals of their immediate group, 'experienced' chairpersons operate on the level of the total organization. T h u s , to utilize Katz's classification (1955), 'first timers' tend to fulfil 'technical managerial skills' while the 'experienced' ones tend to fulfil 'conceptual managerial skills'. Furthermore, results indicate that while 'first timers' are m o r e likely to exhibit leadership behaviour which is generally classified as 'autocratic', 'experienced' chair- persons are m o r e likely to exhibit leadership behaviours which are generally classified as 'democratic' (concepts which were introduced b y Levin a n d Lippitt and W h i t e , 1939).
A preliminary conclusion m a y n o w be reached: that the specific leadership behaviour found to be associated with each group is a function of the specific type of managerial skills most exhibited b y each group.
'Experienced' chairpersons, in focusing on 'conceptual managerial skills', undertake tasks demanding their personal involvement, since they are perform- ed at the organizational level (e.g., public relations, budget). These chair- persons are thus virtually compelled to exhibit 'democratic' leadership behaviour in order for those tasks requiring 'technical managerial skills' (e.g., improvement and evaluation of curriculum and instruction) to be ful- filled. O n the other hand, 'first timers', in focusing to a lesser extent on tasks
T. E. Avi-Itzhak